# The NIST 9-11 Report on the WTC Collapse



## Mr. Jones (Mar 1, 2013)

Ok lets see if we can conduct a debate on some of the points in contention that have been scattered all over the place in a previous thread, that got severely off topic from its title, here-
http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...nnections-details-exposed-96.html#post6890612

I believe we should  start at the reason that NIST stated in their reports as to what caused the WTC towers to collapse, and that is, intense heat from fires that were produced by jetfuel/kerosene from the planes.NIST agrees that the buildings withstood the plane impacts, and THESE buildings, as DESIGNED by the creators, redistributed the loads from the damaged components. 
To be clear... this is in regards to the planes impacting the buildings. I agree that not all building designers will take this consideration into account, but those of the WTC DID.

 NIST did say if not for the fires, they would not have collapsed..had dislodged  fireproofing material, not exposed certain steel weight baring components to intense heat from the fires. So I'll begin with the initial reaction....

In the initial reaction after the attacks, many experts were trotted onto the news channels, and the general consensus at that time was, that the steel components actually must have melted. This was substantiated by the extreme heat within the rubble piles at GZ that persisted for 3 months, and the many witnesses that saw molten steel/metal within them.
Among these witnesses was -Joel Meyerowitz, a photographer who walked around GZ and said the ground was hot enough to melt workers boots.
Another was Sarah Atlas, who was a member of New Jersey Search and Rescue, who said there was molten steel/metal that she encountered during her searches.
*Penn SAS Summer 2002 -- K-9/11*

Dr Keith Eaton, CE of structural engineers in London who said, there was 
molten metal which was still red-hot weeks after the event, as well as four-inch thick steel plates sheered and bent in the disaster.
*The Structural Engineer 3, September 2002*

Leslie Robertson, who was one of the men who assisted in the construction of the WTC themselves. he said-."as of 21 days after the attack the fires were still burning and molten steel still running.
*SEAU NEWS, The Newsletter of the Structural Engineers Association of Utah, October 2001
*

Alison Geyh Ph.D. a professor at Johns Hopkins, was on the scene and said-
In some pockets now being uncovered they are finding molten steel.
*Magazine of Johns Hopkins Public Health, late fall, 2001. *

Even the contractors that were hired to do the clean up have mentioned this.
*http://ae911truth.org/documents/lironews.pdf*
University of California professor Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, structural engineer, 
 I saw melting of girders at the World Trade Center. 
 Peter Tulley, president of Tully Construction  told the American Free Press that workmen had seen the molten pools.
*American Free Press, August 28, 2002*

Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition Inc. said Yes, hot spots of molten steel were seen in the basements. 
thermal images taken by NASA and Earth Data satellites. The thermal images also show that the hot spots remained in the same locations.  They  didn't  travel across the GZ site, as would be expected from fire as it consumes and burns the combustibles available in any one location.

Using infrared spectrometer (AVIRIS). The two hottest spots were under WTC 2 and WTC 7. The USGS recorded surface temperatures as high as 1376 deg.F.
USGS Spectroscopy Lab - World Trade Center USGS environmental assessment

If these were the surface temps, it must be assumed that they were even hotter where they were emanating from.

*FEMA documents in their Appendix C of its May 2002 WTC Building Performance Assessment Team study, for sample 1, evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting. A sulfur-rich liquid containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur penetrated into the steel.
http://www.fema.gov/library/file;js...f&fileid=6d56be70-50bc-11e0-be57-001cc4568fb6*

The point here is that office and hydrocarbon fires burning in open air at 1,500 deg. F. can't reach temperatures in the range that iron or structural steel melts which is 2700 deg. F..

This is a very important finding regarding the buildings, because many accredited experts thought that parts of the WTC structure attained temps that would melt the steel.
Again these were preliminary assumptions.
We know NOW that the NIST never discovered in their analysis that the temps got anywhere near this high, *within *the towers.

So let's deal with this contradiction. The steel components that supported the weight of these towers, were said to have gotten hot enough to fail the steel, and we seemingly had evidence of this according to the many experts on site,including one of the WTC engineers himself
and by Kenneth Holden, Commissioner of the city of New York. He told the panel about seeing molten metal during a walk through, and mentioned this to the 9-11 commission.
*Statement of Ken Holden*

So what did NIST do or say about this? It dismissed them. This is the first sign of fraud as they dismissed what is directly contradicted by the eyewitness statements of the emergency responders, engineers, officials, and health experts already mentioned above, not to mention the lead contractors who did the cleanup.

Don't we need high temps to overcome the steel? Didn't the temps within GZ confirm this?
It should have made it easier for them. But they ran into a problem, that was also mentioned above that being, that office and hydrocarbon fires burning in open air  can't reach 1500 deg. F., and being buried by debris could not have attained the extreme temps to actually melt steel/metal....for 100 days despite constant attempts to put them out with water, and 1000s of gallons of Pyrocool.

So how hot did the temps *within the towers *reach? For that we will have to take a look at what is in the NIST reports to find the answers, and also look into their testing..and it was conducted..

BTW...This is not an attempt on my part, to convince anyone who has different views then me, it is an attempt however, to clarify as to WHY my views are different then some of you..regarding the officially sanctioned NIST explanation/s..
Also due to responsibilities and other urgent personal matters, we can't possibly be expected to reply right away to posts at times so lets chill the fuck out...I don't get paid to be on here...

I await responses regarding the above before proceeding any further....


----------



## Montrovant (Mar 1, 2013)

I have a couple of questions regarding your post if I may.

First, where do you get your information for how hot fires can burn?  You are confident about the temperature possible for fires burning office furniture/equipment, but I don't know how you reach those conclusions.  I'm not dismissing or arguing with them, simply wondering where the numbers originate.

Second, could the molten metal seen at the site have been something other than steel beams/girders?  Between the planes and the same office furniture that we so often bring up, I would think there was a decent amount of other metals in the towers.  Not huge amounts, perhaps, but could that not have been the molten metal seen at the site?

Third, and this is nothing but total speculation, but is it possible that conditions on the ground after the collapse led to areas where fires were able to burn hotter than usual?  That was a whole lot of debris created by the tower collapses, I'm sure there were plenty of isolated pockets and unusual crevasses.  And you do consistently mention open air fires.  Could something have occurred to let fires burn hot enough to melt steel after the collapses?


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 1, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> The point here is that office and hydrocarbon fires burning in open air at 1,500 deg. F. can't reach temperatures in the range that iron or structural steel melts which is 2700 deg. F..
> 
> This is a very important finding regarding the buildings, because many accredited experts thought that parts of the WTC structure attained temps that would melt the steel.
> Again these were preliminary assumptions.
> ...



Before you continue, we need to address this.

There is no way to identify the substance that is molten by sight alone. Especially if there they were mixed with other substances/contaminants.

The point here is, can someone tell the difference between molten aluminum or molten steel? And it COULD have been molten aluminum because the entire perimeter facade was covered with it.

*Molten steel*:






*Molten aluminum:*





So, to start, there is not 100% certainty that is was either molten steel or molten aluminum that people saw.


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 1, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> I have a couple of questions regarding your post if I may.
> 
> First, where do you get your information for how hot fires can burn?  You are confident about the temperature possible for fires burning office furniture/equipment, but I don't know how you reach those conclusions.  I'm not dismissing or arguing with them, simply wondering where the numbers originate.
> 
> ...



Going with the Montovant's post above, I would like to request that anything posted as evidence should have a link to it's origination. Hence, if you claim that fires can only obtain certain temperatures, you need to provide a link to the study/paper that supports your claim so that we may all look at the same information that you are to avoid misinterpretation.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 1, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Ok lets see if we can conduct a debate on some of the points in contention that have been scattered all over the place in a previous thread, that got severely off topic from its title, here-
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...nnections-details-exposed-96.html#post6890612
> 
> I believe we should  start at the reason that NIST stated in their reports as to what caused the WTC towers to collapse, and that is, intense heat from fires that were produced by jetfuel/kerosene from the planes.NIST agrees that the buildings withstood the plane impacts, and THESE buildings, as DESIGNED by the creators, redistributed the loads from the damaged components.
> ...



I believe you have spent perhaps countless hours digging for "proof" and as such you must be aware that much of what you post isn't exactly the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Take for example your quote from Professor Allison Geyh (2001) of Johns Hopkins, who was part of a team of public health investigators who visited the site shortly after 9/11: 
"In some pockets now being uncovered they are finding molten steel." 
Stop The Lie - References 

But are quotes like this really separate confirmations or are these individuals simply repeating stories about &#8220;molten steel&#8221; that they&#8217;ve heard elsewhere? Mike Williams at 9/11myths.com quotes from a Geyh E-Mail:

I personally saw open fires, glowing and twisted I-beams. I was told, but do not remember by whom, that the workers were finding molten steel.

In other words, how many of these "eye-witness reports" are simply second-hand repeats from sources unknown or not remembered?


----------



## daws101 (Mar 1, 2013)

seems as if sister jones pulled up his skirts and fled the scene...


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 1, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > I have a couple of questions regarding your post if I may.
> ...



From what I have read a 1500 deg. f. temp is about average for what is being discussed. 
We're not talking about a foundry here.
The point is that it is far lower then the melting point of steel.
At what temperature does a typical fire burn?

Regarding whether what was observed was steel or otherwise..Most metals melt above 1550. And It's highly unlikely the amounts of the pools that were observed would be  substantial amounts of aluminum from the planes.
Metals - Melting Temperatures
Remember these temps lasted for around 100 days.

If you have any different info, post it up
BTW, as I stated before I may not be available right away to comment back to a post, but 
I will be responding as my time permits. I am very interested in not only posting what I have, but in your stuff as well.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 1, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



You seem intent on basing your case on the "molten steel" but upon further review the comments you post as proof of such are failing the litmus test.
Robertson's comments were reported by James Williams but when contacted by Mike Williams (no relation) at 9/11myths.com Robertson not only said he didn't recall having said such a thing, he admitted he had no way to have known it: 
I've no recollection of having made any such statements...nor was I in a position to have the required knowledge.
James Williams, the author of the article, has made his notes publically available (http://911myths.com/NCSEA_oct_5_2001_Leslie_Robertson_s_lecture__notes_by_James_Williams.pdf). In them he describes Robertson as having said "molton metal," not steel.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 1, 2013)

Rather than bust the molton steel deal a little at a time the following link to 9/11myths.com does it completely. After reading it Mr. Jones will need a new lead on which to build his CT thread. Carry on.

WTC Molten Steel


----------



## daws101 (Mar 1, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Rather than bust the molton steel deal a little at a time the following link to 9/11myths.com does it completely. After reading it Mr. Jones will need a new lead on which to build his CT thread. Carry on.
> 
> WTC Molten Steel


like I said it the only site with 9/11 in it's title that's credible.


----------



## daws101 (Mar 1, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...


where's the reports that  make this" these temps lasted for around 100 days." sister jones .. a true statement?


----------



## Montrovant (Mar 1, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Based on the numbers in your links, it seems that there are at least a couple of common metals that could have melted in the fires.  I have no idea if there was enough aluminum and/or lead in the planes and furniture to account for it, or if the building itself used metals with lower melting points in quantities that would fit.  However, as it is certainly possible, and I haven't seen or heard of any reason to assume anyone at the site would have been able to differentiate between different types of molten metals, I would need some reason to assume it was melted steel.

I have read on multiple occasions that steel loses much of its strength at the 1500 degrees your first link considers an average temp for a building fire.  The type of steel used can change the numbers, of course, and I'm not sure what was in the towers.  Here's a link which shows some experiments done heating materials, including a couple of different kinds of steel :
Fire Resistance

What these things mean, IMO, is that neither the possible temperatures of the fires nor the possible existence of molten metal in the debris are reason to suspect anything other than what we saw is what occurred.  I would sooner look at the possibilities of some substandard building materials having been used, allowing a lower temperature fire to weaken the columns enough to cause collapse, than assume controlled demolition, at least based on this data.  At best, perhaps this was an unusual building fire.  That may lead to questions as to what made it unusual, but certainly doesn't lead to the dismissal of the NIST report.


----------



## daws101 (Mar 2, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



Aluminum and the World Trade Center Disaster
Aluminum was present in two significant forms at the World Trade Center on 9-11:
(i)  By far the largest source of aluminum at the WTC was the exterior cladding 
on WTC 1 & 2. In quantitative terms it may be estimated that 2,000,000 kg of 
anodized 0.09&#61618; aluminum sheet was used, in the form of 43,600 panels, to 
cover the fa&#128;ade of each Twin Tower.  
(i) The other major source of aluminum at the WTC was the aluminum alloy 
airframes of the Boeing 767 aircraft that crashed into the Twin Towers on the 
morning of 9-11. It may be estimated that, on impact, these aircraft weighed 
about 124,000 kg including fuel; of this weight, 46,000 kg comprised the 
fuselage and 21,000 kg made up the mass of the wings  all of which were 
fabricated from aluminum alloys. Modern airframes are invariably constructed 
from series 2000 aluminum alloys. Alloy 2024 is a typical example containing 
93 % Al, 4.5 % Cu, 1.5 % Mg, and 0.5 % each of Mn and Fe. These metallic 
additions to aluminum lower the melting point of the alloy from a value of 
660&#61616; C, for pure aluminum, to about 548 &#61616; C for alloy 2024. This relatively 
low temperature indicates that the fires within the Twin Towers were quite 
capable of melting at least some of the Boeing 767 aluminum airframe 
structures remaining in the WTC before its collapse. 

http://www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 2, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



The point is that many people witnessed this molten phenomena, of this we can be sure.
Even the hired contractors. Imaging confirmed extreme heat..NIST ignored this and did not consider it a relevant part of their investigation.
form your link-
*By the time steel reaches 930°F (500°C), it has lost about 30% of its tensile strength. Unprotected weathering steel loses about half of its tensile strength above 1000°F (538°C)*

I'm trying to concentrate on what was reportedly said, and what if anything NIST took into consideration regarding it...what they deemed important or not, and what  the results of their testing concluded compared to it. which will come shortly.
The task of providing the definitive explanation of the collapses was given to NIST, and  we should have the reasonable expectation they use any and all available information provided to them.

So, we had reports from credible witnesses, on the GZ site that reported this, and others that confirmed it. There are too many eyewitness accounts to simply dismiss this.
And no...I am not basing any theory on this part of the event, I am simply trying to start at a point close to the beginning when people were trying to figure things out. We had all sorts of experts, and knee jerk reactions all over the tube saying "melted" so it's only reasonable to think NIST would consider it and we discuss this no?

John Gross, a main author of NIST&#8217;s reports, was asked about the molten steel, he said to the questioner: I challenge your &#8220;basic premise that there was a pool of molten steel,&#8221; adding: &#8220;I know of absolutely no . . . eyewitness who has said so.&#8221; 

_ &#8220;It is easy enough to find a self-consistent theory . . . , provided that you are content to disregard half your evidence.&#8221; The &#8220;moral temper required for the pursuit of truth,&#8221; he added, includes an unflinching determination to take the whole evidence into account.&#8221; -_

*Alfred North Whitehead, Science and the Modern World (1925; New York: Free Press, 1967), 187.*

And for you others (Sayit-Dawgshit) that are pointing to the "9-11 myths" so called debunking site, this thread is about the NIST report and how it relates to the opposing and contradicting stances, and it's polarizing effects. 

IOW, whatever is revealed or omitted within it,,that makes YOU and I have the positions regarding the 9-11 attacks that we do...

Gamolon has asked that we post a link to whatever info that we can find, as a way to confirm things, so I suggest that we try to adhere to that. If  your "debunking site has a link that backs up their claim, then link it, if not it should be considered mere speculation, and we're in this thread to try and filter the BS.

Oh and Leslie Robertson, he was a guest at  SEAU News and spoke about the WTC, and they mentioned other facts in their publication that are consistent with him referring to the "molten steel".
http://web.archive.org/web/20060909104247/http://www.seau.org/SEAUNews-2001-10.pdf


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 2, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



And within your link, it states-
_*But is there any direct evidence for the  presence of molten aluminum at the WTC site on 
9-11? The answer to this question is  an emphatic: Yes!*_

Direct evidence??? Ok lets see what else it says that provides "direct evidence"??

_* Here are the 
pertinent references:
FEMA: World Trade Center Building Performance Study, Chapter 2, Section 2.2.2.3, 
page 34:
Just prior to the collapse (of WTC 2), a stream of molten metal
- possibly aluminum from the  airliner  was seen streaming out
of a window opening  at the northeast corner (near the  80
th
floor level).
NIST: Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation  of the 
World Trade Center Disaster, Volume 4, Appendix H, Section H.9, page 43:
Starting around 9:52 a.m., a molten material began to pour from  the 
top  of window 80- 256 on the  north face of WTC 2. The material appears
intermittently until the tower  collapses at 9:58:59 a.m. The observation
of piles of debris in  this  area combined with the  melting point behaviors  of 
the primary  alloys used in a Boeing 767 suggest that the material is molten
aluminum  derived from aircraft debris located  on floor  81.*_

It is not "direct evidence" it is an assumption, and you are getting more shit from your debunking site instead of linking to the source of where THEY get their information.
NIST and links you dufus..


----------



## Montrovant (Mar 2, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



I'm not sure where this line of discussion is headed, honestly.  Are you saying that there was molten steel at the site?  Are you saying that multiple witnesses say they saw molten steel?  Are you saying that those witnesses would have known the difference between molten steel and molten aluminum?

Was the existence of molten metal ignored in the NIST report?  I can see that being the case.  However, it does not follow that it must have been ignored for nefarious reasons.  It could be that, since the fires would not have burned hot enough to melt steel, it was simply assumed the metal was aluminum and therefore unimportant to the investigation.  I wonder what the conversation around the quote you gave from John Gross was?  It seems at least possible that he was saying that he challenged the premise of molten steel, but would accept the premise of molten aluminum.  I can't know from the small quote.

Anyway, at this point there seems to be minor discrepancies at most.  Certainly nothing seems totally wrong, either intentionally or accidentally, in the NIST report, from the information in this thread.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 2, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



Say what? You are basing your 9/11 CT on comments by some GZ observers and 9/11myths.com debunks your claims. As the quotes fall apart or your "experts" admit they had no way of knowing what the molten metals were, the basis of your CT falls apart. Rather than reconsider your argument you simply repeat the same baseless comments. That's just stupid.
Robertson not only said he didn't recall having said such a thing, he admitted he had no way to have known it: 
I've no recollection of having made any such statements...nor was I in a position to have the required knowledge. -  Leslie Robertson E-Mail to Mike Williams, 9/11myths.com


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 3, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



It seems that NIST did not follow due diligence in following up on these reports, statements from witnesses, Tulley was hired to do the cleanup, are we to suppose his people would not know molten metal/steel with their own eyes?
Again we have these statements, from seemingly credible people, and the point is that NIST ignored it.
We had preliminary reports of "melted steel" it should have been followed up by NIST
and it wasn't. It wasn't mentioned in the report, only to dismiss it.
We should be looking at this with unbiased views and try not to stretch it into anything further.
Was there reports of molten steel/metal? Yes. Did NIST follow up on this as should have been expected? No.
Besides, WTC 7 experienced the same thing, and it was not hit by a plane, so I think we can rule aluminum out of the equation.

It is reasonable for people to come to the conclusion at the time, that the molten material under the piles of wreckage were a residual effect of whatever caused the towers to fall.
Something burned hot enough and long enough for witnesses to make these kinds of statements.
Shall we move on to the testing NIST did to better understand if these temps were possible?


----------



## Montrovant (Mar 3, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



I just quickly wanted to comment about this.  It has been posted in this thread that there was a large amount of aluminum used in the buildings themselves.  daws posted a link that claimed the exterior panels used aluminum.  This could easily have been the case for building 7 as well, not to mention the possibility of furniture and equipment within the buildings being made of metal with a low melting point.

I also have no idea if someone should be able to tell molten aluminum or other metals from molten steel based solely on visual examination, especially considering the amount of other materials floating around which could have mixed with the molten metal.


----------



## daws101 (Mar 3, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...


how could you rule this: "By far the largest source of aluminum at the WTC was the exterior cladding 
on WTC 1 & 2. In quantitative terms it may be estimated that 2,000,000 kg of 
anodized 0.09&#61618; aluminum sheet was used, in the form of 43,600 panels, to 
cover the faade of each Twin Tower." with out any evidence to the contrary ...eye witness testimony is only relevant when it matches the physical or forensic evidence.
the eyewitness you attempted to use as proof could not have know what type of materials were molten... the term "melted steel" coming from untrained witnesses is meaning less.        

" WTC 7 experienced the same thing, and it was not hit by a plane" sister jones
this is statement is a half truth and intentionally  misleading... you shit head...


----------



## eots (Mar 3, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



you have no experice with metal if you can not tell molten steel from molten aluminum


----------



## daws101 (Mar 3, 2013)

eots said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...















ok! ye of the anal aperture, which one is which.....


----------



## eots (Mar 3, 2013)

this video clearly shows the silver color of pouring aluminum

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhbaiuK3M3U]Pouring molten Aluminum - YouTube[/ame]

this clearly shows the orange color that indicates pouring steel


----------



## eots (Mar 3, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmuzyWC60eE]WTC2 South Tower on 9/11 Molten Metal North-East Corner - YouTube[/ame]

*this is molten metal*


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 3, 2013)

eots said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



And you have knowledge that those who witnessed the molton materials at GZ know the diff?


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 3, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Indeed WTC 7 experienced unfought fires just as 1 & 2 did, a fact Jones conveniently forgot to mention. Those fires had the same effect on 7 that they did on 1 &2.
It is clear that the need to post half-truths, suppositions and outright fabrications are a function of the weakness of the CT's arguments.


----------



## eots (Mar 3, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



*lol..*.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65Qg_-89Zr8]Bad Ass Skyscraper Fires and Destruction!! Awesome!! - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 3, 2013)

eots said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Typically lame propaganda piece. Not very convincing.


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 4, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> From what I have read a 1500 deg. f. temp is about average for what is being discussed.
> We're not talking about a foundry here.
> The point is that it is far lower then the melting point of steel.
> At what temperature does a typical fire burn?
> ...


TThe melting point of aluminum is 1220 F. 
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/melting-temperature-metals-d_860.htmlhe 



Mr. Jones said:


> And It's highly unlikely the amounts of the pools that were observed would be  substantial amounts of aluminum from the planes.


Wrong. The perimeter columns were ENCASED in an aluminum facade. All 1300 feet, four faces of each tower.



Mr. Jones said:


> Remember these temps lasted for around 100 days.


So what, in your opinion, maintained these temperatures for that long?


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 4, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Is it possible that it could have been aluminum?

Yes or no?

If you answer "no", why not in your opinion?


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 4, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> It seems that NIST did not follow due diligence in following up on these reports, statements from witnesses, Tulley was hired to do the cleanup, are we to suppose his people would not know molten metal/steel with their own eyes?



Again. You cannot tell a molten substance by sight alone. Especially when there are other materials that could have mixed with it.

That is a fact.



Mr. Jones said:


> It is reasonable for people to come to the conclusion at the time, that the molten material under the piles of wreckage were a residual effect of whatever caused the towers to fall.
> Something burned hot enough and long enough for witnesses to make these kinds of statements.


How were the temperatures maintained? It couldn't have been thermite as that burns very rapidly.

So what do you suggest?


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 4, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Really eots? I worked in steel mills idiot. 

There is know way to tell the difference as I have posted pictures of both molten aluminum and molten steel ESPECIALLY when there are other materials mixed in.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 4, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > From what I have read a 1500 deg. f. temp is about average for what is being discussed.
> ...



This is not for me to speculate at this time, this thread is supposed to be about the reported information, and what if anything did NIST do about it, and what it is their reports concerning it.
I have been posting what was said to have been found at GZ, and what NIST reaction was, and how it reflects in their report.
In trying to stay true to the theme of the thread, I am not speculating or what my opinions are, and in agreeing with your requests to try to link to info that is being discussed, and sourced, I've been trying to stay true to that as well.

In fact maybe you could link to the amount of aluminum on/in the towers that you mentioned? We should reasonably expected NIST to tell us what THEY thought kept the fires in the rubble burning for 100 days, and what the fuel source could have been.
Is there anything withing the NIST reports that mention any of this, or comes close to an answer?


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 4, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



I know you want Jones to answer (as do I) but his script contains no direct answer to your question so I will answer for him:
If the molten mats could have been aluminum then there may have been no molten steel which means Jones's CT and all his "research" takes a fatal hit, therefore the answer is "no," it could not have been aluminum. See how easy that is?


----------



## eots (Mar 4, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



what other materials would that be


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 4, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > It seems that NIST did not follow due diligence in following up on these reports, statements from witnesses, Tulley was hired to do the cleanup, are we to suppose his people would not know molten metal/steel with their own eyes?
> ...



The thing with aluminum is that it cools more rapidly then steel, this is why it is used as heat sinks in many electronics. It has a higher heat transfer rate then steel. This is why aluminum engine heads are used.  It radiates/conducts away all of its heat so rapidly that it cools off much faster than anything else. So if a piece of aluminum were to be in contact with a piece of steel, at melting temps, the aluminum would transfer its heat to the steel.
Aluminum will not stay hot longer then steel. Certainly not for the length of time the piles
remained at the reported temps. Please correct 5this if I am wrong...
Which will cool faster? Archive - Physics Forums Archive

Hot objects transfer heat to their surroundings by radiation. If you put a pot on top of the red hot coils, the coils often cool down enough to see the decrease in the brightness of the coils; this is because conductive heat transfer away from the coils decreases the amount of power that must be removed by radiation and convection to the air.
When you start stacking metal layers on top of each other, like a sheet of 
steel and a sheet of aluminum, you are adding interfaces.  And the heat 
plate is going to have to get hotter to transfer the same amount of heat 
through these interfaces. 

 Aluminum is superior to galvanized steel for efficient heat transfer. Tests have proven conclusively that an ammonia evaporator made with aluminum tubes and fins will have a cooling capacity that is 12 to 15% higher than a galvanized steel evaporator having the same dimensions. 
http://www.advancedfreezer.com/listings/files/73_1.pdf
Question: I am in search of a metal that when heated, rapidly dissipates the heat, and cools quickly.
Replies: In terms of cooling quickly, what you want is a material with low heat capacity and high thermal conductivity, and you want to have as little of it as possible (low mass). There are lots of metals that fit that bill, but in terms of overall usefulness and cost, aluminum comes to mind. 
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/mats05/mats05119.htm

The specific heat capacity of solid aluminum (0.904 J/g/°C) is different than the specific heat capacity of solid iron (0.449 J/g/°C). This means that it would require more heat to increase the temperature of a given mass of aluminum by 1°C compared to the amount of heat required to increase the temperature of the same mass of iron by 1°C.
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/thermalP/u18l2b.cfm


IOW's, if it was aluminum melting in the rubble piles, the fuel source would have to remain high and constant, as aluminum rids itself of the heat much faster then say steel...Regardless NIST ignored the reports of the molten steel/metal altogether, and this is one strike against them IMO.
We have to dig into their reports to find evidence of any extreme temps and times that suggest any steel was melted or weakened
I would like to discuss this next, after any opposing comments..


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 4, 2013)

Relevant info on melting points:
What's the melting point of steel?

*That depends on the alloy of steel* you are talking about. The term alloy is almost always used incorrectly these days, especially amongst bicyclists. They use the term to mean aluminum. What the term alloy really means is a mixture of metals, any kind of metals. Almost all metal used today is a mixture and therefore an alloy.

Most steel has other metals added to tune its properties, like strength, corrosion resistance, or ease of fabrication. Steel is just the element iron that has been processed to control the amount of carbon. Iron, out of the ground, melts at around 1510 degrees C (2750°F). Steel often melts at around 1370 degrees C (2500°F).

Addendum (8/26/2011): I answered this question many years ago and it has been referenced in many different web sites and reports. There has been one misrepresentation that has come from that. Many sites refer to the difference in the melting point of steel and the burning temperature of jet fuel as proof that the World Trade Center could not have fallen from the aircraft fires. What those authors fail to note is that while steel melts at around 1,370°C (2500°F) it begins to lose its strength at a much lower temperature. The steel structure of the World Trade Center would not have to melt in order for the buildings to lose their structural integrity. Steel can be soft at 538°C (1,000°F) well below the burning temperature of jet fuel.

What's the melting point of steel?


----------



## eots (Mar 4, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQdkyaO56OY]Molten Aluminum Experiment - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 4, 2013)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



Hmm. You seem desperate, Princess. Can it be the basis of your CT is melting away? We both know you aren't stupid and are well aware what other mats were present but I'll name just one and provide a link [Jefferson Labs] to its melting temp: Steel alloys.
What's the melting point of steel?


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 4, 2013)

According to Jefferson Labs "Steel can be soft at 538°C (1,000°F)" which would explain the collapse and no hard evidence of molten steel from the support beams has been found. None. All you have is self-serving conjecture.   

What's the melting point of steel?


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 4, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



Mr. Jones.

The point I am trying to make is this.

There is no proof that the molten metal seen was molten steel. That is a fact. You could not have visually determined what the molten substance was by sight alone.


----------



## eots (Mar 4, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



so your claim is *mats *where mixed with aluminum ???

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQdkyaO56OY]Molten Aluminum Experiment - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## eots (Mar 4, 2013)

although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have *no evidence *that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have.

OpEdNews - Page 2 of Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 4, 2013)

eots said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Like you I have no hard evidence of the make-up of the molten mats at GZ or that seen oozing from the building. Unlike you I do not presume to know what they were but the basis of your CT is melting faster than any material in the WTC on 9/11.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 4, 2013)

eots said:


> although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have *no evidence *that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have.
> 
> OpEdNews - Page 2 of Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation



Quintierre left the NIST in 1989 and while he has stated his concerns about the NIST investigation he has made it just as clear he respects the professionalism and abilities of those who conducted the 9/11 investigation for NIST and *does not subscribe to CTs involving explosives or controlled demo*. Do you really believe all of those involved and their institutions were involved in some nefarious conspiracy? Here's just a few of those whose reputation you attempt to besmerch (thanks, Sarge):
American Society of Civil Engineers,
Society of Fire Protection Engineers, 
National Fire Protection Association,
American Institute of Steel Construction, 
Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc., 
Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, 
Structural Engineers Association of New York.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 4, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



That info and the link were provided by Daws on page 1 of this thread:

http://www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf

Aluminum and the World Trade Center Disaster
Aluminum was present in two significant forms at the World Trade Center on 9-11:
(i) By far the largest source of aluminum at the WTC was the exterior cladding 
on WTC 1 & 2. In quantitative terms it may be estimated that 2,000,000 kg of 
anodized 0.09&#61618; aluminum sheet was used, in the form of 43,600 panels, to 
cover the faade of each Twin Tower. 
(i) The other major source of aluminum at the WTC was the aluminum alloy 
airframes of the Boeing 767 aircraft that crashed into the Twin Towers on the 
morning of 9-11. It may be estimated that, on impact, these aircraft weighed 
about 124,000 kg including fuel; of this weight, 46,000 kg comprised the 
fuselage and 21,000 kg made up the mass of the wings  all of which were 
fabricated from aluminum alloys.


----------



## eots (Mar 4, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have *no evidence *that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have.
> ...



that does not change the facts does it...and your list is one of institution not individuals


----------



## eots (Mar 4, 2013)

A few of those whose reputation you attempt to* besmirch *

Listed below are statements by more than 220 of these senior officials. Their collective voices give credibility to the claim that the 9/11 Commission Report is tragically flawed. These individuals cannot be simply dismissed as irresponsible believers in some 9/11 conspiracy theory. Their sincere concern, backed by their decades of service to their country, demonstrate that criticism of the Report is not irresponsible, illogical, nor disloyal, per se. In fact, it can be just the opposite.

Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 4, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



Study the links that I provided regarding aluminum IE: why it's used as heatsinks etc...
My point that you're ignoring altogether is this-
Reports from credible sources about the molten state of steel/metals were ignored by NIST, and should have been treated as an important detail.
Fact-the temps at GZ were in the extreme
Fact-Aluminum cools faster then steel
It seems that you are already starting to ignore the theme of the thread....
There is no proof that the molten substance/metal was NOT steel, and that's the point. NIST was charged with examining EVERYTHING regarding
ALL the evidence.
So where in the NIST report is there evidence of extreme temps? Let us go into detail regarding that questions shall we?


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 4, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



Has already been addressed. Read the links I provided regarding aluminum.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 4, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Alright..extinguish the fuel/heat source...which one will cool faster?


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 4, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



Your links have already been addressed. Read the link I provided from Jefferson Labs regarding alloys and melting temps. The bottom line? There is no hard evidence of molten steel at GZ. None. You may want to ditch this thread and start one with real facts.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 4, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Relevant info on melting points:
> What's the melting point of steel?
> 
> *That depends on the alloy of steel* you are talking about. The term alloy is almost always used incorrectly these days, especially amongst bicyclists. They use the term to mean aluminum. What the term alloy really means is a mixture of metals, any kind of metals. Almost all metal used today is a mixture and therefore an alloy.
> ...



At what point will unheated steel lose its integrity? Remember, not all the steel was heated to these temps, and where is the proof in the NIST report that regards this?
That is what this thread is about. The NIST report and what is in it.
You also do not consider that fire travels to alternative fuel sources to maintain the heat, and the steel recovers once it is cooled, and also distributes the heat to the connected members, thereby spreading it, thereby cooling the initial parts that may have been hot.
Aluminum transfers heat more rapidly then steel, therefore cooling faster then steel, which puts into doubt that it was aluminum that sustained the temps for 100 days at GZ.
Let us move on to what NIST actually said about the temps, their data, and their testing shall we?


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 4, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



Bullshit, why don't you ditch yourself from the thread, as you are doing the same thing as the other threads, and ignoring the links and what they have to say.
Again keeping with the threads intention, what does NIST have to say about all of this?
Their testing? If you want to ignore what the threads intention is then by all means get the fuck out.


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 4, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Study the links that I provided regarding aluminum IE: why it's used as heatsinks etc...
> My point that you're ignoring altogether is this-
> Reports from credible sources about the molten state of steel/metals were ignored by NIST, and should have been treated as an important detail.



Who is deeming it important? You? I thought you weren't going to speculate?



Mr. Jones said:


> Fact-the temps at GZ were in the extreme


Yeah? So?



Mr. Jones said:


> Fact-Aluminum cools faster then steel


So what?



Mr. Jones said:


> It seems that you are already starting to ignore the theme of the thread....


You were the one that brought up melted steel previously. I was just showing you that melted steel was not proven and could have been melted aluminum.



Mr. Jones said:


> There is no proof that the molten substance/metal was NOT steel, and that's the point.



And there is no proof that it WAS melted steel. Thank you for finally admitting that we don't know for sure.




Mr. Jones said:


> NIST was charged with examining EVERYTHING regarding
> ALL the evidence.
> So where in the NIST report is there evidence of extreme temps? Let us go into detail regarding that questions shall we?



They were charged with studying the debris pile temperatures??? What does that have to do with the collapse?


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 4, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Relevant info on melting points:
> ...



Your lame effort to introduce "molten steel" is not in the NIST report and the temp at which steel can be soft is 1000 degrees F, just as Jefferson Labs stated (bold, above).


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 4, 2013)

eots said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



That is correct! 
The investigation was conducted by individuals at all those credible institutions and with everyone's rep on the line none made mention of molten steel or explosives or controlled demo or conspiracies. Not one. 
Those are the facts but thanks for playin' Princess.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 4, 2013)

eots said:


> A few of those whose reputation you attempt to* besmirch *
> 
> Listed below are statements by more than 220 of these senior officials. Their collective voices give credibility to the claim that the 9/11 Commission Report is tragically flawed. These individuals cannot be simply dismissed as irresponsible believers in some 9/11 conspiracy theory. Their sincere concern, backed by their decades of service to their country, demonstrate that criticism of the Report is not irresponsible, illogical, nor disloyal, per se. In fact, it can be just the opposite.
> 
> Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report



   
Sorry Killa, but you have once again shot yourself in the foot. The first interview on that web site is with a Major General Albert Stubblebine, U.S. Army (ret). I'm guessing he is first 'cause he's their heavy hitter. Anyway his answer to the first question is all that is needed to dismiss the source of your "proof":  

Interviewer: OK. So on September the 11th, in 2001, what hit the Pentagon? 

General Stubblebine:  I don't know exactly what hit it, but I do know, from the photographs that I have analyzed and looked at very, very carefully, it was not an airplane.


----------



## eots (Mar 4, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



the investigation was run by a handful of people  wtf are you babbling about


----------



## eots (Mar 4, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > A few of those whose reputation you attempt to* besmirch *
> ...



*
Dwain Deets, MS Physics, MS Eng  Former Director, Aerospace Projects, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center. * Before this appointment, he served as Director, Research Engineering Division at Dryden. * Recipient of the NASA Exceptional Service Award and the Presidential Meritorious Rank Award in the Senior Executive Service (1988)*.  Selected presenter of the Wright Brothers Lectureship in Aeronautics, a distinguished speaking engagement sponsored by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) (1986).  Included in *"Who's Who in Science and Engineering" 1993 - 2000.  *Former Chairman of the Aerospace Control and Guidance Systems Committee of the Society of Automotive Engineers.  Former Member, AIAA Committee on Society and Aerospace Technology.  37 year NASA career.
Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition:


"The many visual images (massive structural members being hurled horizontally, huge pyroclastic clouds, etc.) leave no doubt in my mind explosives were involved [in the destruction of the World Trade Center]."  World Trade Center Building 7 Demolished on 9/11? | AE911Truth


Signatory: Petition requesting a reinvestigation of 9/11, signed by more than 1,500 Architects and Engineers:


----------



## eots (Mar 4, 2013)

*David L. Griscom, PhD &#8211; Research physicist, retired in 2001 from Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) in Washington, DC, after 33 years service*.  Fellow of the American Physical Society.  Fulbright-García Robles Fellow at Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México in Mexico City (1997).  Visiting professorships of research at the Universities of Paris and Saint-Etienne, France, and Tokyo Institute of Technology (2000 - 2003).  Adjunct Professor of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Arizona (2004 - 2005).  Winner of the 1993 N. F. Mott Award sponsored by the Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids, the 1995 Otto Schott Award offered by the Carl-Zeiss-Stiftung (Germany), a 1996 Outstanding Graduate School Alumnus Award at Brown University, and the 1997 Sigma Xi Pure Science Award at NRL*. Principal author of 109 of his 185 published works, a body of work which is highly cited by his peers.  Officially credited with largest number of papers (5) by any author on list of 100 most cited articles *authored at NRL between 1973 and 1988.


Personal blog 1/5/07: "David Ray Griffin has web-published a splendid, highly footnoted account of The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True:  This scholarly work, rich in eyewitness accounts, includes 11 separate pieces of evidence that the World Trade Center towers 1, 2 [each 1300+ feet tall, 110 stories], and 7 were brought down by explosives.  [Editor's note: WTC Building 7 was 610 feet tall, 47 stories.  It would have been the tallest building in 33 states.  Although it was not hit by an airplane, it completely collapsed into a pile of rubble in less than 7 seconds at 5:20 p.m. on 9/11, seven hours after the collapses of the Twin Towers.  However, no mention of its collapse appears in the 9/11 Commission's "full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks."  Watch the collapse video here.  And six years after 9/11, the Federal government has yet to publish its promised final report that explains the cause of its collapse.]

..*. I implore my fellow physicists and engineers who may have the time, expertise, and (ideally) supercomputer access to get to work on the physics of the World Trade Center collapses and publish their findings in refereed journals like, say, the Journal of Applied Physics. *

Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 4, 2013)

Quote: Originally Posted by SAYIT  

Quintierre left the NIST in 1989 and while he has stated his concerns about the NIST investigation he has made it just as clear he respects the professionalism and abilities of those who conducted the 9/11 investigation for NIST and does not subscribe to CTs involving explosives or controlled demo. Do you really believe all of those involved and their institutions were involved in some nefarious conspiracy? Here's just a few of those whose reputation you attempt to besmerch (thanks, Sarge):
American Society of Civil Engineers,
Society of Fire Protection Engineers, 
National Fire Protection Association,
American Institute of Steel Construction, 
Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc., 
Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, 
Structural Engineers Association of New York.




eots said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



   
Yeah, just like a handful of peeps was all that was needed to pull off your version of 9/11. Each of the institutions listed above contributed to the NIST study. 
Careful, Princess, your ignorant slip is showing again.


----------



## eots (Mar 4, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Quote: Originally Posted by SAYIT
> 
> Quintierre left the NIST in 1989 and while he has stated his concerns about the NIST investigation he has made it just as clear he respects the professionalism and abilities of those who conducted the 9/11 investigation for NIST and does not subscribe to CTs involving explosives or controlled demo. Do you really believe all of those involved and their institutions were involved in some nefarious conspiracy? Here's just a few of those whose reputation you attempt to besmerch (thanks, Sarge):
> American Society of Civil Engineers,
> ...



contributed does not mean they approve of the investigation Dr  Quintero 
was listed as a contributor even though he was  damning the report and its procedure


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 4, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



You said you wanted to focus on the NIST report, right? Well it doesn't mention molten steel which _you brought into the discussion_ so unless you now want to change the focus of this thread you're gonna hafta admit that there is no hard evidence of molten steel. Frankly I see no reason to move on until you do.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 4, 2013)

eots said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



No evidence of explosives were found and your last "expert" James Quintierre said he had no doubt there were *no explosives*. I think your "experts" need to get on the same page.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 4, 2013)

eots said:


> *David L. Griscom, PhD  Research physicist, retired in 2001 from Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) in Washington, DC, after 33 years service*.  Fellow of the American Physical Society.  Fulbright-García Robles Fellow at Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México in Mexico City (1997).  Visiting professorships of research at the Universities of Paris and Saint-Etienne, France, and Tokyo Institute of Technology (2000 - 2003).  Adjunct Professor of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Arizona (2004 - 2005).  Winner of the 1993 N. F. Mott Award sponsored by the Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids, the 1995 Otto Schott Award offered by the Carl-Zeiss-Stiftung (Germany), a 1996 Outstanding Graduate School Alumnus Award at Brown University, and the 1997 Sigma Xi Pure Science Award at NRL*. Principal author of 109 of his 185 published works, a body of work which is highly cited by his peers.  Officially credited with largest number of papers (5) by any author on list of 100 most cited articles *authored at NRL between 1973 and 1988.
> 
> 
> Personal blog 1/5/07: "David Ray Griffin has web-published a splendid, highly footnoted account of The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True:  This scholarly work, rich in eyewitness accounts, includes 11 separate pieces of evidence that the World Trade Center towers 1, 2 [each 1300+ feet tall, 110 stories], and 7 were brought down by explosives.  [Editor's note: WTC Building 7 was 610 feet tall, 47 stories.  It would have been the tallest building in 33 states.  Although it was not hit by an airplane, it completely collapsed into a pile of rubble in less than 7 seconds at 5:20 p.m. on 9/11, seven hours after the collapses of the Twin Towers.  However, no mention of its collapse appears in the 9/11 Commission's "full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks."  Watch the collapse video here.  And six years after 9/11, the Federal government has yet to publish its promised final report that explains the cause of its collapse.]
> ...



No evidence of explosives was found.


----------



## daws101 (Mar 4, 2013)

eots said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


thanks eot's for presenting smoking gun evidence that you post half truth and out and out lies... 
QUESTION: what did not happen in that Chinese hotel fire that make it a false comparison to the twin towers?
answer: no planes hit the hotel and the fire fighters were on scene in seconds....


----------



## daws101 (Mar 4, 2013)

eots said:


> A few of those whose reputation you attempt to* besmirch *
> 
> Listed below are statements by more than 220 of these senior officials. Their collective voices give credibility to the claim that the 9/11 Commission Report is tragically flawed. These individuals cannot be simply dismissed as irresponsible believers in some 9/11 conspiracy theory. Their sincere concern, backed by their decades of service to their country, demonstrate that criticism of the Report is not irresponsible, illogical, nor disloyal, per se. In fact, it can be just the opposite.
> 
> Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report


 besmirch lolollol!  what next the glove slap?
another non credible twoofer site...


----------



## daws101 (Mar 4, 2013)

eots said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


for any one who may not know ...when eots is getting his ass handed to him he accuses other posters of babbling.


----------



## eots (Mar 4, 2013)

sayit said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > sayit said:
> ...



he never said no doubt...he said "most likely in his opinion " and they are on the same page..as they  both call for an evidence based  fact driven re-investigation


----------



## eots (Mar 4, 2013)

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



In your dreams


----------



## eots (Mar 4, 2013)

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



no plane hit building 7 loser and NIST determined damage was not a factor in the collapse...and there are several different burning skyscrapers in that video


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 4, 2013)

eots said:


> sayit said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Really? That OpEdNews article you posted he made it clear he was not a supporter of theories that the Twin Towers were brought down by pre-planted explosives. If you go to World Trade Center One, nine minutes before its collapse, there was a line of smoke that puffed out. This is one of the basis of the conspiracy theories that says the smoke puffing out all around the building is due to somebody setting off an explosive charge. Well, I think, more likely, its one of the floors falling down."


----------



## eots (Mar 4, 2013)

YES can you read ? "Well, I think, more likely, it&#8217;s one of the floors falling down."


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 5, 2013)

eots said:


> YES can you read ? "Well, I think, more likely, its one of the floors falling down."



Hey, Quintierre is your source, Princess, and once you found out he dissed your juvenile 9/11 CT movement you dissed him. You can't have it both ways. if you're gonna use him as a credible opinion you're gonna hafta accept the fact that like most norms he thinks you're a flamin' loon. I know I do.


----------



## eots (Mar 5, 2013)

he did not dis anything but NIST and their lack of a fact driven evidence based investigation


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 5, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> The point here is that office and hydrocarbon fires burning in open air at 1,500 deg. F. can't reach temperatures in the range that iron or structural steel melts which is 2700 deg. F..



I read your opening post a couple more times. The above statement is based on the fact that people supposedly saw molten steel. As I have said, there is no way to be 100% sure that what anyone is seeing is indeed molten steel and not molten aluminum.

The whole point of your argument relies on this molten steel assumption, and an assumption it is. 



Mr. Jones said:


> This is a very important finding regarding the buildings, because many accredited experts thought that parts of the WTC structure attained temps that would melt the steel.



And many of those accredited experts also said "molten metal" because they were not sure what it was.



Mr. Jones said:


> Again these were preliminary assumptions.


Right. Assumptions.



Mr. Jones said:


> We know NOW that the NIST never discovered in their analysis that the temps got anywhere near this high, *within *the towers.


They got high enough to WEAKEN the steel didn't they? Steel starts to lose its strength at about 650C.



Mr. Jones said:


> So let's deal with this contradiction. The steel components that supported the weight of these towers, were said to have gotten hot enough to fail the steel,


Correct. At what temperature does steel start to lose it's strength? Especially steel under a load. Hence the article I linked previously regarding fire proofing.



Mr. Jones said:


> and we seemingly had evidence of this according to the many experts on site,including one of the WTC engineers himself


If you are referring to Leslie Robertson, I have already shown you that it was the author's words, not Robertson's. Robertson was never quoted in that article.



Mr. Jones said:


> and by Kenneth Holden, Commissioner of the city of New York. He told the panel about seeing molten metal during a walk through, and mentioned this to the 9-11 commission.
> *Statement of Ken Holden*


Only by sight, no testing. Assumption at best.



Mr. Jones said:


> So what did NIST do or say about this? It dismissed them. This is the first sign of fraud as they dismissed what is directly contradicted by the eyewitness statements of the emergency responders, engineers, officials, and health experts already mentioned above, not to mention the lead contractors who did the cleanup.


See above.



Mr. Jones said:


> Don't we need high temps to overcome the steel?


No. Melting steel and steel starting to lose its supportive capabilities are two different temperature ranges.



Mr. Jones said:


> Didn't the temps within GZ confirm this?


This confirms nothing. A huge pile of debris containing heat and fire within? So you have a hard time grasping why this would be so hot?



Mr. Jones said:


> It should have made it easier for them. But they ran into a problem, that was also mentioned above that being, that office and hydrocarbon fires burning in open air  can't reach 1500 deg. F.,


This temperature has nothing to do with what happened as you are basing this temp on the sight observations of molten steel and that there MUST have been enough heat to cause steel to become molten.



Mr. Jones said:


> and being buried by debris could not have attained the extreme temps to actually melt steel/metal....for 100 days despite constant attempts to put them out with water, and 1000s of gallons of Pyrocool.


Couldn't have been thermite either then. Thermite burns quickly and would not have maintained those temps. 



Mr. Jones said:


> So how hot did the temps *within the towers *reach? For that we will have to take a look at what is in the NIST reports to find the answers, and also look into their testing..and it was conducted..


Right. Compare the temperature results to the temperature at which steel starts to weaken.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 5, 2013)

eots said:


> he did not dis anything but NIST and their lack of a fact driven evidence based investigation



Really? That OpEdNews article you posted *he made it clear he was not a supporter of theories that the Twin Towers were brought down by pre-planted explosives*. You don't feel the dis?


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 5, 2013)

So Mr. Jones,

Unless you can 100% prove that the molten substance was actually molten steel, your opening statement/argument falls flat on its face.

There was plenty of aluminum to be able to create that molten metal. That is a fact.

According to the following study, aluminum was the most found substance in their testing.
USGS Spectroscopy Lab - World Trade Center USGS Leachate

Your move.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 5, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > The point here is that office and hydrocarbon fires burning in open air at 1,500 deg. F. can't reach temperatures in the range that iron or structural steel melts which is 2700 deg. F..
> ...



Again you exhibit the patience of Job. 
Jones will now reword the same thoroughly and repeatedly debunked assumptions, bogus quotes and silly CT BS and repost it. Admitting the molten steel issue is burned out would melt his particular CT and that would end his whole reason for living.


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 5, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > he did not dis anything but NIST and their lack of a fact driven evidence based investigation
> ...



Quintiere says the following in his conclusion. Something eots will never post and shows that he cherry picks for the sake of supporting his argument ONLY.



> An alternative hypothesis with the insulated trusses at the root cause
> appears to have more support. Heat transfer analyses, a scale model, and
> the UL furnace tests all indicate that the steel trusses can attain temperatures
> corresponding to failure based on structural analyses



No thermite, no explosives. Fire/heat. Read it and weep folks.


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 5, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



Well, Mr. Jones wants to deal in facts. trying to visually determine that a molten substance is either aluminum or steel is ridiculous. I have posted pictures of both and they look the same. Then Mr. Jones wants to try and add "oomph" to his witnesses by proclaiming them "experts". This in no way makes them "experts" in visualizing molten substances. If I presented each one of them with similar photos, there is no way that ANY of them would be able to tell me that they were 100% able to identify which was aluminum and which was steel.

What I find funny is that Mr. Jones can't understand how a pile of debris as large as the one at ground zero could have attained high temperatures. If the smoldering debris covered by further tons of debris and fed air through the porous pile wasn't enough...


----------



## daws101 (Mar 5, 2013)

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


yes their are and none of them had planes hit them...
as to 7 if the planes had not struck the towers there would have been no damage or more importantly no fires.. either way  none of it is evidence of a conspiracy .


----------



## daws101 (Mar 5, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...


it's called banking a fire .
in this case accidently..


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 5, 2013)

Ok, so what has been occurring is that you all are dismissing whether or not the molten metal could have been steel, despite the info I posted about aluminum. NIST ignore it as well despite having several people that were contracted out to do the clean up at GZ.
By doing this you are in essence admitting that the possibility of the actual fires being hot enough to melt the steel as many experts with the help of the media first said was a real possibility.
Now we have to see if any of the assumptions by NIST coincide with their testing, regarding temps getting hot enough to actually weaken the steel load bearing members of the buildings.

Anyone want to post up anything that deals with this issue, from NIST in their reports or testing data within the reports?
BTW by ignoring the links that I post and the info within it, that shows that molten aluminum was highly improbable, is no way to continue this discussion, and shows that you all are already in a defensive posture. If you have to ignore reports of evidence how accurate and legitimate can the findings be?
No one has answered any of my questions, or posted anything that contradicts the info that I posted about aluminum, or its properties, where it got its fuel source to maintain its molten state, especially considering the fact that aluminum gets rid of its heat faster then steel, which is why it is used in heatsinks etc...
To date NIST or anyone else, has identified an energy source in the WTC capable of melting steel or metal and having a fuel source to do so for 100 days. 

As I expected,
You are being cowards by ignoring this and offering no alternative rebuttal in what was posted and linked, even to the point of saying these temps were not of any importance or significance when clearly they were deemed important by those who saw it and reported it, and the others who confirmed them.
You official theory has already taken a blow, as has any sincerity or credibility regarding an honest discussion regarding the threads intention.
It's sad when you take a position that you defend and right off the bat you have to ignore and downplay parts of it to try and achieve some form of legitimacy, by ignoring things regarding it.  
But then again this behavior is at the basis and is what forms the premise of your version. You pretend things that may be harmful to your versions account, do not exist and downplay, with out explanation, others....you have proven one of my points, so let's move on.
I am not ignoring anything, have provided links for your review and get nothing that can be construed as a relevant response.


Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing.-NIST
* question 13, Frequently Aasked Questions, posted at WTC Disaster Study*

NIST never clarifies what the _certain circumstances_ might be. You all have at least tried to assume it might have been aluminum but I challenged that assumption, with links about aluminum...

Nist stated-_long exposure to combustion _  regarding the hot spots, but given that there was no energy source in the pile of wreckage, that could be sustained for 100 days, that could also be capable of melting steel and sustaining aluminum in a molten form, is disingenuous and deceiving.
 The hot spots were identified by the US Geological Survey at GZ. of both towers and 7. They existed. Your offer that it was aluminum has been hurt by the links I posted, as it melts faster then steel but cools faster as well.

 NIST's investigation was to determine the cause of the WTC collapse, and NIST should have conducted a complete forensic examination using the full spectrum of evidence.
Concluding any investigation, and offering a theory that does not take all available evidence into account is unscientific.

Moving on, I await you postings regarding the NIST testing that legitimizes the heat temps of the fires that were high enough to cause deformation of the steel that led to the collapses. 
NIST findings seem to refute the pancake theory of collapse.
Will we find favorable results? What happened with the truss assembly testing? 
NIST seemed to have also found that the steel was stronger then they anticipated too.
You can start by posting any relevant testing and results of any confirmation.


----------



## Montrovant (Mar 5, 2013)

I don't understand what properties of aluminum prevent the possibility of it being the molten metal seen at the ground zero site.  

You haven't said how the information about aluminum you've provided in any way effects things.  It cools faster than steel?  It's used in heatsinks?  How does that lead to it being impossible, or even unlikely, that any molten metal seen at the site was aluminum?  

All that would be needed is a supply of aluminum and enough heat at the time someone witnessed molten metal.  It's already been shown that aluminum was in fairly abundant supply in the towers themselves.  So, do the circumstances surrounding the molten metal sitings preclude the possibility of it being aluminum?  Did the witnesses claim they saw this metal in areas that they knew were cool?  Even if that were the case, did they know how long the area had been cool, as molten steel would also harden if cooled long enough?

I am glad you are presenting your evidence, but unfortunately I don't see how it is supposed to support your point here.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 5, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> So Mr. Jones,
> 
> Unless you can 100% prove that the molten substance was actually molten steel, your opening statement/argument falls flat on its face.
> 
> ...




Aluminum dust. But that doesn't seem correct either. When referring to the dust samples by USGS in order of abundance by average would be silicon, calcium, sulfur magnesium.
*A subset of the loose dust samples and samples of material coating girders collected from around the World Trade Center was subjected to chemical leach tests to examine potential release of metals from the dusts and beam coatings.*

But we are talking about solid aluminum being turned into a molten state not the dust.
Molten aluminum to aluminum dust?
This is quite a stretch from what we were talking about.
 Interesting tho, that aluminum powder is a common ingredient in making energetic materials....

 Even more interesting is stronium, thorium, uranium, chromium, tritium..Interesting findings by the USGS..Nuclear fissile material?
What were these doing in the wreckage of a building fire? 
The USGS collected dust samples that show elevated levels of uranium, thorium, barium, strontium, yttrium and chromium which indicates fission has taken place. The DOE collects water samples that have elevated levels of tritium, which indicates fusion has taken place. WTF??
Regardless,,so where did the energy come from to make all this aluminum powder/dust that was found. A far cry from solid aluminum melting in the GZ piles for 100 days..Are you suggesting fires did this? 

Dust is not equivalent to solid material.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 5, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Ok, so what has been occurring is that you all are dismissing whether or not the molten metal could have been steel, despite the info I posted about aluminum. NIST ignore it as well despite having several people that were contracted out to do the clean up at GZ.
> By doing this you are in essence admitting that the possibility of the actual fires being hot enough to melt the steel as many experts with the help of the media first said was a real possibility.
> Now we have to see if any of the assumptions by NIST coincide with their testing, regarding temps getting hot enough to actually weaken the steel load bearing members of the buildings.
> 
> ...



Good grief, man, get out of your mommy's basement and get laid!
You are beating a dead camel. The truth about 9/11 does not turn on what one believes the definition of "is" is. Spinning and twisting and tying yourself in knots is just pathetic to watch and probably very painful.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 5, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> I don't understand what properties of aluminum prevent the possibility of it being the molten metal seen at the ground zero site.
> 
> You haven't said how the information about aluminum you've provided in any way effects things.  It cools faster than steel?  It's used in heatsinks?  How does that lead to it being impossible, or even unlikely, that any molten metal seen at the site was aluminum?
> 
> ...


Aluminum melts slightly faster then steel but gets rid of its heat faster as well, therefore for aluminum to remain in a molten state, a constant source of extreme temps would be necessary for it to perform this rapid heat transfer, and STILL remain molten.
I haven't seen anyone present how much solid aluminum compared to other metals such as iron/steel there was, anyone have any figures OTHER THEN dust, which we're not talking about at this time?

BTW sayit if you don't have what it takes to be involved in this thread then GTFO.


----------



## daws101 (Mar 5, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Ok, so what has been occurring is that you all are dismissing whether or not the molten metal could have been steel, despite the info I posted about aluminum. NIST ignore it as well despite having several people that were contracted out to do the clean up at GZ.
> By doing this you are in essence admitting that the possibility of the actual fires being hot enough to melt the steel as many experts with the help of the media first said was a real possibility.
> Now we have to see if any of the assumptions by NIST coincide with their testing, regarding temps getting hot enough to actually weaken the steel load bearing members of the buildings.
> 
> ...


just as predicted, sister jones spun  this to appear as if nist did not do their job...and feign superiority..


----------



## Montrovant (Mar 5, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > I don't understand what properties of aluminum prevent the possibility of it being the molten metal seen at the ground zero site.
> ...



I believe it was daws who posted a link saying aluminum was used in pretty large amounts in the facing of the towers.  Not aluminum dust, solid aluminum.

As I said in my previous post, the details of these eyewitness accounts of molten metal are important.  Why must the metal have been molten for long periods of time?  It could be that a particular area within the debris heated up due to changing conditions as fires continued to burn, as rubble was moved, etc.  So it could be that any molten metal seen, even well after the collapses, was metal that had melted recently.  
Another possibility would be isolated pockets of extreme heat.  With the amount of materials involved, the idea of an area within the rubble in which fire continued to burn and/or heat being contained is not difficult to believe.

Further, if we assume that the molten metal was in that condition for a long time, what does that mean?  What could cause that that wouldn't be consistent with the towers having collapsed due to the planes and fire?

I still have seen nothing to indicate any molten metal could not have been aluminum, what am I missing here?


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 5, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



An aluminum foil hat.


----------



## daws101 (Mar 5, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...


nothing ...if sister jones concedes that the molten metal is not all steel, it' a major hole in his something other damage and fire took down the towers.
but mostly he's arguing minutia in the vain hope that it will add nonexistent credibility to his  speculations..


----------



## daws101 (Mar 5, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...


Reynolds wrap is best!


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 5, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > I don't understand what properties of aluminum prevent the possibility of it being the molten metal seen at the ground zero site.
> ...



Yo Princess ... all you have is that silly lookin' foil hat and we let you stay.


----------



## eots (Mar 5, 2013)

and again the shit monkeys resort to flinging their shit in a sign of  defeat.....


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 5, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Ok, so what has been occurring is that you all are dismissing whether or not the molten metal could have been steel, despite the info I posted about aluminum. NIST ignore it as well despite having several people that were contracted out to do the clean up at GZ.
> By doing this you are in essence admitting that the possibility of the actual fires being hot enough to melt the steel as many experts with the help of the media first said was a real possibility.
> Now we have to see if any of the assumptions by NIST coincide with their testing, regarding temps getting hot enough to actually weaken the steel load bearing members of the buildings.
> 
> ...



I disagree. 
NIST was provided with limited resources and time (everybody wanted answers yesterday) and charged with explaining what happened on 9/11, not what didn't happen. 
They did that, just not to your satisfaction. 
There are always CTs - see the Sandy Hook thread - who believe EVERYTHING is a nefarious gov't conspiracy.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 5, 2013)

eots said:


> and again the shit monkeys resort to flinging their shit in a sign of  defeat.....



You're babbling again, Princess.


----------



## eots (Mar 5, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Ok, so what has been occurring is that you all are dismissing whether or not the molten metal could have been steel, despite the info I posted about aluminum. NIST ignore it as well despite having several people that were contracted out to do the clean up at GZ.
> ...



red herrings and strawmen now shit monkey ?


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 5, 2013)

daws101 said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Jones could have done a whole body foil suit by rolling in that molten metal at GZ.


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 6, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Aluminum melts slightly faster then steel but gets rid of its heat faster as well, therefore for aluminum to remain in a molten state, a constant source of extreme temps would be necessary for it to perform this rapid heat transfer, and STILL remain molten.



You aren't making sense. 

Are you saying there WASN'T a constant source of extreme temperatures? How was the steel supposedly kept molten then?

You're contradicting yourself.


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 6, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Ok, so what has been occurring is that you all are dismissing whether or not the molten metal could have been steel, despite the info I posted about aluminum. NIST ignore it as well despite having several people that were contracted out to do the clean up at GZ.



No. What I am dismissing is the finality of your conclusion that it was absolutely, 100%, without a doubt, molten steel, solely based on visual identification. I have provided evidence that you cannot visually tell the difference between molten steel and molten aluminum. There are no "experts" in visually identifying molten steel vs. molten aluminum. If in fact all your "experts" were able to do so, they would have ALL said it was molten steel and NONE would have said molten metal.



Mr. Jones said:


> By doing this you are in essence admitting that the possibility of the actual fires being hot enough to melt the steel as many experts with the help of the media first said was a real possibility.



In the debris pile or in the building before the collapse? Notice you also said "first said", meaning they changed their minds? You are all over the place.



Mr. Jones said:


> Now we have to see if any of the assumptions by NIST coincide with their testing, regarding temps getting hot enough to actually weaken the steel load bearing members of the buildings.
> 
> Anyone want to post up anything that deals with this issue, from NIST in their reports or testing data within the reports?



You keep changing between weaken and melt. Which is it? They are both dependent on very different temperatures. Especially temperatures needed to weaken steel under a load.



Mr. Jones said:


> BTW by ignoring the links that I post and the info within it, that shows that molten aluminum was highly improbable, is no way to continue this discussion, and shows that you all are already in a defensive posture. If you have to ignore reports of evidence how accurate and legitimate can the findings be?



You've posted nothing of the sort. There was an abundance of aluminum for the WTC towers. It there was sustained temperatures for molten steel, then there were sustained temperatures for molten aluminum, which, if you hadn't noticed, has a lower melting point than steel. This fact totally destroys your supposed evidence to try and show that the substance could not be molten aluminum.

To sum up.

1.  If there were sustained temperatures high enough to melt steel, then there sure enough temperatures high enough to melt aluminum based on it's lower melting point.
2. You cannot visually identify the difference between molten steel and molten aluminum.

Balls in your court Mr. Jones.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 6, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Aluminum melts slightly faster then steel but gets rid of its heat faster as well, therefore for aluminum to remain in a molten state, a constant source of extreme temps would be necessary for it to perform this rapid heat transfer, and STILL remain molten.
> ...



Of course he is. He has no choice. 
Whatever mats were still burning under the rubble at GZ were evidently hot enough to melt many non-combustibles, including lower temp metals. On this both the CTs and the Norms here seem to agree. As of this posting no evidence of explosives, demo rigging or other "secret super-thermite" type metastable intermolecular composite ( MICs) has been found nor any of some "secret super-accelerant" which could keep the rubble burning hot for weeks without leaving a trace. None. What we have here, in all probability, is pretty much what the NIST study found and unless we accept that a cast of thousands of Americans were silently complicit in the planning, perpetration and aftermath of the 9/11 attacks then we are left with the reality that even if one considers the NIST study to be faulty or incomplete, it is the most rational and best informed opinion on the matter.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 6, 2013)

> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...


----------



## daws101 (Mar 6, 2013)

eots said:


> and again the shit monkeys resort to flinging their shit in a sign of  defeat.....


you and handjob can't even get that right.. monkeys fling their shit as a sign disrespect..
you eots have yet to win anything.. beside this is not a win lose debate.


----------



## daws101 (Mar 6, 2013)

"I'm still waiting for anyone to post the numbers of the quantity of aluminum vs steel.
Not dust sample info".   sister jones 





Aluminum and the World Trade Center Disaster
Aluminum was present in two significant forms at the World Trade Center on 9-11:
(i)  By far the largest source of aluminum at the WTC was the exterior cladding 
on WTC 1 & 2. In quantitative terms it may be estimated that 2,000,000 kg of 
anodized 0.09&#61618; aluminum sheet was used, in the form of 43,600 panels, to 
cover the fa&#128;ade of each Twin Tower.  
(i) The other major source of aluminum at the WTC was the aluminum alloy 
airframes of the Boeing 767 aircraft that crashed into the Twin Towers on the 
morning of 9-11. It may be estimated that, on impact, these aircraft weighed 
about 124,000 kg including fuel; of this weight, 46,000 kg comprised the 
fuselage and 21,000 kg made up the mass of the wings  all of which were 
fabricated from aluminum alloys. Modern airframes are invariably constructed 
from series 2000 aluminum alloys. Alloy 2024 is a typical example containing 
93 % Al, 4.5 % Cu, 1.5 % Mg, and 0.5 % each of Mn and Fe. These metallic 
additions to aluminum lower the melting point of the alloy from a value of 
660&#61616; C, for pure aluminum, to about 548 &#61616; C for alloy 2024. This relatively 
low temperature indicates that the fires within the Twin Towers were quite 
capable of melting at least some of the Boeing 767 aluminum airframe 
structures remaining in the WTC before its collapse. 



Eagar, Thomas W., and Christopher Musso. Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation. 2001. JOM. "The total weight of the structure was roughly 500,000 t, but wind load, rather than the gravity load, dominated the design" 450,000,000 kg
(each tower) 
World Trade Center History. Fact Monster. Family Education Network. 2003. "Weighed 500,000 tons" 450,000,000 kg
(each tower) 
World Trade Center Facts. Fox News Top Stories. 12 September 2001. "More than 200,000 tons of steel - far more than the amount required for the construction of the Verrazano Narrows Bridge - was used in the World Trade Center's construction."

" The 425,000 cubic yards of concrete used in building the World Trade Center is enough to build a five-foot wide sidewalk from New York City to Washington, DC." 930,000,000 kg
(overall) 
Ashley, Steven. When the Twin Towers Fell. Scientific American. 11 October 2001. "The gravity loads (weight) produced by the towers at their bases were on the order of 500,000 tons, Fowler said." 450,000,000 kg
(each tower) 
Craven, Jackie. Great Buildings. About.com. "Each tower weighed about 500,000 tons." 450,000,000 kg
(each tower


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 6, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30OVAvg1aGQ]Re: Molten Aluminum at 1800F - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## daws101 (Mar 6, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Re: Molten Aluminum at 1800F - YouTube


bahahahahahahahahahahahaha.


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 6, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Aluminum melts slightly faster then steel but gets rid of its heat faster as well, therefore for aluminum to remain in a molten state, a constant source of extreme temps would be necessary for it to perform this rapid heat transfer, and STILL remain molten.



You are making no sense.

Aluminum melting point = 1220 F
Carbon steel melting point = 2600 F - 2800 F

Metals - Melting Temperatures

If I wanted to keep the aluminum in a molten state, I would need to maintain 1220 F temperatures. 

If I wanted to keep carbon steel in a molten state, I would maintain 2600 F - 2800 F temperatures.

Do you even understand what thermal conductivity is? It is the process for which a metal conducts heat. Which is why aluminum is used on computer processors. Aluminum has a high thermal conductivity and compared to carbon steel, is much higher. 

Thermal Conductivity of Metals

So how are you implying that steel will "get rid" of it's heat faster than aluminum if aluminum had a higher thermal conductivity rating?

If you put steel and aluminum (touching each other) inside a furnace and crank the temperature to 1000 F, are you saying the steel will draw the heat into itself and the aluminum will never reach 1000 F???


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 6, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Re: Molten Aluminum at 1800F - YouTube
> ...



AHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!

It turns silver because it hits the cooler pan!!!!! Heat that pan up to 1800 degrees and see what happens!!!!

What you fail to realize Mr. Jones is that the objects in close proximity to each other INSIDE THE DEBRIS pile will be at the same temperature dependent on the heat source in that location.

It's like the molten aluminum (1220 F or higher) is touching a steel component in the same area at room temperature!


----------



## Montrovant (Mar 6, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Re: Molten Aluminum at 1800F - YouTube



What would it look like after you exposed it to the massive amounts of dust and debris in the tower collapses?  I would think that might make any molten metal have a different coloration.


----------



## daws101 (Mar 6, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Re: Molten Aluminum at 1800F - YouTube
> ...


and you'd be correct...!


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 6, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Aluminum melts slightly faster then steel but gets rid of its heat faster as well, therefore for aluminum to remain in a molten state, a constant source of extreme temps would be necessary for it to perform this rapid heat transfer, and STILL remain molten.
> ...






> So how are you implying that steel will "get rid" of it's heat faster than aluminum if aluminum had a higher thermal conductivity rating?


I said no such thing.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/6913451-post104.html

Are you implying that the WTC was comprised of more aluminum then steel?


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 6, 2013)

Bottom line here is NIST was not diligent regarding the extreme temps.NIST did not say that fire weakened aluminum support components and caused the collapses.

Your melted aluminum fails on its face, as there was more steel then aluminum to begin with.
It melts in a different color then steel. It transfers its heat faster then steel, thus cooling faster.
Again my point is that NIST failed in this regard, and ignoring it is a cowardice way to proceed in this discussion. 
Ball is in your court to produce NIST testing that confirms extreme temps to melt steel or weaken it.
So what have you got?


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 6, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



Really? Link please.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 6, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Re: Molten Aluminum at 1800F - YouTube
> ...



The WTC was encased in aluminum cladding, on the outside perimeter. These perimeters allegedly peeled away or blown away...AWAY from the centers of the buildings were the extreme temps were found. Imaging confirms this.
I posted the properties of aluminum and  fire/heat effects on it.
There was more steel then aluminum.
Aluminum is silver. Steel is orange when melted.
Aluminum melts at a lower temp then steel, but rids itself of the heat faster.
So we both do not know what was the fuel source and why it maintained the extreme temps for weeks after the event.
NIST did not supply answers for this phenomena, despite it being known, confirmed.

This thread deals with the NIST report and its instances that are being questioned and criticized, this is one of them.
I'm ready to move on to the testing if any of you would care to post what you have about that would be great.

In summary we have extreme temps, that were not addressed in the deep piles of the WTC buildings. The chances of it being aluminum are dismal at best.
WTC 7 experienced the same thing, and it was not covered in aluminum cladding, which we can discuss further down the road.

Again post up what you got on the NIST testing, maybe we can find some answers there.


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 6, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> I said no such thing.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/6913451-post104.html
> 
> Are you implying that the WTC was comprised of more aluminum then steel?



Here is your quote.


Mr. Jones said:


> Aluminum melts slightly faster then steel but gets rid of its heat faster as well, therefore for aluminum to remain in a molten state, a constant source of extreme temps would be necessary for it to perform this rapid heat transfer, and STILL remain molten.



You're all over the place Mr. Jones.

Do you understand what heat transfer is and what thermal conductivity is? If the aluminum inside the debris pile is surrounded by objects of the same temperature, where is it going to transfer it's heat to?

The reason aluminum heat sinks work inside computers (on a processor) for example is that aluminum (or copper) heat sink is kept cool by a constant flow of cool air flowing over it. The cooler (do to the flow of air) aluminum (or copper) heat sink continually pulls the heat from the hotter processor into itself do to the high thermal conductivity properties AND the flow of cooler air.

If I insulated the entire computer and had no airflow, the heat sink has nowhere to release the heat to. If I put one fan in there, it will transfer heat according to the amount of airflow. The more fans I put in, the more effective it becomes.

So again, if the molten aluminum in the debris pile is the same temperature of surrounding objects, where does it "rapidly transfer" its heat to?


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 6, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Bottom line here is NIST was not diligent regarding the extreme temps.NIST did not say that fire weakened aluminum support components and caused the collapses.



Jesus H. Christ!

MAke up your mind! You keep swicthcing between the debris pile temps and the fire temps in the structure BEFORE the collapse!

You're making no sense whatsoever!

Nobody is talking about "aluminum support components"!



Mr. Jones said:


> Your melted aluminum fails on its face, as there was more steel then aluminum to begin with.
> It melts in a different color then steel. It transfers its heat faster then steel, thus cooling faster.
> Again my point is that NIST failed in this regard, and ignoring it is a cowardice way to proceed in this discussion.
> Ball is in your court to produce NIST testing that confirms extreme temps to melt steel or weaken it.
> So what have you got?





The temperatures in the buildings were enough to weaken the structure, not melt it. That is a fact.

The temperatures in the pile were hot enough to melt the aluminum facade that everyone keeps telling you about.

Your problem is your mixing up the debris pile and the fire temps before the collapse.

MAKE UP YOUR MIND!


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 6, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> The WTC was encased in aluminum cladding, on the outside perimeter.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## daws101 (Mar 6, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...


none needed ...I guess you never took metal shop..


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 6, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> > Montrovant said:
> >
> >
> > > Mr. Jones said:
> > ...


----------



## Montrovant (Mar 6, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



If molten metal was found in the debris after the collapses, then the aluminum panels being blown away from the towers during the collapse is irrelevant.  That is only a concern if discussing molten metal from inside the buildings prior to the collapse.  Even then, it could be metal from the planes, or from office furniture or equipment inside had melted.  I'm not sure how to be certain the molten metal was steel.  And if we are talking about pools of molten metal in the debris, then anything that was in the towers could account for it.

The fact that aluminum melts at a lower temperature actually would seem to bolster the idea that any molten metal seen was aluminum.  The fact that aluminum cools more rapidly is unimportant if it did not have a cooler surrounding into which to dump the heat.  So, molten metals trapped in pockets of heat in the debris would not cool, whatever the metal might be.

Unless it is your contention that so much molten metal was at the site that it was too much to have been made by the amount of aluminum in the towers, I don't see how the fact that there was more steel than aluminum is relevant.

As I brought up before, I wonder if the color of whatever molten metal might have been present would be effected by the massive amounts of dust and debris to be found at the site.  Is molten aluminum a silver color after pouring it into, say, powdered concrete?  Also, if it was hot enough, pictures that others have provided show that both aluminum and steel appear orange in a molten state.  So I would need a bit more information as to what, exactly was seen and why it should be assumed it could not have been aluminum.

It's been pointed out already that the fact aluminum cools more quickly than steel does not prevent molten aluminum from having been present at ground zero.  If there were areas where the temperature remained high enough, or if the observers simply saw the molten metal before it had time to cool off, aluminum could still have easily been what was present.

I don't know what was burning for weeks at ground zero.  The amount of debris leads me to believe that there could easily have been fuel for fires for a long time after the collapses.

How was the presence of molten metal confirmed?  Was it confirmed what type of metal it was?

In all of this, I still am more than willing to accept the possibility of errors or outright falsifications in the NIST report.  However, I still see it as only a possibility.


----------



## daws101 (Mar 6, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > > Montrovant said:
> ...


----------



## Politico (Mar 7, 2013)

Yay another copy and paste 9/11 thread.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 7, 2013)

Politico said:


> Yay another copy and paste 9/11 thread.



It doesn't seem possible that 11+ yrs after 9/11 there are still CT stragglers trying to sell their particular spin on the story. In fact, it seems downright silly.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 7, 2013)

> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...


----------



## daws101 (Mar 7, 2013)

Below is a message from Stephen D. Chastain of Metal Talk. 


Several times over the last year I have been asked to comment on a photo of one of the Trade Center Towers. The photo shows a molten flow from one of the windows. The flow falls down along the building. It appears orange and turns to a gray color as it cools. 

 The questions usually want me to address "Is this photo a fake?" and "Is the flow steel or aluminum?" "Is this situation possible?" 

 First, I will address the temperature range, then the color of the flow. 

 I am working in imperial units and temperature in degrees F [To convert to C use this link]

 Metals lose about 50% of their strength at 60% of their melting temperature. This is common knowledge and may be found in any undergraduate text regarding "Fracture and Deformation of Materials." 

 If the approximate melting temperature of steel is 2750 F the the material would be plastic at 1650 F. Even assuming a safety factor of 3, you would expect the bolts or other structural members to deform and fail near this temperature, especially with the additional weight if a jet air liner. I would assume that the live load calculations did not include the typical office equipment and an airliner plus a factor of 3. THEREFORE I assume that the flow is not steel and that the temperature of the steel members at the time of the photo is less than 1650 F. 

 Assuming that the flow would be molten aluminum from the airliner and the color of molten aluminum is silver then why is the flow orange? 

 The color of pure molten aluminum is silver, It has an emissivity of .12. Steel has an emissivity of .4 and appears orange in the temperature range of molten aluminum. 

 The emissivity of aluminum oxide is .44 and also appears orange in the melting temperature range of molten aluminum. 

 The emissivity of plate glass is .937 It begins to soften at 1000 F and flows around 1350 F. Silica has an emissivity of .8 

 Copper oxide also has an emissivity of .8. however I will assume that their effect is negligible. 

 Aluminum oxidizes readily in the foundry under ideal melting conditions. Large surface area relative to thickness, turbulence, the presence of water or oil greatly increases the oxidation of aluminum. A jet airliner is made of thin aluminum sheet and most probably suffered considerable oxidation especially in contact with an open flame and being in contact with jet fuel. If you don't believe this, try melting a few soda cans over coals or open flame. If you are lucky you will end up with only 50% aluminum oxide. However, the cans may completely burn up. 

 The specific gravity of aluminum is 2.7. The specific gravity of aluminum oxide (Al2O3-3H2O) is 2.42 the specific gravity of Si = 2.40 and Glass is 2.65 these are all very similar and likely to be entrained in a molten aluminum flow. Don't believe it? lightly stir the dross into molten aluminum. The surface tension is so high is is almost impossible to separate them. 

 THEREFORE assuming that the flow consist of molten aluminum and considerable oxides, and assuming that the windows in the trade center were plate glass and also in a plastic state and that they were also likely entrained in the molten aluminum. I would expect the flow to appear to be orange in color. Especially since both the entrained materials have emissivities equal to or more than twice that of iron. 

 Also since dross cools to a gray color and glass with impurities also turns dark. I would expect that the flow would darken upon cooling. 

 I would also suggest that not only is the photo possible, but entirely likely. 

 Summary: The flow is not steel because the structural steel would fail well below the melting temperature. The flow is likely to be a mixture of aluminum, aluminum oxides, molten glass and coals of whatever trash the aluminum flowed over as it reached the open window. Such a flow would appear orange and cool to a dark color. 

Stephen D. Chastain 
Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - Molten Steel



NIST concluded that the source of the molten material was aluminum alloys from the aircraft,  since these are known to melt between 475 degrees Celsius and 640 degrees Celsius (depending on the particular alloy), well below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 degrees Celsius) in the vicinity of the fires. Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures and there is no visual indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning. 

Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface."

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm


----------



## daws101 (Mar 7, 2013)

[ame=http://youtu.be/DhHzMttUKO0]9/11 Debunked: "Molten Metal" Explained - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 7, 2013)

> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Why would the NIST study confirm that which they did not find? That makes absolutely no sense.
> ...


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 7, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



What you fail to understand is that the reports of molten anything were ignored by NIST, and this thread is about us trying to understand why we hold the opinions that we do.
NIST blatant disregard of this phenomena is one of the first instances where I lost respect for them. I already explained how unlikely it was to have been aluminum, because of the aluminums placement within the structure and the lower overall quantity of it compared to steel within the towers.
Ignoring something as important to the investigation is not what I consider good work, or a mistake. The people at such a prestigious agency as NIST are not stupid, and we should expect better from them.
People like you say that they didn't  find any evidence of molten steel. People like me say that this is true because they ignored any mention of it and ignored looking into it.
How can a proper investigation be conducted when you blatantly ignoring things that are relevant to it?
Bottom line is,I am trying to understand how you came to your conclusion, and so far I see that ignoring things is one way.
I am the opposite, in that I become very skeptical when instances like this occur, so I look at what else they have to say, and look for other instances that either warrant or dimiss this behavior.. 

If anything we have concluded in this part of the discussion what we each feel is important and what is not.

Now would you like to point out what else you feel backs up the NIST theory and their assuming what they did about the actual fires within the towers?


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 7, 2013)

Ok so...we have 3 buildings. 2 that were struck by planes, collapsed, and experienced molten steel, aluminum metal underneath their rubble wreckage. The reports of which were confirmed by satellite imagery, with extreme persistent heat  from "fires" that were unable to be put out for 100 days or so.
Then we have the other building that WAS NOT hit by a plane, but experienced the same phenomena as the 2 towers.

I feel that an explanation should have been forthcoming, but instead they were dismissed or ignored. I feel that this was a total disregard for scientific honesty and integrity, while most of you don't care about such things.
Does that mean that all the people who reported and confirmed this are liars?
Were these people hallucinating?
Does this mean that none of this even existed?
No, it does not. It simply means NIST ignored this, so consequently you can not confirm what you outright refuse to search for and even acknowledge the existence of.

We have many people saying this indeed happened, we have confirmation of them, we have satellite imagery regarding the intense heat, and fires deep within the wreckage, that was not able to be extinguished, for 100 days.....And we have NIST ignoring almost all of this, and people feel that this is proper?
How can you justify this and call it an investigation that is honest and has integrity?

Perhaps you can tell us something that will redeem NIST by pointing something out in their testing regarding other aspects of fires and heat within the towers instead of underneath the wreckage as we have been discussing?
I await anything that any of you might like to introduce.
You have many experts who claimed that the fires killed the buildings to choose from, and I'm sure NIST has much to say about them as well.


----------



## daws101 (Mar 7, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Ok so...we have 3 buildings. 2 that were struck by planes, collapsed, and experienced molten steel, aluminum metal underneath their rubble wreckage. The reports of which were confirmed by satellite imagery, with extreme persistent heat  from "fires" that were unable to be put out for 100 days or so.
> Then we have the other building that WAS NOT hit by a plane, but experienced the same phenomena as the 2 towers.
> 
> I feel that an explanation should have been forthcoming, but instead they were dismissed or ignored. I feel that this was a total disregard for scientific honesty and integrity, while most of you don't care about such things.
> ...


who's US?


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 7, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Ok so...we have 3 buildings. 2 that were struck by planes, collapsed, and experienced molten steel, aluminum metal underneath their rubble wreckage. The reports of which were confirmed by satellite imagery, with extreme persistent heat  from "fires" that were unable to be put out for 100 days or so.
> ...



Those of us that know what an idiot you are.

Anybody else want to take a shot at what I have asked or don't you have anything to validate your CT, other then to ask totally stupid questions like the one this idiot just asked?


----------



## daws101 (Mar 7, 2013)

About the NIST World Trade Center Investigation


GENESIS OF THIS INVESTIGATION

On August 21, 2002, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) announced its building and fire safety investigation of the World Trade Center (WTC) disaster.1 This WTC Investigation was then conducted under the authority of the National Construction Safety Team (NCST) Act, which was signed into law on October 1, 2002. A copy of the Public Law is included in AppendixA.

The goals of the investigation of the WTC disaster were:
To investigate the building construction, the materials used, and the technical conditions that contributed to the outcome of the WTC disaster after terrorists flew large jet-fuel laden commercial airliners into the WTC towers.
To serve as the basis for:
Improvements in the way buildings are designed, constructed, maintained, and used;
Improved tools and guidance for industry and safety officials;
Recommended revisions to current codes, standards, and practices; and
Improved public safety

The specific objectives were:
Determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft and why and how WTC 7 collapsed;
Determine why the injuries and fatalities were so high or low depending on location, including all technical aspects of fire protection, occupant behavior, evacuation, and emergency response;
Determine what procedures and practices were used in the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of WTC 1, 2, and 7; and
Identify, as specifically as possible, areas in current building and fire codes, standards, and practices that warrant revision.

ok ..sister jones  the above is what nist did do .
it says nothing about testing for explosives or exotic accelerants.
if they did discover any of those they would have been turned over to the ATF. 
NONE WERE FOUND....
YOUR accusations of wrong doing by NIST are unfounded.


----------



## daws101 (Mar 7, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...


lol!  so you have no real answer.


----------



## Montrovant (Mar 7, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



I haven't yet seen conclusive evidence there was ANY molten metal at the site.

However, I'm willing to proceed under the assumption that there was.  It's certainly not all that hard to believe.

Your information about aluminum, and conclusions made about the possibility that it could have been the metal found in a molten state, do not seem logical to me.

First, whether there was more aluminum or steel in the towers is completely irrelevant.  The only thing that matters is if there was enough of either to form the pools of molten metal witnessed.  As far as I've seen thus far, there was plenty of both types of metal.

Next, the fact that aluminum cools more quickly than steel is also irrelevant.  In either case, the material would almost surely have to have remained within a high temp environment to maintain a molten state as long as you have said (you've mentioned 100 days more than once).

Finally, the very properties of aluminum you have brought up seem to indicate it is the more likely metal to have been found in a molten state.  It would require quite a bit less heat than steel would.  The higher temperatures needed to melt steel would be less likely to occur and less likely to be sustained.  So, if there was molten metal seen at GZ, and if it maintained a molten state for long periods of time, aluminum is a more convincing possibility than is steel.

I don't know that NIST ignored any reports of molten metal that they should have investigated.  I have only seen a few supposed witnesses mentioned, some of which turned out not to have seen it themselves based on other quotes.  Still, they may have ignored such evidence.  I consider the NIST report neither infallible nor above reproach.  Considering the nature of the event and the investigation, I don't think it should ever have been expected that the report would be anything more than educated guesswork.  I can't speak for anyone else, but for me, the conclusions made in the NIST report are simply reasonable enough that I haven't seen reason to think they were intentionally falsified.

Oh, and to be clear, the quote function has gotten messed up in some recent posts, that isn't me being quoted.


----------



## Montrovant (Mar 7, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Ok so...we have 3 buildings. 2 that were struck by planes, collapsed, and experienced molten steel, aluminum metal underneath their rubble wreckage. The reports of which were confirmed by satellite imagery, with extreme persistent heat  from "fires" that were unable to be put out for 100 days or so.
> Then we have the other building that WAS NOT hit by a plane, but experienced the same phenomena as the 2 towers.
> 
> I feel that an explanation should have been forthcoming, but instead they were dismissed or ignored. I feel that this was a total disregard for scientific honesty and integrity, while most of you don't care about such things.
> ...



How are you defining 'reporting' and 'confirming'?  What I've seen is reports of molten metal, or molten steel, but not confirmation of it.

Someone just recently provided a link to an article about NASA imaging of ground zero soon after 9/11.  According to that, while there were hot spots detected, there was no molten metal confirmed by the images.  And I'm not certain what areas of extreme heat after such an event is supposed to suggest.  I also don't think it said anything about these hot spots lasting 100 days after the event; I believe it talked about a week or two after, and how the number of hot spots was down to a few a couple of weeks after 9/11.

There is also a question of whether NIST intentionally disregarded important evidence, or disregarded evidence that had nothing to do with the collapse, or didn't actually disregard evidence at all.


----------



## daws101 (Mar 7, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Ok so...we have 3 buildings. 2 that were struck by planes, collapsed, and experienced molten steel, aluminum metal underneath their rubble wreckage. The reports of which were confirmed by satellite imagery, with extreme persistent heat  from "fires" that were unable to be put out for 100 days or so.
> ...


nist was tasked with specific duties not a generalized investigation, all of the so called "intentionally disregarded evidence" was out of their purview.. and investigated by other agencies : Here is a partial list of those who responded to and/or investigated the events:

1,500 people who worked the flight 93 crash scene
40,000 people who worked the piles at Ground Zero
55 FBI Evidence Response Teams at Fresh Kills in New York
7,000+ FBI Agents
8,000+ people who worked the scene at the Pentagon
ACE Bermuda Insurance
AEMC Construction
AIG Insurance
Air Traffic Control System Command Center in Washington
Alexandria VA Fire & Rescue
Allianz Global Risks
American Airlines
American Concrete Institute
American Institute of Steel Construction
American Red Cross
Applied Biosystems Inc.
Applied Research Associates
Arlington County Emergency Medical Services
Arlington County Fire Department
Arlington County Sheriff's Department
Arlington VA Police Department
Armed Forces Institute of Pathology
Armed Forces Institute of Technology Federal Advisory Committee
ARUP USA
Atlantic Heydt Inc.
Bechtel
Berlin Fire Department
Big Apple Wrecking
Blanford & Co.
Bode Technology Group
Bovis Inc.
Building and Construction Trades Council
Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms
C-130H crew in D.C. & Shanksville
Cal Berkeley Engineering Dept.
California Incident Management Team
Carter Burgess Engineering
Celera Genomics
Centers for Disease Control
Central City Fire Department
Central Intelligence Agency
Cleveland Airport control tower
Columbia University Department of Civil Engineering and Engineering Mechanics
Congressional Joint Intelligence Committee
Consolidated Edison Company
Construction Technologies Laboratory
Controlled Demolitions Inc.
Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat
Counterterrorism and Security Group
CTL Engineering
D.H. Griffin Wrecking Co. Inc.
DeSimone Consulting Engineers
Dewhurst MacFarlane &Partners
DiSalvo Ericson Engineering
District of Columbia Fire & Rescue
DOD Honor Guard, Pentagon
D'Onofrio Construction
E-4B National Airborne Operations Center crews
Edwards and Kelcey Engineering
Engineering Systems, Inc.
Environmental protection Agency
Exponent Failure Analysis Associates
EYP Mission CriticalFacilities
Fairfax County Fire & Rescue
Falcon 20 crew in PA
Family members who received calls from victims on the planes
FBI Evidence Recovery Teams
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Federal Insurance Co.
FEMA 68-Person Urban Search and Rescue Teams: Arizona Task Force 1, California Task Force 1, California Task Force 3, California Task Force 7, Colorado Task Force 1, Fairfax Task Force 1, Florida Task Force 1, Florida Task Force 2, Maryland Task Force 1, Massachusetts Task Force 1, Metro Dade/Miami, Nebraska Task Force 1, New Mexico Task Force 1, New York Task Force 1, Pennsylvania Task Force 1, Tennessee Task Force 1, Texas Task Force 1, Utah Task Force 1, Virginia Task Force 1, Virginia Task Force 2, Washington Task Force 1
FEMA Disaster Field Office
FEMA Emergency Response Team
FEMA Urban Search and Rescue Incident Support Team-Advanced 3
Fire Department of New York
Fort Myer Fire Department
French Urban Search & Rescue Task Force
Friedens Volunteer Fire Department
Gateway Demolition
Gene Code Forensics
Georgia Tech Engineering Dept.
Gilsanz Murray Steficek LLP
GMAC Financing
Goldstein Associates Consulting Engineers
Guy Nordenson Associates
HAKS Engineers
Hampton-Clarke Inc.
HHS National Medical Response Team
HLW International Engineering
Hooversville Rescue Squad.
Hooversville Volunteer Fire Department
Hoy Structural Services
Hughes Associates, Inc
Hugo Neu Schnitzer East
hundreds of ironworkers, some of whom built the WTC
Hundreds of New York City Police Department Detectives
Industrial Risk Insurers
Institute for Civil Infrastructure Systems
International Association of Fire Chiefs
International Union of Operating Engineers Locals 14 & 15
J.R. Harris & Company
Johnstown-Cambria County Airport Authority
Karl Koch Steel Consulting Inc.
KCE Structural Engineers
Koch Skanska
Koutsoubis, Alonso Associates
Laboratory Corp. of America
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory
Leslie E. Robertson Associates
LIRo Engineering
Listie Volunteer Fire Company
Lockwood Consulting
M.G. McLaren Engineering
Masonry Society
Mazzocchi Wrecking Inc.
Metal Management Northeast
Metropolitan Airport Authority Fire Unit
Miami-Dade Urban Search & Rescue
Military District of Washington Search & Rescue Team
Montgomery County Fire & Rescue
Mueser Rutledge Consulting Engineers
Murray Engineering 
Myriad Genetic Laboratories Inc.
National Center for Biotechnology Informatics
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
National Council of Structural Engineers Associations
National Disaster Medical System
National Emergency Numbering Association
National Fire Protection Association
National Guard in D.C., New York, and Pennsylvania
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
National Institutes of Health Human Genome Research Institute
National Law Enforcement and Security Institute
National Military Command Center
National Reconnaissance Office
National Response Center
National Science Foundation Division of Civil and Mechanical Systems
National Security Agency
National Transportation Safety Board
National Wrecking
Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information Center
New Jersey State Police
New York City Department of Buildings WTC Task Force
New York City Department of Design and Construction
New York City Department of Environmental Protection
New York City Office of Emergency Management
New York City Office of the Chief Medical Examiner
New York City Police Department Aviation Unit
New York City Police Department Emergency Services Unit
New York Daily News
New York Flight Control Center
New York Newsday
New York Port Authority Construction Board
New York Port Authority Police
New York State Emergency Management Office
New York State Police Forensic Services
New York Times
North American Aerospace Defense Command
Northeast Air Defense Sector Commanders and crew
Numerous bomb-sniffing dogs
Numerous Forensic Anthropologists
Numerous Forensic Dentists
Numerous Forensic Pathologists
Numerous Forensic Radiologists
NuStats
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Office of Emergency Preparedness
Office of Strategic Services
Orchid Cellmark
Parsons Brinckerhoff Engineering
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
Pennsylvania Department of Health and Human Services
Pennsylvania Region 13 Metropolitan Medical Response Group
Pennsylvania State Funeral Directors Association
Pennsylvania State Police
Pentagon Defense Protective Service
Pentagon Helicopter Crash Response Team
Pentagon Medical Staff
Pentagon Renovation Team
Phillips & Jordan, Inc.
Port of New York and New Jersey Authority
Pro-Safety Services
Protec
Public Entity Risk Institute
Purdue University Engineering Dept.
Robert Silman Associates Structural Engineers
Rolf Jensen & Associates, Inc
Rosenwasser/Grossman Consulting Engineers
Royal SunAlliance/Royal Indemnity
SACE Prime Power Assessment Teams
SACE Structural Safety Engineers and Debris Planning and Response Teams
Salvation Army Disaster Services
several EPA Hazmat Teams
several FBI Hazmat Teams
several Federal Disaster Medical Assistance Teams
several Federal Disaster Mortuary (DMORT) Teams
Severud Associates Consulting Engineers
Shanksville Volunteer Fire Company
Silverstein Properties
Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Engineers
Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP
Skilling Ward Magnusson Barkshire
Society of Fire Protection Engineers
Somerset Ambulance Association
Somerset County Coroner's Office
Somerset County Emergency Management Agency
Somerset Volunteer Fire Department
St. Paul/Travelers Insurance
State of Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency
Stoystown Volunteer Fire Company
Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI/ASCE)
Structural Engineers Association of New York
Superstructures Engineering
Swiss Re America Insurance
Telephone operators who took calls from passengers in the hijacked planes
Teng & Associates
Thornton-Tomasetti Group, Inc.
TIG Insurance
Tokio Marine & Fire
Transportation Safety Administration
Tully Construction
Twin City Fire Insurance
Tylk Gustafson Reckers Wilson Andrews Engineering
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Underwriters Laboratories
Union Wrecking
United Airlines
United States Air National Guard
United States Fire Administration
United States Secret Service
United Steelworkers of America
University of Sheffield Fire Engineering Research 
US Army Reserves of Virginia Beach Fairfax County and Montgomery County
US Armys Communications-Electronics Command
US Department of Defense
US Department of Justice
US Department of State
Virginia Beach Fire Department
Virginia Department of Emergency Management
Virginia State Police
Vollmer Associates Engineers
Washington Post
Weeks Marine
Weidlinger Associates
Weiskopf & Pickworth Engineering
Westmoreland County Emergency Management Agency
Whitney Contracting
Willis Group Holdings
WJE Structural Engineers
Worcester Polytechnic Institute
World Trade Center security staff
XL Insurance
Yonkers Contracting
York International
Zurich Financial
Zurich Re Risk Engineering


which beg the question why doesn't sister jones an co. fling any of their rancor it these?


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 7, 2013)

> I haven't yet seen conclusive evidence there was ANY molten metal at the site.
> However, I'm willing to proceed under the assumption that there was.  It's certainly not all that hard to believe.


 I don't require you to proceed with this assumption about the molten steel. My point was to point out my first instance regarding the NIST, that led me to start doubting their integrity. I also gained some insight about what some others deem important or not as well. Remember this is about us trying to understand why we have different views, and it is obvious that what I and others consider an obvious and flagrant foul, is of no great consequence to you. What I can't understand is why this is not important to you, and to others. I mean aren't we both wanting them to look at at EVERYTHING? I consider this phenomena very important, you don't so we found out a little bit about what the others mindset and priorities are.




> Your information about aluminum, and conclusions made about the possibility that it could have been the metal found in a molten state, do not seem logical to me.


 No actually I don't thnk it was aluminum based on the lack of quantity of it,
and where most of it was on/in the towers, and how it is affected by fire and heat, but as I said the point had been made about where we stand on this, and its value to us.



> First, whether there was more aluminum or steel in the towers is completely irrelevant.  The only thing that matters is if there was enough of either to form the pools of molten metal witnessed.  As far as I've seen thus far, there was plenty of both types of metal.


 I have to disagree and would like to know how you can justify saying this. Do you have quantities of aluminum vs steel, and where each had their place in/on the towers? I've been waiting for anyone to answer this question, and no one has come up with anything, other then the dust samples, or an assumption by a CT debunking site that has no link to where they get their info from...
I have some figures that will show you that the prevalence of steel is vastly more then the aluminum,and that most of the aluminum was on the outside perimeter of the towers, and was installed after the steel components went up..



> Next, the fact that aluminum cools more quickly than steel is also irrelevant.  In either case, the material would almost surely have to have remained within a high temp environment to maintain a molten state as long as you have said (you've mentioned 100 days more than once).


 Well I can't say at all that I consider this irrelevant, as
it is still a mystery as to what the fuel source was that kept the extreme temps elevated
so high (to produce a molten state) and for so long.
We know that office furnishings like chairs carpet are treated so they wont burn very easily, and are rated as such. We also know that obtaining upper echelon extreme temp of something, is only obtainable under controlled conditions with the perfect amount of oxygen and fuel, and that the fires in the towers were of a diffuse flame variety, and not controllable. These fires were not able to reach the kinds of temps or sustainability that was reported and confirmed, and backed up by witnesses and satellite imaging.



> Finally, the very properties of aluminum you have brought up seem to indicate it is the more likely metal to have been found in a molten state.  It would require quite a bit less heat than steel would.  The higher temperatures needed to melt steel would be less likely to occur and less likely to be sustained.  So, if there was molten metal seen at GZ, and if it maintained a molten state for long periods of time, aluminum is a more convincing possibility than is steel.


 Yes, but we still run into  problems, that go against all the molten metal being aluminum...
One is, that the quantity of aluminum was much lower at the towers, and another is that most of the aluminum was placed on the outer perimeters as a thin covering..The extreme temps were very deep, some as much as 70 feet below the surface, and we all saw that most of the perimeter outer walls of the buildings were ejected away from the centers. Also, if a piece of aluminum was in a molten, it would get rid of the heat faster and transfer it away, perhaps to something else that held its heat longer, like maybe even a piece of steel, that wouldn't start to melt until 2500 Deg. or so.
So aluminum would melt faster, but rid itself of the heat and transfer it to whatever it was in contact with faster.
This means that it was more unlikely to have remained in its molten state.
The fact that extreme temps were being recorded for so long, means that something had to be providing the fuel source for it to remain that way, and it was of no interest to NIST, thus strike one against them in my book.



> I don't know that NIST ignored any reports of molten metal that they should have investigated.  I have only seen a few supposed witnesses mentioned, some of which turned out not to have seen it themselves based on other quotes.  Still, they may have ignored such evidence.  I consider the NIST report neither infallible nor above reproach.


 There's more then just a few that can be listed, and some like Tulley were hired specifically to do the clean up on the site.It happened, it was reported, and it was confirmed by people and imaging, even firefighters, who you would think would know when something like metal is in a molten state...




> Considering the nature of the event and the investigation, I don't think it should ever have been expected that the report would be anything more than educated guesswork.  I can't speak for anyone else, but for me, the conclusions made in the NIST report are simply reasonable enough that I haven't seen reason to think they were intentionally falsified.


 NIST personnel aren't stupid, and they know how a scientific forensic investigation should proceed. The others who criticize them for their unscientific work, are their peers, are in the same field of work and study and even teach it to students. I can accept some mistakes along the way but man...this just does not fall into an oops category, IMO...The best way to have done this investigation was to gather up everything and dissect it from scratch, and it seems that NIST really did have an outcome they needed to adjust their data to...Again this is the opinion I have taken based on what I have read in their work, and what other credible individuals have said when they reviewed their body of work regarding the 9-11 buildings.



> Oh, and to be clear, the quote function has gotten messed up in some recent posts, that isn't me being quoted.


 Cool, I'll keep a look out for that... 

Anyway, this is one major instance that has led me to doubt the integrity of the NIST report. We have to see what they have to say about the fires next. They were open fires in an uncontrolled environment, could not have melted any of the steel in such a short time, and we have people in one of the impacts hole waving....How how did this part of the tower start to fail first?


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 7, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



Easy...because NIST stated that they were responsible for what was in their reports.
It is the NIST report idiot, and it is their report. They even say they are responsible for its contents.
Now what about the fires in the towers, and the UL testing?
Virginia Beach Fire dept? Do you even know what it is that they contributed? Perhaps you could list what each individual listed agency specifically did regarding the molten steel we were discussing?


----------



## daws101 (Mar 7, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...


there is no need for me to do your work for you ,not only that but it's your contention that a governmental conspiracy existed...if you were as intelligent as you pretend to be and not epically failing to convince any sane persons that the molten metal is any more then collateral damage you'd spent at least a little time checking that list for possible co conspirators, instead of  whining about what nist didn't do to your satisfaction.
I already posted their goals and none of them say anything about testing for molten metal.
to put it succinctly you are arguing meaningless minutia in the vain hope you'll find something that's not there.


----------



## Montrovant (Mar 7, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> > I haven't yet seen conclusive evidence there was ANY molten metal at the site.
> > However, I'm willing to proceed under the assumption that there was.  It's certainly not all that hard to believe.
> 
> 
> ...



Is there some information regarding the total amount of molten metal at ground zero?  If not, I don't see how the amount of aluminum, outside of general terms, is significant.  I agree that the only information I've seen on it was from a 9/11 truth debunking site.  If, however, that is accurate, then it would seem there was certainly a large enough quantity of aluminum in the panels on the outside of the towers to account for some pretty large pools.  Add in the aluminum from the planes and any aluminum from furniture/equipment in the buildings and it seems a substantial amount.  I don't understand why the ratio of aluminum to steel matters in the slightest.  If there were 200,000,000 tons of steel in the towers, and only 1,000 tons of aluminum, that still might be more than enough aluminum to account for any molten metal seen.  And as you have actually posted links which claim the fires were likely in the 1500 degree F range, I would think it would make sense that aluminum was what turned molten, since it has a melting temperature below that.

As far as the aluminum on the outside of the towers not being in the center of the debris....I don't know that ALL of the outer panels would have been blown so far away from the collapse that no significant number could have ended up in the center of the debris piles.

I don't know what was burning to keep the hot spots going at ground zero.  I DO know that the towers were incredibly massive, as well as being filled with who knows what variety of furniture, equipment, clothing, etc.  I also have not seen any evidence that these hot spots continued for months, although I could have simply missed that.  There was almost surely plenty of material to burn, though. 

I don't know how you can talk about the difficulty of obtaining 'upper echelon extreme temp' and still dismiss aluminum as the likely culprit for any molten metal.  Again, it has a far lower melting point than steel, and I'm fairly certain at least one link you posted claimed that office fires averaged somewhere in the 1500 degree range.  That is hotter than aluminum's melting point, but well below steel's.  

I still think you are mistaking the relevance of aluminum dissipating heat more rapidly than steel.  That is unimportant unless the heated aluminum is surrounded by something at a lower temperature.  It isn't going to shed heat into something as hot or hotter than the aluminum is!   So, unless you are saying the molten metal must have been surrounded by materials at a lower temperature than that metal's melting point, it doesn't in any way diminish the likelihood that any molten metal seen was aluminum rather than steel.
Put another way : if you put aluminum in an oven and heat it until it melts, it isn't going to magically start to shed heat before you turn the oven off.  So if, say, molten aluminum is surrounded by steel, and that steel is at 1500 degrees, the aluminum is not going to cool and harden simply because it conducts heat better.

The differences that have come up between our views of this in this thread are not so much about what we think the NIST report should have considered important as what we consider to be verified data.  That might just be a matter of you having spent more time researching the events.  And perhaps there should have been more attention paid to claims of molten metal.  I don't know what the NIST investigators knew or how they may have made any decision to ignore such claims.  I do think that the presence of molten aluminum would be pretty unimportant to the investigation.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 7, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> How are you defining 'reporting' and 'confirming'?  What I've seen is reports of molten metal, or molten steel, but not confirmation of it.


 Well,many people reported seeing it, and reported the persistent fires that would flare up as pieces of debris were being removed. Some saw it, and some reported that they were told by others who said they saw it. There can be no denying something like this that so many agreed that they themselves saw it or knew of it. It was reported as news worthy to mention by news outlets as well.
A photographer wrote a book about it, after he was there on the ground and witnessed this. He was at GZ for months after the event. He said that the ground in places was so hot it melted the workers boots. 
"The surface was so hot that standing too long in one spot softened and even melted the soles of our safety shoes."
Publication:20121014021016 - 911Encyclopedia

Structural Engineer Abolhassan Astaneh-
"I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center." 
Abolhassan Astaneh - 911Encyclopedia
Online NewsHour: Report | Overpass Collapse Becomes Lesson | May 10, 2007 | PBS

Chaplain Herb Trimpe reported what he was told by many contractors-
"I talked to many contractors and they said they actually saw molten metal trapped, beams had just totally had been melted because of the heat."
Publication:20121014030604 - 911Encyclopedia

FDNY Captain Ruvolo -
"You'd get down below and you'd see molten steel -- molten steel! -- running down the channel rails. Like you're in a foundry... like lava... from a volcano."
Publication:20121014042540 - 911Encyclopedia

Also search and rescue teams -
 Penn Arts and Sciences, Summer 2002. Penn SAS Summer 2002 -- K-9/11

Dr Keith Eaton, Chief Executive of the London-based Institution of Structural Engineers-
molten metal which was still red-hot weeks after the event, as well as four-inch thick steel plates sheered and bent in the disaster.
Dr Keith Eaton, The Structural Engineer 3, September 2002
"They showed us many fascinating slides" ... "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."
Publication:20121013062331 - 911Encyclopedia

Many confirmed these reports, like Joe Allbaugh, director of FEMA,
http://web.archive.org/web/20031211095910/http://www.fema.gov/doc/diz01/gumbel1004.doc

Leslie Robertson saw it with his own eyes and confirms what he described as a "little river of STEEL flowing" after a firefighter showed it to him.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjmHqES_lto]Les Robertson Confirms Molten Metal in WTC Basement - YouTube[/ame]
He also stated-
...as of 21 days after the attack the fires were still burning and molten steel still running.
He is mentioned about this by James Williams, WTC a Structural Success, SEAU NEWS, The Newsletter of the Structural Engineers Association of Utah, October 2001, 

"descended deep below street level to areas where underground fires still burned and steel flowed in molten streams." -
Publication:20121014062821 - 911Encyclopedia

Alison Geyh, PhD. -
"In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel."
Publication:20121014064156 - 911Encyclopedia

Ron Burger -
"Feeling the heat, seeing the molten steel, the layers upon layers of ash, like lava, it reminded me of Mt. St. Helens and the thousands who fled that disaster"
Publication:20121014070613 - 911Encyclopedia

Guy Lounsbury of New York Air National Guard's 109th Air Wing -
"Smoke constantly poured from the peaks. One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers' remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots.
Publication:20121014075453 - 911Encyclopedia

William Langewiesche -
"the ominous groaning of weakened structures overhead, or, in the early days, the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole."
Publication:20121014082758 - 911Encyclopedia

Lee Turner of The Boone County Firefighters -
He remembers seeing in the darkness a distant, pinkish glowmolten metal dripping from a beambut found no signs of life.
Publication:20121013070727 - 911Encyclopedia

Greg Fuchek -
"In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel" 
Publication:20121014083815 - 911Encyclopedia

Joe O'Toole FDNY -
O'Toole remembers in February seeing a crane lift a steel beam vertically from deep within the catacombs of Ground Zero. "It was dripping from the molten steel,"
Publication:20121014085539 - 911Encyclopedia

Kenneth Holden, Commissioner of the New York City Department of Design and Construction-
"Underground, it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from Building 6."
Publication:20121014090955 - 911Encyclopedia

Richard Garlock, structural engineer for LERA -
Going below, it was smoky and really hot... The debris past the columns was red-hot, molten, running."
Publication:20121014091549 - 911Encyclopedia

Jim McKay, Post-Gazette Staff Writer interviewing Vance Deisingnore, OSHA Officer at WTC -
"a fire truck 10 feet below the ground that was still burning two weeks after the towers collapsed, its metal so hot it looked like a vat of molten steel."
Publication:20121014095123 - 911Encyclopedia

Ed Pfister, Disaster Medical Assistance Team -
"I spent several hours tonight, walking "the pile" and attempting to soak it all in for the last time and find a bit of closure...deep below ground a portion of the pile was still on fire and boiled with molten material. Sometimes, open flame would erupt as a crane pulled debris out and air rushed in. Fire hoses constantly poured streams of water causing huge billowing steam clouds to rise up over the site into the huge lights above."
Publication:20121014102509 - 911Encyclopedia

Larry Keating, Danny Doyle, Mike Emerson and Bobby Graves -- are veteran ironworkers in Local 40. -
Publication:20121014104642 - 911Encyclopedia

Fire Department Chief Mike Donoho of Texas Task Force 1 Urban Search and Rescue -
"What you had were large columns of steel that were just stuck into massive amounts of molten steel and other metals, that had just fused together from the heat and bonded together from the strength of the collapse. It looked like a massive, molten mess that had been fused together, like a car that had been cubed and crushed.  With all that heavy, heavy stuff, there were wires, rebar, concrete. Most of it was just steel. A lot of what we were walking on was just molten steel. " 
Publication:20121014105903 - 911Encyclopedia

Ben Robinson -
"The workers go through three pairs of rubber boots a day because they melt in the three-week-old fire of molten metal...the fire, molten metal, the lack of breathable air and 3000+ decomposing bodies."
Publication:20121014110600 - 911Encyclopedia

Thomas A. Cahill, a retired professor of physics and atmospheric science at the University of California, Davis-
"In mid-October, in the evening, when they would pull out a steel beam, the lower part would be glowing dull red, which indicates a temperature on the order of 500 to 600 °C. And we know that people were turning over pieces of concrete in December that would flash into fire - which requires about 300 °C. So the surface of the pile cooled rather rapidly, but the bulk of the pile stayed hot all the way to December." 
Publication:20121010111025 - 911Encyclopedia

"Ferer was one of several people in a visiting United Services Organization (USO)-Tribeca group who had lost family members. As they visited troops, they carried Port Authority pins, baseball caps, and a piece of molten steel from the WTC." -
Publication:20121014112038 - 911Encyclopedia

"Even as the steel cooled, there was concern that the girders had become so hot that they could crumble when lifted by overhead cranes. As a result, additional safeguards were put in place to limit the dangers associated with lifting the damaged steel and to protect the workers in the vicinity. Another danger involved the high temperature of twisted steel pulled from the rubble. Underground fires burned at temperatures up to 2,000 degrees. As the huge cranes pulled steel beams from the pile, safety experts worried about the effects of the extreme heat on the crane rigging and the hazards of contact with the hot steel. And they were concerned that applying water to cool the steel could cause a steam explosion"-
Publication:20121014233501 - 911Encyclopedia

The temperature at the core of "the pile," is near 2000 degrees Fahrenheit, according to fire officials 
ABCNEWS.com : Recovery Continues; No New Survivors

The US&R Teams were provided access to thermal imagery and began superimposing thermal data on collapse maps in October. This thermal imagery was collected on the same over flights of the WTC as the airborne LIDAR data that was being used to map the surface elevations each day. The National Information and Mapping Agency (NIMA), located at Pier 90 produced these maps. Firefighters and other responders contended with intense heat associated with the super-heated steel for weeks; some were coming back from shifts with the bottoms of their boots melted. 
School of Engineering & Applied Science at The George Washington University: Institute for Crisis, Disaster and Risk Management (ICDRM)

"Two weeks after the attack, the rubble, the Pile, is still 7 stories tall. Below, in the Pit it burns like the gates of hell. It is 1200 degrees, so hot that the steel work lifted by the grapplers comes out soft. I've never seen anything like this" -Capt. Susanne Caviness conversation with FDNY Firefighter -
Publication:20121015005452 - 911Encyclopedia


The list goes on. 
This was not just 2-3 isolated observances or scant mentioning of the melted steel, and the blatant flagrant disregard and dismissal of this by NIST is shameful. But again, this depends whether you want to look at what is available objectively, or not.




> Someone just recently provided a link to an article about NASA imaging of ground zero soon after 9/11.  According to that, while there were hot spots detected, there was no molten metal confirmed by the images.  And I'm not certain what areas of extreme heat after such an event is supposed to suggest.  I also don't think it said anything about these hot spots lasting 100 days after the event; I believe it talked about a week or two after, and how the number of hot spots was down to a few a couple of weeks after 9/11.


 Are we trying to trivialize this still? Look ,if the thermal imaging said that the temps were so hot at a certain location, would it not stand to reason that they would be even hotter below, from where they were emanating from?
Remember that the towers initially, were said to have collapsed due to the fires being hot enough, to melt the steel, then when they realized that the temps were not this great, they changed the story to only "weakened" the steel, and many of you followed suit but we have these extremely hot and intense fires and heat that was capable of MELTING steel? Do you not WANT see the obvious controversy? Can you not at least understand why some people think there was definitely something else that cause this, that NIST did not want to touch on?

Only 2 of the 3 that fell that day were impacted by planes, You can't use "jetfueled" fires when it comes to WTC 7., but it too experienced extreme rubble pile fires and heat.
This leads many to speculate that something was fueling these extremes, and sustaining them for 100 days or so.
I'll post what I have about the fires duration if you like. It is well known they lasted this long underground, in what would seemingly be a low oxygen environment.



> There is also a question of whether NIST intentionally disregarded important evidence, or disregarded evidence that had nothing to do with the collapse, or didn't actually disregard evidence at all.


 This depends on what you personally feel is important to you. You do know that NIST is not 100% sure of a lot of what they speculated on, so I would think that everything should have been taken into consideration instead of just dismissing some of it.
Actually NIST only considered events and data leading up to collapse, and did not attempt to explain the actual collapse events themselves, which is not following through in their mission statement. If had been a thorough and accurate investigation, and they would have used everything they could regarding the events, there would not be so much criticism..
Again one must concentrate on what within their body of work, is so convincing to you that you are willing to disregard their flagrant disregard for scientific integrity.

I have read the critics, and have read where in the NIST work they have a problem with it, and I have to agree with many of them and their positions. The disregard of the molten steel is just one instance.

Now about those fires and their testing? Did it fair better then this instance?


----------



## daws101 (Mar 7, 2013)

you have quantities of aluminum vs steel, and where each had their place in/on the towers? I've been waiting for anyone to answer this question, and no one has come up with anything, other then the dust samples, or an assumption by a CT debunking site that has no link to where they get their info from-SISTER JONES      ...sister jones lies twice in this statement
in the original version of this REQUEST:"I haven't seen anyone present how much solid aluminum compared to other metals such as iron/steel there was, anyone have any figures OTHER THEN dust, which we're not talking about at this time?"-sister jones post #89
he mentions nothing about WHERE the metals were.
when the amounts were presented to him he moves the goal posts. 
Sister jones do you know what the word cladding means?
I'll make it easy for you: most of the aluminum was on the OUTSIDE of the towers (except for the planes that ended  up  IN the towers)
Almost all of the steel was INSIDE the towers. now that's cleared up... It's irrelevant.
where those metals ended up is relevant ,in the subbasements.. along with tons of more combustible items.
so the existence of hot spots and even molten metal is not too surprising or proof of conspiracy.
the other lie by sister jones: assumption by a CT debunking site that has no link to where they get their info from- 
you have to go to the site and it list their sources...
you lying asshat...


----------



## daws101 (Mar 7, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > How are you defining 'reporting' and 'confirming'?  What I've seen is reports of molten metal, or molten steel, but not confirmation of it.
> ...


all the witness statements  from the same site smells like bias to me

http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/analysis/asse_groundzero1.htm 
another zero credibility site...


----------



## daws101 (Mar 7, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > How are you defining 'reporting' and 'confirming'?  What I've seen is reports of molten metal, or molten steel, but not confirmation of it.
> ...


who's we again? 
 the first we was the CT crowd, now it's your detractors.
could you please choose one WE  for clarity's  sake?


----------



## Montrovant (Mar 7, 2013)

I'm not going to quote in order to save space. 

I read the first 5+ links, then randomly clicked a couple more and read the summations.

First of all, there is very little that I could call confirmation of molten steel.  In fact, in the links I clicked, I don't know if there was a single instance of a direct quote from someone claiming to have seen molten steel.  It was a lot of, "This person said they saw molten steel" or, "These workers have been finding molten steel".  So many of those links could easily have been molten aluminum.

More, a few of the links describe temperatures within the debris well below the melting point of steel.  That certainly doesn't lend credence to the idea that there was molten steel.

That aside, perhaps a much more important question is if the fires would cause greater temperatures in the debris than in the towers before collapse?  I believe you have talked about the impossibility of an open-air fire reaching the temperatures necessary to melt steel.  Well, the fires underground in the debris were not open-air, were they?  

I'd also point out that in one of the first links you provide, that to an article about Structural Engineer Abolhassan Astaneh, he says that the fires weakening the steel was the reason for the collapse.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 7, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



What molten steel?


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 7, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > > I haven't yet seen conclusive evidence there was ANY molten metal at the site.
> ...



Since no evidence of some secret super accelerant which could melt steel or continue to burn for weeks was found there was no point in examining whatever molten mats were found at GZ.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 7, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > How are you defining 'reporting' and 'confirming'?  What I've seen is reports of molten metal, or molten steel, but not confirmation of it.
> ...



You are like a robot ... BS in = BS out.
Some of those quotes do not even mention steel, others, like Geyh were quoting what they heard from others (she was told about molten steel by an unknown source). Robertson said "molten metal" which was changed to "molten steel" by the author of that article (whose notes said "molten metal"). None of those listed actually tested the molten mats. You already know these facts but as predicted you simply ignore the truth because it conflicts with your pre-determined conclusions.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 8, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > How are you defining 'reporting' and 'confirming'?  What I've seen is reports of molten metal, or molten steel, but not confirmation of it.
> ...





You never get tired of handing the trolls their asses to them on a platter do you? notice there were four farts in a row from sockpuppet shill Sayit and 3 from other shill Dawgshit since your last post?


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 8, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Don't we need high temps to overcome the steel? Didn't the temps within GZ confirm this?.



Wait.

This your argument above?

That extreme temps were needed to overcome the steel (melt the steel) in the towers, that high temperatures in the debris pile confirm this, and NIST didn't analyze the debris pile to see what caused these high temps so therefore NIST didn't investigate this properly?

Is this the case?


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 8, 2013)

Here's your answer Mr. Jones on why/how the debris pile burned so hot and so long. No "mysterious" heat source.

A NATION CHALLENGED - THE FIREFIGHTERS - With Water and Sweat, Fighting the Most Stubborn Fire - NYTimes.com



> As in a stubborn coal mine fire, the combustion taking place deep below the surface is in many places not a fire at all. Instead, oxygen is charring the surfaces of buried fuels in a slow burn more akin to what is seen in the glowing coals of a raked-over campfire. But the scale of the trade center burning is vast, with thousands of plastic computers, acres of flammable carpet, tons of office furniture and steel and reservoirs of hydraulic oil and other fuels piled upon one another.





> ''When you have a huge mass of materials deeply buried like this, it's sort of analogous to the Centralia mine fire,'' said Dr. Thomas J. Ohlemiller, a chemical engineer and fire expert at the National Institute of Standards and Technology in Gaithersburg, Md. ''Very little heat is lost, so the reaction can keep going at relatively low temperatures, provided you have a weak supply of oxygen coming through the debris.''


----------



## daws101 (Mar 8, 2013)

9/11 inside job said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...


 and they let this guy breed.


----------



## daws101 (Mar 8, 2013)

Photographic evidence proves beyond a doubt that floors sagged, pulling perimeter columns in. An event some conspiracy sites suggest never happened.

With the fire proofing blown off, the fire only needed as little as 600 degrees C to deform the naked truss steel. Conspiracy theorists point to the UL tests which show the trusses sagged but never fail to say the building should have stood. But what conspiracy theorists don't tell you is that the test was done with a minimum of fire proofing on the trusses. The test was never meant to find out what caused the truss to fail. It was testing the fire proofing to see if it was up to code. 


The 1968 New York City   building   code - the code that the towers were intended but not required to meet when they were built required a two-hour fire rating for the   floor system.

Shyam Sunder, lead investigator of the NIST WTC investigation, explained that the four laboratory tests provide only a means for evaluating the relative fire resistance rating of the floor systems under standard fire conditions and according to accepted test procedures. Sunder cautioned, "These tests alone cannot be used to determine the actual performance of the floor systems in the collapse of the WTC towers. However, they are already providing valuable insight into the role that the floors may have played in causing the inward bowing of the perimeter columns minutes before both buildings collapsed."

"The fire conditions in the towers on 9-11 were far more extreme than those to which floor systems in standard U.S. fire rating tests are subjected," Sunder said to a group that gathered to watch yesterday's final test at Underwriters Laboratories (UL) in Northbrook, Ill. "Our investigation's final assessment of how the floor system performed in the WTC fires also must consider factors such as the combustible fuel load of the hijacked jets, the extent and number of floors involved, the rate of the fire spread across and between floors, ventilation conditions, and the impact of the   aircraft-damaged towers' ability to resist the fire," Sunder said

NIST Tests Provide Fire Resistance Data On World Trade Center Floor Systems 

This is more evidence conspiracy theorists are being dishonest when they point to these tests and suggest the building should not have collapsed. They KNOW this because this is old news.
Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - Sagging Trusses and Bowed Columns


----------



## Montrovant (Mar 8, 2013)

Can we please not keep quoting that extremely long post?


----------



## daws101 (Mar 8, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> Can we please not keep quoting that extremely long post?


which post  is that?


----------



## Montrovant (Mar 8, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Can we please not keep quoting that extremely long post?
> ...



The Mr. Jones post with all the links!


----------



## daws101 (Mar 8, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...


oh! that one...


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 9, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> I'm not going to quote in order to save space.
> 
> I read the first 5+ links, then randomly clicked a couple more and read the summations.
> 
> First of all, there is very little that I could call confirmation of molten steel.  In fact, in the links I clicked, I don't know if there was a single instance of a direct quote from someone claiming to have seen molten steel.  It was a lot of, "This person said they saw molten steel" or, "These workers have been finding molten steel".  So many of those links could easily have been molten aluminum.


 Cmon man, You're trivializing this again. The point is that there were many reports, and confirmations from many sources. The other point is the NIST ignored all of them, As I been saying, this I considered damaging to their honesty, credibility, and integrity.


> More, a few of the links describe temperatures within the debris well below the melting point of steel.  That certainly doesn't lend credence to the idea that there was molten steel.


 The links provided are in keeping with the spirit of the thread. Many have the same link, but if people bothered to click them it takes you to what link is available, in most cases. And again, there were more then 2-3 instances and sources that mentioned this phenomena, so IMO, it should have been looked into with more earnest effort by NIST.




> That aside, perhaps a much more important question is if the fires would cause greater temperatures in the debris than in the towers before collapse?  I believe you have talked about the impossibility of an open-air fire reaching the temperatures necessary to melt steel.  Well, the fires underground in the debris were not open-air, were they?


 This is the mystery. How could open air diffuse flame fires, first of all...get hot enough to overcome the steel support components of these buildings, without actually doing any melting, but be able to produce such extreme temps within the wreckage, and be sustained for so long a time??? I'm at a loss to explain this, and apparently NIST was too, which is why they ignored this and just passed over it...


> I'd also point out that in one of the first links you provide, that to an article about Structural Engineer Abolhassan Astaneh, he says that the fires weakening the steel was the reason for the collapse.


 Yes, following the links he talks about that bridge overpass that collapsed a few years ago, and mentions molten steel at the WTC when he was there in comparison.

BTW, Tho you seem to be having some degree of difficulty I appreciate you at least being open minded enough to keep this civil and interesting....for now at least.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 9, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Hey man, Dawgshit started it with the list of people NIST contracted, as if a wall will somehow legitimize anything he says...But it still is the NIST report.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 9, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Don't we need high temps to overcome the steel? Didn't the temps within GZ confirm this?.
> ...



The wreckage pile temps were hot enough to melt steel...But no such thing occurred before the collapses..Fires in a low oxygen environment should not have reached melting metal temps...and lasted for 100 days or so...NIST should have been more diligent regarding this IMO.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 9, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Here's your answer Mr. Jones on why/how the debris pile burned so hot and so long. No "mysterious" heat source.
> 
> A NATION CHALLENGED - THE FIREFIGHTERS - With Water and Sweat, Fighting the Most Stubborn Fire - NYTimes.com
> 
> ...



From page 2 of your link-
_It is no mystery why the fire has burned for so long. Mangled steel and concrete and assorted combustibles are all in great supply in the six-story basement area where the two towers collapsed._ 
Is steel being considered a combustible along with concrete??? WTF? Also, what combustible fuel source would be able to achieve temps in the range of 2700 Deg? This article just glosses over this...Steel being compared to fucking coal? Are they serious? LOL..


_
 One idea that was accepted came from a company in Lynchburg, Va., that sold the city about 3,000 gallons of its product Pyrocool, which, when mixed with water, is intended to absorb heat from a fire until the temperature drops below the point of combustion. A total of 750,000 gallons of the diluted Pyrocool was spread over ground zero in late September and early October, at a cost of about $120,000.

When round-the-clock Pyrocool treatment at the trade center was stopped after a week, Chief Blaich said, there was noticeable progress. But the fires were still burning, in large part because of difficulty in getting the substance down through the debris pile and directly onto hot spots. _
 OK, let me get this straight...Some say the fires were being fed by a LOW supply of oxygen that somehow filtered its way through the tangles mess to juuuust keep the fires alive, at great temps mind you....BUT the pyrocool being a liquid...couldn't slither its way down there despite thousands of gallon of it being pumped in????
Doesn't make sense IYAM.


----------



## Montrovant (Mar 9, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



I'm not trying to blame you for anything or complain about your original post with the links.  I do, in fact, appreciate that.  I just hate how such a long post ends up quoted, then quoted again, leaving me to have to scroll through a bunch of stuff I've already seen that isn't actually needed for the new post.    I've made the same complaint in other threads, to multiple posters.


----------



## Montrovant (Mar 9, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not going to quote in order to save space.
> ...



I can accept that you think the investigation should have looked into reports of molten steel.  As a layman, from many of the things I've read about this, it seems quite possible that reports of molten steel may have actually been aluminum or other low-temperature melting metal that was assumed to be steel.  Because of steel's fairly high melting point, I can easily see such claims, if not verified, being dismissed as mistakes.  And while you provided a number of links about molten metal at ground zero, few if any appear to be direct and convincing accounts that it must have been steel and not some other material.

I don't know about the possibilities of greater temps in the debris.  I asked you because you have brought up open-air fires before, seemingly saying that such a fire cannot reach the temperatures needed to melt steel.  As such, I was just wondering if the fires in the debris, being of a different sort, might reach the required temp.

While that structural engineer does mention melted steel in the towers, his claim is in regards to the bending seen in beams he studied, not pools of molten metal found on site.  And he clearly did say that weakening of the steel was the likely cause of the collapses. 

I'd like to have this remain civil.  I don't think we're going to convince each other of the opposing viewpoint, but that doesn't mean we need to be nasty.  I know these kinds of arguments often do get that way, and I also know that in responding to others some might accidentally splash on me, so I'm trying to avoid getting annoyed or frustrated overly much.  It's very easy to just lump all conspiracy theorists together, and I imagine it's very easy for conspiracy theorists to lump those who agree with the government versions together.  I'll try to keep my responses individual and not reply based on anything said by the other frequenters of this forum.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 9, 2013)

> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > I can accept that you think the investigation should have looked into reports of molten steel.  As a layman, from many of the things I've read about this, it seems quite possible that reports of molten steel may have actually been aluminum or other low-temperature melting metal that was assumed to be steel.  Because of steel's fairly high melting point, I can easily see such claims, if not verified, being dismissed as mistakes.  And while you provided a number of links about molten metal at ground zero, few if any appear to be direct and convincing accounts that it must have been steel and not some other material.
> ...


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 10, 2013)

No one has anything any fire testing that slam dunks the theory of trusses failing due to intense fires, causing the bolted and welded angle supports to simply "unzip" all the way around each floor, from the core columns to the perimeter columns?


----------



## Montrovant (Mar 10, 2013)

Sorry, I'd need to go look at what exactly is in the NIST report to answer your question.  That might take a while, I'm not rushing to do it. 

I enjoy this conversation well enough, but wading through the NIST looking for specific data is more involved than I usually get into when I'm browsing this board.  I've also got some things taking up my time in the next couple of days.  Hopefully I can find and read the relevant portions this week and get back to you.


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 11, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> The wreckage pile temps were hot enough to melt steel...


Do you have a link proving these temps or are you still assuming there was melted steel?



Mr. Jones said:


> But no such thing occurred before the collapses..


So?



Mr. Jones said:


> Fires in a low oxygen environment should not have reached melting metal temps...


Provide you proof that they did. Nobody can visually tell the difference between molten aluminum and molten steel.


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 11, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> From page 2 of your link-
> _It is no mystery why the fire has burned for so long. Mangled steel and concrete and assorted combustibles are all in great supply in the six-story basement area where the two towers collapsed._
> Is steel being considered a combustible along with concrete??? WTF? Also, what combustible fuel source would be able to achieve temps in the range of 2700 Deg? This article just glosses over this...Steel being compared to fucking coal? Are they serious? LOL..



LOL

Reading comprehension for the win!!! REad that quote again. Where is that saying that steel is a combustible fuel source???

Do you know what "and" means. If the quote said *"Mangled steel and concrete, combustible fuels sources, blah blah blah"*, you'd have a point. If you can't understand what is being said, that's your problem.



Mr. Jones said:


> _
> One idea that was accepted came from a company in Lynchburg, Va., that sold the city about 3,000 gallons of its product Pyrocool, which, when mixed with water, is intended to absorb heat from a fire until the temperature drops below the point of combustion. A total of 750,000 gallons of the diluted Pyrocool was spread over ground zero in late September and early October, at a cost of about $120,000.
> 
> When round-the-clock Pyrocool treatment at the trade center was stopped after a week, Chief Blaich said, there was noticeable progress. But the fires were still burning, in large part because of difficulty in getting the substance down through the debris pile and directly onto hot spots. _
> ...



Why doesn't it makes sense? If there was a fuel/heat source at the bottom of the pile, How can you make sure you actually get the stuff to it??? You don't even know where the heat source is!!


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 11, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> We have to consider what was in there that could have provided fuel to attain those temps, and to sustain those fires, and this is the mystery as NIST blew it off, so many are left to speculate, as to what could burn so high and so long with very little oxygen. As I said, we are led to believe that somehow enough oxygen was making its way down there (70 ft or so) but somehow thousands of gallons of pyrocool couldn't ??



Your ignorance is showing yet again.

Fire DRAWS oxygen to it. Go do some research will you! The debris pile was pourous enough to let enough oxygen get drawn to the fires/hot spots. 

You mean to tell me you can't figure out the difference between fire drawing oxygen TO ITSELF and trying to get a liquid TO A PARTICULAR UNKNOWN LOCATION DEEP WITHIN A DEBRIS PILE????


----------



## whitehall (Mar 11, 2013)

Interesting that the NIST "investigation" was funded through FEMA. People are still waiting for assistance for devastation of Sandy but the government thinks that we should spend money to re-investigate the laws of physics.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 11, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > We have to consider what was in there that could have provided fuel to attain those temps, and to sustain those fires, and this is the mystery as NIST blew it off, so many are left to speculate, as to what could burn so high and so long with very little oxygen. As I said, we are led to believe that somehow enough oxygen was making its way down there (70 ft or so) but somehow thousands of gallons of pyrocool couldn't ??
> ...



Dude, give it up already..I think I made myself clear in the points I was making.
Many reports of molten steel from many sources.
It was more then reasonable to suspect it was not aluminum.
NIST blew this phenomena off by saying they never even heard of this, despite the many sources and people saying the opposite.
This was one of the first instances where I started losing respect for NIST's integrity, end of chapter.
We could debate this till hell freezes over and it wont make a bit of difference or change any of it, or what we personally think..
I'm trying to move on to the NIST metallurgical and fire testing. Remember this isn't about trying to change anybody's mind, it is about trying to understand why we have we have opposing views.
Feel free to post what results in the NIST testing are convincing to you regarding the fires, the trusses, the steel etc...


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 11, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > The wreckage pile temps were hot enough to melt steel...
> ...



Can you provide the links where these images originated from? I did a search and come up with your photobucket account, and some place that sells images for the first one, and no results on the 2nd.
Anyway, how can we be sure that this is exactly what the GZ people saw? Is it possible the molten part was on the end of a piece of aluminum?
This is why it is important to reason, how much aluminum was in the building and where it was placed, and where the molten parts were in the piles.
The fact that there was significantly more steel vs aluminum throughout the towers, and that the aluminum was mostly on the *outer *skin of the *outer* perimeter columns, and that the molten phenomena was occurring deep within the centers of all* 3 *buildings (WTC7 had no aluminum skin) makes a much stronger case for the metal being anything but aluminum.
There was no mentioning of any of these reports that it was aluminum. 
There was a lot being mentioned about melting steel, right after the collapses by experts, and during the GZ clean up and the aftermath.
Good God man, all the talk was about the steel being melted, the steel turning to licorice etc..The steel supports failing due to fire..Not aluminum!
Now you want to act as though it was all aluminum and the towers were made of aluminum components rather then steel! 
You know damn well they were not, and you know damn well that NIST ignored dealing with this, and that this was initially when I started doubting NIST's integrity, which is the main point I am trying to convey regarding this topic..

Now perhaps you can discuss what in the NIST special testing in regards to the steel, the fires, trusses etc.. provides convincing proof that fits their hypothesis?


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 11, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> Sorry, I'd need to go look at what exactly is in the NIST report to answer your question.  That might take a while, I'm not rushing to do it.
> 
> I enjoy this conversation well enough, but wading through the NIST looking for specific data is more involved than I usually get into when I'm browsing this board.  I've also got some things taking up my time in the next couple of days.  Hopefully I can find and read the relevant portions this week and get back to you.


 No problem most of us can't spend all our time on here as though it was a job.
What I usually do is read what sites have to say regarding this topic and check the source that supports their opinions, but since this thread is about what in the NIST report itself makes us have our views, it must come from NIST itself. ie: what in it is strong and what in it is weak.

To summarize, the instance where NIST ignored the reports of molten steel and did not give it any attention is the first big strike I have about their integrity. There are other instances throughout their investigation and reports where they ignore or dismiss other claims, but I figured we'd start as close to the beginning as possible, and the news from GZ in the immediate aftermath seemed to a good place to start...


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 11, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



Not if your sources claim never to have said "molten steel" (Robertson) or were repeating what they heard others had said (Geyh) or had no way of knowing what the molten mats were (everyone else). In all, you and they have _absolutely no proof_ that what they saw was molten steel. None.
Therefore it is not only unreasonable to assume it was steel and continue to post such nonsense, it is at best intellectually dishonest and at worst intentionally misleading.
Oh, yeah ... and have a nice day.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 11, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



Indeed we can't be sure exactly what the GZ people saw _and neither can those who made those unsubstantiated claims_ but we know the fires did not burn hot enough to melt steel, therefore the molten mats had to have been something else. The steel supports did fail but as has been repeatedly pointed out to you (yet ignored), they did not melt but simply lost the strength necessary to support the floors. This is not rocket science, Princess ... how is it you can't seem to grasp the truth (or is it you choose not to)?


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 11, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



Yeah, you did make yourself clear. 

Read your damn statement again!


Mr. Jones said:


> As I said, we are led to believe that somehow enough oxygen was making its way down there (70 ft or so) but somehow thousands of gallons of pyrocool couldn't ??



You're trying to draw similarities between the two things above and then show that it's a mystery as to why the end result isn't the same, hence the "we are led to believe" crap.

The point is oxygen is DRAWN to a fire while a liquid will just seep wherever gravity pulls it. The water and pyrocool can't be directed to an unknown location, 70ft down in a massive debris pile.


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 11, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Anyway, how can we be sure that this is exactly what the GZ people saw?



Exactly!!!!!


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 11, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Remember this isn't about trying to change anybody's mind, it is about trying to understand why we have we have opposing views.



I can tell you why we have opposing views without looking at the NIST report.

Go back to your first opening post. It is full of incorrect assumptions and claims. Let's start with this.


Mr. Jones said:


> I believe we should  start at the reason that NIST stated in their reports as to what caused the WTC towers to collapse, and that is, intense heat from fires that were produced by jetfuel/kerosene from the planes.NIST agrees that the buildings withstood the plane impacts, and THESE buildings, as DESIGNED by the creators, redistributed the loads from the damaged components.
> To be clear... this is in regards to the planes impacting the buildings. I agree that not all building designers will take this consideration into account, but those of the WTC DID.



The paragraph above is full of garbage. It was not only "intense heat" that caused the collapse of the twin towers. It was a combination of the plane impact damage AND the resultant fires. You just don't get. The plane impacts weakened the structure and the fires finished them off.

Here is NIST's exlpanation:


> Based on its comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large number of jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius, or 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidenceas well as accounts from the New York City Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapsesupport this sequence for each tower.



I will go no further until you correct your understanding of what actually happened and quit cherry picking bullshit as you see fit to support your bogus beliefs.


----------



## daws101 (Mar 11, 2013)

somewhere is this thread sister jones claimed he was searching for the truth.
a actual search would require an objective POV. a skill he does not possess, 
right about now sister jones will make some unnecessary comment about the so called government version being not objective and anyone who takes some or all of that version as fact to be "in on it."


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 11, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



It'd be helpful if you followed Gamolons request to post links in this thread, showing us where you are getting your information.

It would have been a plus for NIST if they would have followed through on their mission statement, and conducted a thorough examination of ALL things, instead of ignoring a major phenomena like the molten steel reports that were so numerous.
Perhaps they could have very easily dismissed it as insignificant or even false by simply looking into it and explaining it. 
After all, they did examine other things within the wreckage piles.

Just by the shear volume of reports, (and the steel) including eyewitnesses, it should have been investigated and not ignored, and again many people feel this was just one of among many flaws, in the NIST study.

Can you find sources that were at GZ that adamantly deny the existence of any molten steel or metal materials? Or that say as you do, that the numerous people who reported it, and or saw it, are somehow lying, or are sorely mistaken?
Or how about any people at GZ that reported seeing any molten aluminum instead of steel?

I posted links to Robertson and one of him on video, where he says he was shown by a FDNY a "little river of steel flowing" after saying "once WE were down at the B1 level"
He clearly said he was there, and it was shown to him.

Therefore it is not unreasonable to assume it was steel that was being discussed instead of aluminum, and it is intellectually dishonest and misleading on your part to try and continue to pretend otherwise..
BTW...Where is your list that contains numerous eyewitnesses, reports, and confirmations to the contrary? That oppose these people?
http://www.usmessageboard.com/6920386-post143.html

Not once have you posted about any of the witnesses in any of the reports anywhere mentioning molten aluminum, and certainly nothing at all from NIST, and you certainly have not provided anything in this thread that gives credence to your CT, or where in the NIST findings is there anything that substantiate and strengthen your views, which is what the thread is supposed to be about. 
It is an opportunity to substantiate your CT based on information you are supposed to know about, while I in turn provide information that substantiates my own views, and so far you think that by NIST ignoring and NOT addressing the numerous accounts of this phenomena, somehow is beneficial..

Your OCT site "9/11Myths" doesn't help you much either...and says "it is obviously difficult to estimate how much molten aluminum was produced _in _either of the twin towers during 9/11."
""it is _probable _that 10,000kg of molten aluminum formed _in_ each tower" 

which I think may be rather generous, but that comes out to only 22,046lbs.... which was mostly on the outside perimeter, and fell away from the centers and likely could not have ended up to 70 feet below the ground. Remembering where the planes impacted, not even they would be found at this low level, especially if you believe the towers actually "pancaked" to the ground LOL!

So you are trying to twist turn and squirm as hard as you can and speculate that this aluminum, was most likely what was reported in a molten state,within the wreckage, (though you have no reports of any melted aluminum in the piles that I have see in this thread) as opposed to the 200,000 tons of steel that comprised each tower...., with individual columns in the lower core section, parts of which weighed up to 56 tons. 

Your assumptions are not very convincing. Too bad NIST can't be counted on to help you out.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 11, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Remember this isn't about trying to change anybody's mind, it is about trying to understand why we have we have opposing views.
> ...



Whose cherry picking? NIST agreed the towers withstood the plane impacts, and that it was the fires that caused the collapses. Read and try to comprehend what you just posted.
Tell me..if the planes had empty fuel tanks, do you suppose they would have collapsed?
If the plane impacts were so detrimental why didn't they collapse immediately after impacts? Because according to NIST it was the 
(2) the subsequent unusually large number of jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius, or 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) significantly weakened the floors and columns.

Now I have asked you numerous times to move onto the subject of any NIST testing regarding this, that solidifies your belief in them, but you seem to be avoiding doing so, why is this?
We already hashed over one of the strikes I have against them and their integrity.
To summarize, you assume that 22,046 lbs of aluminum as opposed to 200,000 tons of steel was what was up to 70 feet deep in the wreckage piles, and was most likely what was reported as being molten/melted "flowing like little rivers" etc....

So on to the testing regarding the fires/fuel load estimates, and the metallurgical studies, so we can discuss how those fared.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 11, 2013)

daws101 said:


> somewhere is this thread sister jones claimed he was searching for the truth.
> a actual search would require an objective POV. a skill he does not possess,
> right about now sister jones will make some unnecessary comment about the so called government version being not objective and anyone who takes some or all of that version as fact to be "in on it."



Hey "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" right? So this thread is about this extraordinary evidence that you OCT believers say exist, so where is it all?
In the NIST reports? Well this is your chance to post why you believe their guesses, assumptions and theory is so dead on accurate.
Tell me about the fire and fuel load testing, and the metallurgical studies that have you so convinced..


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 11, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > We have to consider what was in there that could have provided fuel to attain those temps, and to sustain those fires, and this is the mystery as NIST blew it off, so many are left to speculate, as to what could burn so high and so long with very little oxygen. As I said, we are led to believe that somehow enough oxygen was making its way down there (70 ft or so) but somehow thousands of gallons of pyrocool couldn't ??
> ...



Where do you get this idea that there was so much oxygen available, to feed the extreme temps to the point of melting steel or even aluminum for that matter, and that somehow air would flow down but a liquid helped by gravity could not? Please link me to this knowledge, instead of just posting your speculation and opinion, after all it was you that requested links to any info in your first postings in this thread.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 11, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...




I offer no conspiracy theory, Princess, just rational conclusions based on available _facts_, rather than the speculation to which you so readily subscribe. And since you are aware that I used 9/11myths.com - as I credited their work - why are you now feigning ignorance of that?
As of this posting there has been found no evidence of molten steel or secret super explosives, accelerants or corrosives which could slice through steel, burn for weeks and leave no trace.
None. 
What people said or thought they saw, or repeated what someone else said or thought they saw, _is not proof of molten steel_.
None of your sources tested the molten mats and as such you are forced to base your pre-conceived conclusions on _that which does not exist_. NIST was not charged with guessing what CTs you would produce nor were they asked to disprove them in advance.


----------



## daws101 (Mar 11, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...


1.sister jones is lying about NIST's mission statement (it has already been presented) but for the sake of fact here it is again: 2002 the National Construction Safety Team Act mandated NIST to conduct an investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings 1 and 2 and the 47-story 7 World Trade Center. The "World Trade Center Collapse Investigation", directed by lead investigator Shyam Sunder,[12] covered three aspects, including a technical building and fire safety investigation to study the factors contributing to the probable cause of the collapses of the WTC Towers (WTC 1 and 2) and WTC 7. NIST also established a research and development program to provide the technical basis for improved building and fire codes, standards, and practices, and a dissemination and technical assistance program to engage leaders of the construction and building community in implementing proposed changes to practices, standards, and codes. NIST also is providing practical guidance and tools to better prepare facility owners, contractors, architects, engineers, emergency responders, and regulatory authorities to respond to future disasters. The investigation portion of the response plan was completed with the release of the final report on 7 World Trade Center on November 20, 2008. The final report on the WTC Towers &#8211; including 30 recommendations for improving building and occupant safety &#8211; was released on October 26, 2005.[13]
nowhere does it say ALL.
2. "It is an opportunity to substantiate your CT based on information you are supposed to know about, while I in turn provide information that substantiates my own views," -sister jones.

the previous statement is a false declarative..
sister jones has no corroborating evidence of any kind to substantiate :  Definition of SUBSTANTIATE
1
: to give substance or form to : embody 
2
: to establish by proof or competent evidence 

 or verify his claims 
3. the only poster twisting and squirming is you and your desperate attempt to hold on to your delusion.

by the way why didn't sister post the actual nist report ?


----------



## daws101 (Mar 11, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...


please show what mathematical formula you used to come up with this figure :22,046 lbs  you believe was all the aluminum that melted for this figure: on WTC 1 & 2. In quantitative terms it may be estimated that 2,000,000 kg of anodized 0.09&#61618; aluminum sheet was used, in the form of 43,600 panels
or are you just pulling random numbers out of you ass?


----------



## daws101 (Mar 11, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > somewhere is this thread sister jones claimed he was searching for the truth.
> ...


you still don't get it! you are the one who claims they're wrong, so it's on you to prove it, you've presented nothing in the way of hard evidence.. just specious critiques by people laboring under the same false premise as you.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 11, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Not to mention those with a vested interest or agenda.


----------



## daws101 (Mar 11, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...


absofuckinglutly  correct.


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 12, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



You must be blind or deliberately trying to troll here. Here is the synopsis  of NIST's finding from their own webpage:


> *6. What caused the collapses of WTC 1 and WTC 2?*
> 
> Based on its comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; *and* (2) the subsequent unusually large number of jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius, or 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence&#8212;as well as accounts from the New York City Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse&#8212;support this sequence for each tower.



Do you see how they say the towers COLLAPSED from the combination of the damage caused by the plane impact AND the fires? I even highlighted/enlarged the "and" between the two reasons. Yes thay resisted the impact. But the impact weakened the structure as a whole. Now apply the fire to the already weakened structure, something they didn't do calculations or testing for (as admitted by Leslie Robertson). The towers collapsed due to both.

Any further claims that it was "just fire" is a lie and you are just trolling.



Mr. Jones said:


> Read and try to comprehend what you just posted.


I did. Read my statement above.



> Tell me..if the planes had empty fuel tanks, do you suppose they would have collapsed?
> If the plane impacts were so detrimental why didn't they collapse immediately after impacts? Because according to NIST it was the
> (2) the subsequent unusually large number of jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius, or 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) significantly weakened the floors and columns.


Do you have a reading comprehension problem or did you purposely leave out the *AND* right in front of the (2)?! It's not "the impacts OR the fire. It was the combination of both.



Mr. Jones said:


> Now I have asked you numerous times to move onto the subject of any NIST testing regarding this, that solidifies your belief in them, but you seem to be avoiding doing so, why is this?


I refuse to move on because you don't understand what happened. How is this good for the debate? You made statements like the one above that are 100% false. I even provided the quote from NIST themselves that says it was the combination of the fire and impact damage, but you completely ignore that. Why move on when you base you arguments on false evidence?



Mr. Jones said:


> We already hashed over one of the strikes I have against them and their integrity.
> To summarize, you assume that 22,046 lbs of aluminum as opposed to 200,000 tons of steel was what was up to 70 feet deep in the wreckage piles, and was most likely what was reported as being molten/melted "flowing like little rivers" etc....
> 
> So on to the testing regarding the fires/fuel load estimates, and the metallurgical studies, so we can discuss how those fared.



Your problem is that you have no verifiable proof that it was molten steel. I don't give a shit  how many supposed "experts" you think you have. You can't tell the difference between molten steel and molten aluminum by sight alone. That is the crux of your whole argument and what you are basing temperatures on. You have no verifiable tests as to how how hot the the temperatures were inside the debris pile. That is a fact. 

1. I have shown you proof as to why they fireproof structural steel. Especially in restrained structures.
2. I have provided proof that molten steel can look like molten aluminum.
3. You don't understand conduction.
4. You want to compare the process of how a fire can draw oxygen to itself to how water and pyrocool seep downward due to gravity.
5. You want to claim that the twin towers collapsed in 9 and 11 seconds which is easily refuted with videos.
6. you want to claim that there was no resistance in the twin towers yet I can see perimeter panels falling AHEAD of the collapse front of the building proper.

Yet you want to move past all this to see why we have different views?

It's right there in front of you. You have different views because your base evidence is totally incorrect.


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 12, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Can you find sources that were at GZ that adamantly deny the existence of any molten steel or metal materials?



Why did some of your "experts" say molten metal and not identify it as molten steel? Did they not know what they were looking at?


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 12, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Where do you get this idea that there was so much oxygen available, to feed the extreme temps to the point of melting steel or even aluminum for that matter, and that somehow air would flow down but a liquid helped by gravity could not?





Read what you posted again. I highlighted the important part in red. The air was DRAWN to the fire. The air did not flow down to it due to gravity. Do you get it yet. The liquid was not drawn to the fire. 

The debris pile was not a solid mass. It was porous. The fires sucked air through the porous cavities of the debris pile. 

This is simple stuff Mr. Jones. No wonder we have different views.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 12, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Where do you get this idea that there was so much oxygen available, to feed the extreme temps to the point of melting steel or even aluminum for that matter, and that somehow air would flow down but a liquid helped by gravity could not?
> ...



Blinded by his unshakable beliefs he will not put 2 and 2 together and even if you continue to beat it into him he will refuse to accept it. Jones is neither stupid nor ignorant ... just totally committed to his agenda to the exclusion of logic, truth and facts.


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 12, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Can you find sources that were at GZ that adamantly deny the existence of any molten steel or metal materials?



Why, if you're so cocksure about there being molten steel, do you keep using the term "molten metal/s"?

That means there was possibly other metals. Hence, some of your "expert" witnesses saying "molten metal" and not "molten steel".

I guarantee you that if I had these witnesses on the stand, I would easily show their visual testimony as being incorrect because they wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the two photos I keep posting.

That's a fact.

That blows your whole "melted steel" temperatures out of the water which is why you cling to it like a truther life preserver.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 12, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > We already hashed over one of the strikes I have against them and their integrity.
> ...



Like many here you have repeatedly and factually (and _remarkably_ patiently) refuted the underlying "facts" the CT - in this case Mr. Jones - uses to support his particular CT.
As I do not believe Jones is either stupid or ignorant there are only two explanations for his staunch refusal to abandon or at least modify his CT ... either coercion or willful obstinance.
The only question left is why Jones acts in such an irrational way which only Jones or his shrink can answer.


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 12, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



If Mr. Jones and others start to correct all the little incorrect beliefs from the start, it gets rid of the end conclusion.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 12, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



Which is, after all, where his CT begins ... his conclusions. Jones has admitted he believes the Jooos did it and everything he accepts as fact must conform to that belief regardless of its veracity.


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 12, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



So the discussion stops here because Mr. Jones will not change incorrect statements made in the first post so there is no point in going forward.

It is quite clear to me why we and Mr. Jones have differing views (see above sentence).


----------



## daws101 (Mar 12, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...


bump!


----------



## eots (Mar 12, 2013)

the NIST report is a joke


----------



## daws101 (Mar 12, 2013)

eots said:


> the NIST report is a joke


another scathing retort by eots .


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 12, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Hey "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" right? So this thread is about this extraordinary evidence that you OCT believers say exist, so where is it all?
> In the NIST reports? Well this is your chance to post why you believe their guesses, assumptions and theory is so dead on accurate.
> Tell me about the fire and fuel load testing, and the metallurgical studies that have you so convinced..



On a side note Mr. Jones. Show us YOUR side's evidence? Where is a white paper that explains how, with calculations and models, the buildings were brought down by controlled demolitions? You seem to think that proving NIST wrong proves controlled demolition. 11 years of total failure. 

Maybe you should ask Richard Gage to sink some of his $80,000 salary that he's suck up from his adoring fans into an actual study. How about that? Maybe he should do that instead of traveling the world expressing his unfounded beliefs. 

Is that why you have to hang your hat on false claims and assumptions? You can't even defend the garbage in your original post. That's why you want to "move on"...


----------



## daws101 (Mar 12, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Hey "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" right? So this thread is about this extraordinary evidence that you OCT believers say exist, so where is it all?
> ...


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 12, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Can you find sources that were at GZ that adamantly deny the existence of any molten steel or metal materials?
> ...


I at times say "molten metals" because it gets to the point where it doesn't even matter anymore what the metal was, the fact is that NO molten metal should have survived
for as long as it was reported, and no fires should have been expected to last as long as they did.
I have shown you that the likelihood of it being aluminum is extremely unlikely, even using one of your own "debunking" sites figures, and the placement of aluminum throughout the buildings in relation to where the molted "metals" and fires were reported etc...
I have shown you that indeed there were numerous eyewitness reports and confirmations including Robertson and other credible people..

I see you can't answer the question, nor do you have anything rational to say regarding the other questions I asked you.
Fact is, you can't deny that numerous reports including eyewitnesses like Robertson claimed he saw it, and claimed it was "melted steel flowing like a little river"
and you have no rational or convincing explanation as to why the NIST blatantly ignored this. 
All you can do is try to spin it in the most absurd way possible, and you fail to produce any viable defense in favor of NIST, and their disregard of this widely seen, and reported phenomena, that included huge efforts to put out oxygen starved fires that lasted for 100 days.
This isn't about proving each other wrong, it is just an attempt to help us try to understand why we have our positions regarding what was said about the 9-11 attacks and the subsequent NIST investigation and their assumptions, and theory.

I have been trying to get you to proceed on and get to other parts of the NIST investigation and report, but you want to continue to defend something that has been talked about at great length, and the conclusions and points have been made regarding our position on the matter.
I think NIST fucked up regarding the molten steel by ignoring overwhelming evidence, and you give them a pass and think it was right for them to do so...end of story.
Now what else in the report/testing do you have that overwhelmingly convinces you
to not even question their accuracy?


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 12, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



In this thread all we have accomplished so far is to point out what we personally deem is important or not, and we've only discussed the reports of molten steel, and our views on it. I showed you why many people including many experts in their fields started to doubt NIST's integrity, and that I agree with them.
I am ready to move on to other parts of the NIST report and testing so we can discuss
where else we disagree, or maybe even find some points that we do agree with that we didn't know we agreed on...

I don't know why you are getting bent outta shape over the molten steel, I'm sure it is only one of many parts that other experts questioned anyway.

What else did NIST have to say?


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 12, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



That's funny because I think you have incorrect beliefs from the start, but you have signed on to a thread that I made clear was about what in the NIST report/s convinces us that it is accurate or not.
If you do not want to proceed because you and others want to sidetrack it by bringing up other shit, then go and post on another thread. It seems that you are afraid of continuing and keeping with the threads intention and afraid to bring any other things relating to the NIST report up.
I say the NIST report is flawed, and I will show you where and why I think its flawed. Your task in this thread is to show where and why you think it's not.
If you refuse to proceed I can only assume that it is because you are afraid the weakness of what you believe in will be exposed, like the previous point I made.

The primary stated objective of the NIST investigation was to determine the cause of the WTC collapse, and NIST should have conducted a forensic examination of the full spectrum of evidence. I showed you just one instance where many experts feel they didn't, and you want to cut and run already? Aw...because I have different views then you do and can show you specifically where and why I do?
What a fucking crybaby! Wow I gave you too much credit and over estimated your tenacity.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 12, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Hey "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" right? So this thread is about this extraordinary evidence that you OCT believers say exist, so where is it all?
> ...



What's the matter don't you have anything you can hang your hat on and point to in the NIST reports investigation that solidifies your position?
Cmon, stop being a pussy and let's talk about the rest of their investigation. You all adamantly defend the OCT, so explain to me why?
We've only just started and the molten steel is only one instance I can show YOU where experts and regular folks like me disagree with NIST.

I want to move on because it's obvious we wont change our minds regarding the molten steel reports and the subsequent ignoring of it by NIST, but there are other opportunities in the investigation including testing etc that we can explore.
This isn't about anyone claiming a "victory" as I said, this thread is about helping us understand why we either believe the NIST is accurate or not.

So you have nothing else to declare regarding NIST? There's 10,000 pages of it, I'm sure you could try to find something to talk about?
 I tend to side with other experts who publicly refuted their tactics, and their findings. Molten steel is only one of many.
The NIST


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 12, 2013)

eots said:


> the NIST report is a joke



But they don't think so, so I started this thread as an opportunity for all of us to point out it isn't or is and now they just want to run away. I ready to take on what they have to say and show me and they make excuses and want to duck out like sissy's. Shit man, I would have thought they would be eager to point out the NIST's accuracy and really show us how wrong we are!

Fact is this is the kind of behavior we should expect from these people, all talk and no balls.
They believe in something they can't even defend when confronted on it. Fucking pussies.
I guess you're right the NIST report is a fucking joke, but these boneheads will disagree with us, but run away when they have to try to explain why they even disagree!

42 volumes of supporting documentation, 10,000 pages and not a single one of these defenders of the OCT can muster a single post about them......


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 12, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



Not so fast, Princess. 
It was _you_ who brought "molten steel" into this discussion and have not only failed to prove it existed but failed to admit no one really knows what those molten mats were. There is no point moving beyond this point until you do so.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 12, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > the NIST report is a joke
> ...



What a pompous jackass! Either you don't realize you've had your ass handed to you (again) or you're whistling past the graveyard. What has been irrefutably established is that without assumptions, suppositions, half-truths, pseudoscience and outright fabrications you and your CT Movement have nothing. Whatever shortcomings the NIST report may have pale when compared to the gapping holes in your CTs. You couldn't even get out of the starting block with your "molten steel" BS and given the way you cling to it you must consider it critical to your conclusions. It seems to me if you can not be honest in this discussion there is little point to it.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 12, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



BS, it can't be helped if you chose to ignore the pages of information that included many eyewitnesses and confirmations, and all the info that showed you your reasoning is wrong.You certainly haven't proved I am wrong for pointing out why I question NIST's integrity, especially by ignoring all that was posted.
You of all people have no place in a discussion regarding the NIST report, as you have shown one of the highest levels of willful ignorance on the USMB in years.
You want to tackle and answer the questions I posted above be my guest. Let's start with what you have as far as any supporting documentation regarding the fires, fuel loads, and studies on the steel itself.
I don't expect you to post anything because you have shown that you know nothing and are only here as a lame cheerleader defending a CT by hiding behind others.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 12, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



Like you I am neither a physicist nor an engineer, Princess, but unlike you I don't pretend to be and from what I've seen of your proof you need to get back to the drawing board.


----------



## eots (Mar 12, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



Just another failing of NIST and another example of eyewitness testimony disregarded

*from your hero Mr gross*

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVFwkAMd2-k]9//11 NIST denies evidence of molten steel at the WTC Site (compilation) - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 12, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



You have not shown anywhere that which you claim asshole.
I have shown the many numerous reports and shown how highly unlikely it is for YOU NIST and others to ASSUME it could have been aluminum
I have shown that you are a liar and your BS CT site is wrong, using their own numbers.  I have shown that you lied regarding Robertson on video saying he saw the molten steel.

My objective is to show where and why I have no faith in the NIST report, and IMO they lack integrity. The task of others is to show where and why they think they do have integrity, and you have not done anything close to that.
You never answer any of the questions I ask in this thread, and somehow you think you have contributed anything? You like to skip much of what is posted.
Get a fucking life asshole.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 12, 2013)

eots said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



This is my point, but these other people expect me to ignore this just like they do.
Not a single one of them can answer any of the points I made, and are afraid to move on.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 12, 2013)

eots said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



The problem here is you dump Youtube after Youtube here and when I open them I find they don't support your claims. Either you don't watch them or you hope nobody else will. You claimed the cop in your last Youtube supported your previous Youtubes but, in fact, he did the opposite. Youtube interviews from Nazi sites like AFP are readily available but only Nazi types bother with them. You're busted again.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 12, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



You've done nothing of the sort, Princess, but you have gotten your pathetic ass kicked daily. You have not proven what that molten material was and neither has anyone else.


----------



## eots (Mar 12, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



Nazis sites...lol...you wreak of desperation


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 12, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



That's because your a lying fuck and only want to view things that don't hurt your CT.
It should be obvious to all but the most willful ignorant pompous asshole, that NIST ignored numerous reports and eyewitnesses, and confirmations regarding molten steel.
I pointed this out at length and provided a video that showed you are a liar and that your 9-11 Myths site is full of shit just like you are. I even used their calculations to prove it too, and showed you a video where Robertson himself, on tape says he saw the molten steel.
No where can I find anything from you that disproves any of what I posted. No where in this thread is there anything from you that validates any of your claims.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/6920386-post143.html
How many people say they saw aluminum?
How much aluminum was in the towers?
Where was the majority of aluminum on or in the towers?
Where was the molten steel reported to have been?
You answered NONE of these questions, and to be fair hardly anyone even attempted to.
I proved the points I intended on this one instance.
You don't think so? Too bad you should have been more involved and diligent in the defense of your CT and position.
Now there's 10,000 pages of the NIST report for you to pick from so the thread can continue, if you can't then I'll wait for someone else who has an interest and some knowledge about the topic.

It's obvious why you chose to continue to be a fucking dickhead and ignore what I posted, and why you never ever answer my questions. It's because you are afraid that your OCT is going to look bad and full of shit.
The molten steel existed,NIST ignored it and it is a reason why I think they suck and have no credibility, integrity or balls, just like you.
Now move along and leave this thread for those that have the above attributes in abundance and are willing to talk about what the thread is intended for.
If you have nothing to offer but ridicule and no facts you are wasting our time.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 12, 2013)

eots said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Ah, you mean the truth hurts?


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 12, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



I showed what a fucking liar you are and that your CT debunking site is bullshit.
I showed numerous eyewitnesses, reports and confirmations, and how stupid it is to assume the melting metal was aluminum.
I showed you a video tape that discredits what you said about Robertson.
 I showed how NIST ignored all of this, and showed why I don't trust them.
And just what have you done in this thread? Nothing. Except trot out the desperate Nazi card and claim a false victory about kicking ass daily LOL!!

Look asshole we already know you're anti American and don't give a shit about our nation, now step aside and either leave the thread or post something relevant to the threads title. I believe there's rules regarding this-
* Each post must contain content relevant to the thread subject, in addition to any flame. 
No trolling. No hit and run flames. No hijacking threads. *

Post info regarding the NIST report, if you can not leave.


----------



## eots (Mar 12, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



No...I mean you wreak of desperation


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 12, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...


Is this your idea of an honest debate regarding the NIST report? Really? How pathetic and low are you going to go?


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 12, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



*I leave when I choose to leave, Princess. Don't like it? Leave.*


----------



## daws101 (Mar 12, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...


who's us?


----------



## eots (Mar 12, 2013)

> I showed you a quote in which Robertson said he had no way of knowing what that molten metal was so I ask you again: did anyone actually test the molten mats or even check their temp?



No NIST never tested anything...they took 8 years to make a hokey computer model


----------



## daws101 (Mar 12, 2013)

eots said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


no! that would be you guys


----------



## daws101 (Mar 12, 2013)

eots said:


> > I showed you a quote in which Robertson said he had no way of knowing what that molten metal was so I ask you again: did anyone actually test the molten mats or even check their temp?
> 
> 
> 
> No NIST never tested anything...they took 8 years to make a hokey computer model


hokey? tell me eots could you do better?


----------



## eots (Mar 12, 2013)

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



lol..you get weaker by the minute


----------



## eots (Mar 12, 2013)

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > > I showed you a quote in which Robertson said he had no way of knowing what that molten metal was so I ask you again: did anyone actually test the molten mats or even check their temp?
> ...



yes I would of had the data validated unlike NIST


----------



## eots (Mar 12, 2013)

NIST used computer models that they said have never been used in such an application before and are the state of the art. For this they should be commended for their skill. But the validation of these modeling results is in question. Others have computed aspects with different conclusions on the cause mechanism of the collapse. Moreover, it is common in fire investigation to compute a time-line and compare it to known events. NIST has not done that.

OpEdNews - Page 2 of Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation


----------



## daws101 (Mar 12, 2013)

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


you always say that and are always wrong..it  must suck to be you.


----------



## daws101 (Mar 12, 2013)

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


that's not the question...and please show proof that nist did not have the data validated..


----------



## daws101 (Mar 12, 2013)

eots said:


> NIST used computer models that they said have never been used in such an application before and are the state of the art. For this they should be commended for their skill. But the validation of these modeling results is in question. Others have computed aspects with different conclusions on the cause mechanism of the collapse. Moreover, it is common in fire investigation to compute a time-line and compare it to known events. NIST has not done that.
> 
> OpEdNews - Page 2 of Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation



Alan Miller is author of the website Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report and webmaster for Medical Professionals for 9/11 Truth Medical Professionals for 9/11 Truth 
bahahahahahahahahaha!


----------



## eots (Mar 12, 2013)

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > NIST used computer models that they said have never been used in such an application before and are the state of the art. For this they should be commended for their skill. But the validation of these modeling results is in question. Others have computed aspects with different conclusions on the cause mechanism of the collapse. Moreover, it is common in fire investigation to compute a time-line and compare it to known events. NIST has not done that.
> ...



what has that got to do with anything ?..what deluded thought are you trying to imply ?


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 12, 2013)

eots said:


> > I showed you a quote in which Robertson said he had no way of knowing what that molten metal was so I ask you again: did anyone actually test the molten mats or even check their temp?
> 
> 
> 
> *No NIST never tested anything*...they took 8 years to make a hokey computer model



That is not true but the fact that no one tested the molten metal for identification means no matter what anyone said, no GZ observer could know what those molten metals were.


----------



## daws101 (Mar 12, 2013)

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


it has everything to do  with  every aspect of your  pov.. if you can't or won't  see why, then you are as ignorant as you seem.


----------



## eots (Mar 12, 2013)

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



all statements  on the site are linked and stand on there own regardless of who
you think manages the site...you make no sense what-so-ever


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 12, 2013)

eots said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



Did any of those witnesses have the sense or ability to test the molten metal in an effort to properly identify it?


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 12, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



Are you referring to the tape in which Gage quotes from the James Williams article that misquotes Robertson? 
Robertson, like everyone else who did not test that molten metal, had no way of knowing what it was and he admitted as much.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 12, 2013)

eots said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



American Free Press, like Veterans Today and David Duke, is part of Iran's state-run PRESSTV. All are known outlets for Holocaust Denial. Like I said ... you're busted again, Princess.   

Press TV - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## eots (Mar 12, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



thats was the banner on the beginning of the youtube video moron not the content,,that was a collection of mainstream news sources..if i had any sympathy for Nazis i would hardly be afraid to say so you pathetic twit

*YOU ARE THE ONE THAT IS BUSTED LOSER*



*LET ME GUESS FORMER ISRAELI MINISTERS ARE A KNOWN NAZI FRONT  GROUPS...LOL*


----------



## eots (Mar 12, 2013)

> Press TV - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 12, 2013)

Quote: Originally Posted by SAYIT  

American Free Press, like Veterans Today and David Duke, is part of Iran's state-run PRESSTV. All are known outlets for Holocaust Denial. Like I said ... you're busted again, Princess. 
Press TV - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



eots said:


> > Wikipedia Editing Courses Launched by Zionist Propaganda Machine - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## eots (Mar 13, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Quote: Originally Posted by SAYIT
> 
> American Free Press, like Veterans Today and David Duke, is part of Iran's state-run PRESSTV. All are known outlets for Holocaust Denial. Like I said ... you're busted again, Princess.
> Press TV - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> ...


----------



## eots (Mar 13, 2013)

but regardless enough of your strawmen....loser...


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 13, 2013)

eots said:


> but regardless enough of your strawmen....loser...



   
Oh, _now_ I get it. You post half truths compiled by your favorite Nazi web sites and _I'm_ the loser. Thanks so much for making that clear.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 13, 2013)

eots said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Quote: Originally Posted by SAYIT
> ...


----------



## eots (Mar 13, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...


----------



## daws101 (Mar 13, 2013)

eots said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


----------



## eots (Mar 13, 2013)

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...


----------



## daws101 (Mar 13, 2013)

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 13, 2013)

eots said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


----------



## daws101 (Mar 13, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...


----------



## eots (Mar 13, 2013)

daws101 said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 13, 2013)

daws101 said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


----------



## eots (Mar 13, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 13, 2013)

eots said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 14, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...


You SLIMBALL COWARD SOB....
Wow you want to put the responsibility of testing on the GZ workers? You fucking twat, the responsibility was all on NIST. The GZ workers and contractors hired, reported, confirmed and informed everyone about what they saw, many with their own eyes, and it was up to NIST to follow through and conduct a thorough investigation.
Your logic depends on what NIST ignored and dismissed.
I have shown where NIST fucked up, and how stupid you are for even assuming it was melted aluminum by using your own debunked debunking sites calculations, and it should be obvious that there was waay more steel then aluminum, and that the aluminum was mostly on the outside of the towers, whereas the melted steel was in the centers of the wreckage piles and up to some 70 feet below the surface.
I have a video of Robertson saying he fucking saw it with his own eyes and you have some obscure BS 2nd hand accounting of him denying it LOL!

Look asshole, you have tried to derail this thread, and even tried using  Nazi remarks in a desperate attempt at race baiting, and reference to "Jooos".
You have been challenged to put up details about the NIST report and their testing and you can't or wont instead choosing to use the above mentioned tactics.
Bottom line is that NIST is a joke and a fraud, and their own testing proves it, and all you can do is try to spin it away and place the blame on the GZ workers, call people Nazis, and race bait by mentioning "joos".

You're a pathetic troll who isn't even good at trolling, and knows nothing when it comes to the topic of the thread and has nothing relevant to post in your defense of a wild conspiracy theory that depends on bad science, and avoiding important issues to form a predetermined conclusion, that helped send America into wars, debt, and death.

The NIST report is full of instances that show they have no credibility, or integrity, and that prove their theory is wrong, but you come here and try to defend it without using anything that is within it to back you up.

Your agenda and your tactics are obvious, and so is your lack of knowledge, as well as your anti American stance.

I'll be posting what else in the NIST report is fucked up in due time.
Blaming the GZ people for what a US government agency that was charged with the responsibility of the investigation is a fucking lowdown, cowardly weak, pussy ass way to defend your position in this thread.

It is you who has gotten its ass kicked.


----------



## Montrovant (Mar 14, 2013)

I've been browsing through the NIST report a bit.  There was a ton of computer modeling done, I'm wondering if that's something you have issues with?  Either the type of programs used, or the data input, or just the fact that it's modeling as opposed to testing of physical components?

While I will admit that computer modeling is not necessarily the most accurate possible procedure, in the case of the collapse of the towers, I'm not sure what else they could have done to try and determine the specifics of the event.

I don't know if I'm going to see anything in the report that I would tout as proof it is correct.  I still maintain that the NIST report might be wrong in any number of specifics.  


One thing I did want to bring up is regarding the reason why those of us who believe the NIST report, or at least the general idea behind it, think as we do.  It's actually pretty simple IMO.  We watched it happen.  We saw the planes hit the towers.  We saw the fires burning out of control.  Then we saw the buildings collapse, and didn't see the tell-tale explosions of normal building demolition, nor anything else that would indicate the planes and fires we saw were not responsible for the collapses.  When you watch something like this, live on tv, it seems pretty obvious what happened (in general terms).  It then takes a lot of convincing to change someone's opinion.  It will likely require more than another person's suspicions; some pretty concrete evidence is called for.  Whatever you think about the events of 9/11, I don't believe I have seen the sort of concrete evidence that would overcome what so many of us think we saw.

When you add in the many theories about how it happened (various forms of controlled demo, nukes, what-have-you) and the theories about who was behind it (the US govt, the Israelis, the New World Order, etc.), it's even harder to convince me, or others who tend to believe the NIST report, that it is wrong.

You are basically saying, "I know you saw this happen.  But what you saw is NOT what happened!".  Eyewitness accounts can be extremely inaccurate, but people still usually believe what they think they see.  And in this case, we not only saw it, but have seen numerous pictures and videos of it.

For you and other 9/11 truthers, I think that your distrust of government makes it easier to accept the idea of a conspiracy behind the events.  It means that anything that might appear questionable is more likely to lead to thoughts of cover-ups and secrets.


Anyway, I'll keep browsing the report over the next couple of days.  However, if there's other examples of things you find wrong or questionable, it would probably be easier for you to bring them up for discussion.  Waiting for me to show why the NIST report is correct is probably a fool's errand.  I have neither the education nor inclination to try and explain the details of how their modeling was correct.


----------



## eots (Mar 14, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> I've been browsing through the NIST report a bit.  There was a ton of computer modeling done, I'm wondering if that's something you have issues with?  Either the type of programs used, or the data input, or just the fact that it's modeling as opposed to testing of physical components?
> 
> While I will admit that computer modeling is not necessarily the most accurate possible procedure, in the case of the collapse of the towers, I'm not sure what else they could have done to try and determine the specifics of the event.
> 
> ...



 NIST used computer models that they said have never been used in such an application before and are the state of the art. For this they should be commended for their skill. But the validation of these modeling results is in question. Others have computed aspects with different conclusions on the cause mechanism of the collapse. Moreover, it is common in fire investigation to compute a time-line and compare it to known events. NIST has not done that.


OpEdNews - Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation


----------



## daws101 (Mar 14, 2013)

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...


----------



## daws101 (Mar 14, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


A classic sister jones tantrum!
chocked full of vitriol...false subjective speculation...take your asshanding  like a man not a spoiled child ...


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 14, 2013)

> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > I've been browsing through the NIST report a bit.  There was a ton of computer modeling done, I'm wondering if that's something you have issues with?  Either the type of programs used, or the data input, or just the fact that it's modeling as opposed to testing of physical components?
> ...


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 14, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



Eat shit slimeball, you got your ass kicked and your sources as well.
You and "9/11Myths" got punked bitch, where is NIST to help you on that one?

200,000 tons of steel minimum...in each tower, but you bitches want to insist it was Aluminum....Robertson on video tape no less, saying he saw it too...on top of the hundreds of others, including hired contractors, and satellite imaging...
And then you expect GZ people to do NIST's work on top of it. What  pathetic little whiny bitches you sayit are.


----------



## Montrovant (Mar 14, 2013)

Mr. Jones, I think I've brought this up before, but it's relevant to your last post to me.  I absolutely believe that the US government has, over the course of the country's history, lied, cheated, extorted, and murdered.  I actually think it likely was worse in the past, simply because it's so much harder to hide nowadays, thanks to advances in technology (both recording and communication).  I certainly do NOT think the US government is always right, always moral, or some bastion of greatness to be emulated by all.

That said, I also believe that any government, run by oh-so-fallible humans, is likely to have as much or more incompetence as corruption.  It is the scope and manpower seemingly required for 9/11 to have been run by a government that keeps me from being able to accept that kind of theory.

I find the idea that the government allowed it to happen much easier to swallow than that they engineered it.  And if they simply allowed it, then the planes are still at fault for the collapses.


----------



## Montrovant (Mar 14, 2013)

I know this is probably in vain, but if possible could we keep the usual insults and vitriol out of this thread?

I know that each 'side' of this discussion tends to think the other side is full of idiots.  We have tons of other 9/11 threads where we can hurl taunts at each other, can we try to keep one more civil?

I'm not directing this at anyone in particular, the thread has just degenerated lately as they all seem to.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 14, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Calm down, Princess, before you blow a valve.
My point is that regardless of what they _may_ have said, none of those who saw molten material at GZ had any way of _knowing_ it was molten steel. That NIST chose not to test it does not mean it was steel and is not proof of a cover-up and your _assumptions_ about it are just self-serving pap. Woo.


----------



## daws101 (Mar 14, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 14, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> I've been browsing through the NIST report a bit.  There was a ton of computer modeling done, I'm wondering if that's something you have issues with?  Either the type of programs used, or the data input, or just the fact that it's modeling as opposed to testing of physical components?
> 
> While I will admit that computer modeling is not necessarily the most accurate possible procedure, in the case of the collapse of the towers, I'm not sure what else they could have done to try and determine the specifics of the event.
> 
> ...



My observations are similar. Some of those who have a fundamental distrust or dislike of our gov't or Israel or the NWO have much time invested in their particular CTs. Some, like Jones, seem to have so much invested they can't let go no matter how few hard facts they have.  Their shrill and often desperate posts seem irrational when placed in the context of how peeps normally speak to one another.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 14, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



Robertson said no such thing. That video had Gage reading from the James Williams article in which Robertson was misquoted. Robertson did not test the molten mats nor did he check their temp and admitted he had no way of knowing what it was. I realize you have your heart and soul in your 9/11 CT but that doesn't make it factual.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 14, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



No you haven't but you have proven you are delusional. Since the fire's temps are known to have been well below the temp required to melt steel it is far more rational to conclude the molten mats contained no steel than it is to assume some super secret stuff was used to burn through and melt the steel, burn for weeks and leave no residue. The amount of steel vs. aluminum is of absolutely no significance ... all that was need was enough non-steel metals to create those pools of molten material.


----------



## daws101 (Mar 14, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...


 another sister jones tantrum in 5.....4....3...2..1


----------



## eots (Mar 14, 2013)

these threads should be in the clean debate zone..these clowns could not possible hold a debate with out their silly pictures strawmen and ad hominem


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 15, 2013)

> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones, I think I've brought this up before, but it's relevant to your last post to me.  I absolutely believe that the US government has, over the course of the country's history, lied, cheated, extorted, and murdered.  I actually think it likely was worse in the past, simply because it's so much harder to hide nowadays, thanks to advances in technology (both recording and communication).  I certainly do NOT think the US government is always right, always moral, or some bastion of greatness to be emulated by all.
> ...


----------



## Montrovant (Mar 15, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> > Montrovant said:
> >
> >
> > > Mr. Jones, I think I've brought this up before, but it's relevant to your last post to me.  I absolutely believe that the US government has, over the course of the country's history, lied, cheated, extorted, and murdered.  I actually think it likely was worse in the past, simply because it's so much harder to hide nowadays, thanks to advances in technology (both recording and communication).  I certainly do NOT think the US government is always right, always moral, or some bastion of greatness to be emulated by all.
> ...


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 15, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



You once again must be grabbed by the hand like a child and shown what you purposefully ignore, when your CT is starting to fall apart.
You are a liar, and so is your "debunking" site where it seems you get most of your lies and disinformation from.
_*
Les Robertson, in presentation at Stanford University, confirms that he saw a "river of molten steel" at the B1 level of the WTC debris pile. This video also has a clip of Robertson confirming that the WTC Towers were designed to absorb the impact of a Boeing 707, the largest airplane of its time.*_

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=rjmHqES_lto#]Les Robertson Confirms Molten Metal in WTC Basement - YouTube[/ame]!


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 15, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> But the American people have been conditioned to think it is all of our lives. It's like discovering your uncle "Sam" has been the one behind a serial killing spree. I don't believe everyone in our system of government is inherently evil or even corruptible. Maybe I'm being naive, but I still think there are decent people in the system, just misled and pressured to go with the their party's agenda, which is being influenced and dictated mostly by corporate or foriegn political monied interests.
> 
> No it would not take legions of people in the know to carry out such a crime. Like most secretive operations, the details would only need to be known by only a few within our government agencies and depts.
> Why else were the attacks done on the same day as terror drills? To divert and confuse,
> ...





Montrovant said:


> It might not take many people to plan 9/11, but I think it would take a decent number to execute it.  Transporting and planting all the explosives, working with the terrorists and setting them up to make the attack, covering up afterwards, that's going to require quite a few 'bit players' to accomplish.


 I don't believe the rigging of the buildings was done by Americans, at least at this moment. Silverstein is an Israeli Sayanim, and the security was controlled. Besides if like many of you suspect that gravity 
was all that was needed to finish the "collapses" after "weakening" a few floors, then not much else would have been needed. Providing access to a small crew under the guise of "repairs" for a few months wouldn't necessitate including "thousands' like some idiots on here have proposed was needed. Recruiting fanatics would not require shit loads of personnel either. Once you get them on a plane that would be guided courtesy of Dov Zakheim's System Planning Corporation  after it was hijacked from the hijackers in flight,  and knowing that the terror drill/war games are going to take place, who else is needed?



Montrovant said:


> As you said, if the objective was to go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq, simply having the planes hit the towers would have done it, even without the collapses.  Why then go through all the trouble, and risk discovery, to add explosives to bring the buildings down?


 Because as I just explained the WTC had to come down they were tagged for dismantling years prior. Read about those buildings and the myriad of problems the Port Authority was having with them. They were a prime target for an insurance scam, and subsequently an illegal demolition, and they planned ahead of time to rush the crime scene evidence away, and had their spin-masters in place ready to tell the world it was Alqaeda and OBL within minutes after the attack.
The cover worked well then and it's still working on people like yourself..."What are you talking about? WE ALL saw what happened!"
Right??



Montrovant said:


> I haven't yet seen the NIST report, or the idea that the planes caused the collapses, fall apart.  I guess that's what we're doing here, finding out how you think that it does and how I think it holds together.   We've already disagreed to some degree about the molten metal/steel.  What's next to view differently?!


How can you defend a conspiracy theory when so much is ignored out of the body of the investigation that is supposed to explain things? It's not just that the NIST investigation ignored relevant information that warranted further study, but it's also HOW they came to their conclusions, manipulating data to fit the "observed outcome" and in other cases keeping the data and how it was obtained a secret.
We've seen in this thread many instances of having to rely on ignoring evidence and witnesses, and people having to jump to highly improbable assumptions regarding the molten steel, to the point that when they are shown all the evidence against them, they resort to sidetracking tactics bringing up Nazis's and the Joooos and such.

I think that I made my point clear that the instance of the NIST ignoring molten steel, that was even seen my Robertson and many others, and how much steel there was compared to the quantity of aluminum, and where it was placed throughout the towers, and where the melted steel was reported to have been uncovered and seen, not to mention that WTC 7 had the same phenomena and had even less aluminum then the towers....Well it should be a no brainer when I say I lost respect for the NIST and feel they have no credibility or integrity.
If you or others feel that this is no big deal, then you are purposefully doing so in order to maintain your official CT intact in your own minds, and that;s fine by me as I made my point, and made some of you look foolish in the process of doing so.

Now the primary  objective of the NIST investigation was to determine the cause of the WTC buildings collapses, and NIST should have conducted a forensic examination of the full body of evidence and this includes the molten steel. GZ was a crime scene, wasn't it?
And because many credible eyewitnesses, including firemen who were on the scene that day, reported that they heard and saw explosions,NIST should have investigated this without any bias, but they again chose to downplay these reports that were as widespread as the reports of the molten steel "running like little rivers".

The NIST investigators should have viewed their testimony of the molten steel and the explosions as hard evidence and considered this a starting point in its investigation, but they didn't because NIST assumed, from the outset that the hijacked planes solely  responsible for the demise of the 2 TTers. They took it for granted that the plane impacts set in motion a chain of events that led all the way to "catastrophic structural failure". They even stated this explicitly in their Executive Summary

_*The tragic consequences of the September 11, 2001 attacks were directly attributable to the fact that terrorists flew large jet-fuel laden commercial airliners into the WTC towers. Buildings for use by the general population are not designed to withstand attacks of such severity; building codes do not require building designs to consider aircraft impact".
NIST NCSTAR 1, WTC Investigation, Preface, xxxi. *_

Because NIST never even entertained the possibility of a planned demolition, or infiltration of the buildings by "terrorists" it never bothered to look for evidence of any. 
This despite the WTC being bombed in 1993.
NIST was NOT going to go there, and I'll bet they were "encouraged" not to do so either.
There's no fucking way the head people at NIST were going to go against the Bush administration, and the many in it who were powerful enough to replace them, end their careers, or worse... risk some unfortunate "accident" befalling them or their families.
I just can't see the intelligent people within such a prestigious institution conducting the investigations in such a manner, and full of such glaring discrepancies, and highly questionable tactics, some "secret" that a lowly high school physics teacher forced this multi-million dollar financed agency to back track and have to admit they were wrong about the FF that indeed occurred at WTC 7.

Hundreds of people and reports about molten steel, some seen falling out of the window of one tower? All 3 wreckage piles confirmed to have molten steel UNDERNEATH them, but only 2 of the buildings had planes inside them? No obstacle was too great to overcome for NIST, they simply pretended all these people and what they saw didn't even exist. Close to the same number of credible people who saw and heard explosions? No problem there either....What people, what melted steel???
How convenient that they were forced to have to resort to computer simulation instead of real world testing of the remnants of the buildings, because someone saw to it that most of it was hauled away...
It never tested steel samples recovered from GZ for traces of explosives.
Their investigation included omissions of importance and wreak of of political interference
and pressure.
Not only were there eyewitness accounts of these things, but they also ignored 2 scientific papers that were published, one of them by FEMA that claimed and confirmed that  sulfur residues on samples of WTC steel. This indicated the possibility that something else attacked the steel other then planes and jetfuel that day. 
The possibility of this needed to be checked, if only just to rule it out but those in charge at NIST yet again, chose not to go there and pretended this didn't exist. 

It's really telling when we have people come on here and confidently proclaim that nothing like this occurred or was never found or never confirmed and that somehow the responsibility of the investigation should have fallen to the people at GZ like firemen, rescue workers and others who were there to document the aftermath. This is dishonest and weakens their argument even further even without having to post all the things that I did a few pages back.

If some of you think that NIST conducted a credible investigation because they ignored these important things and instances and ignored all the hundreds of people that were witness to them, then have the nerve to use this and try to proclaim the views of others are a wild CT, you folks are only here to be antagonists and don't give a fuck about accuracy, honesty, credibility, or integrity.

This is akin to a crime scene having evidence that a gun was _also_ used in the crime because gunshots were heard by witnesses and GSR (gun shot residue) or shell casings were found on site, but because this evidence would point to other suspects other then the one you were _encouraged _to suspect who you were told used a box cutter only, and who your CO's had in mind all along, (maybe even before the actual crime took place) then the shell casings and GSR were "lost" or ignored, and because of that, you feel you can declare "see there was no evidence" that a gun was used, so it just had to be the _these_ guy/s.
The circumstances, the villains and the "evidence" were set up and easily confirmed because "we all saw the planes and the buildings collapsed!" and come hell or highwater that was the way any investigations and reports were going to go, but there is proof of _evidence_ tampering.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 15, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > But the American people have been conditioned to think it is all of our lives. It's like discovering your uncle "Sam" has been the one behind a serial killing spree. I don't believe everyone in our system of government is inherently evil or even corruptible. Maybe I'm being naive, but I still think there are decent people in the system, just misled and pressured to go with the their party's agenda, which is being influenced and dictated mostly by corporate or foriegn political monied interests.
> ...





Boy the troll never gets tired of having his ass handed to him on a platter everyday.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 15, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



And just what the fuck do YOU know about the fire temps? Care to elaborate and confirm your assumptions with links like was requested at the outset of the thread?
You mentioning rational in a post is ironic, as you don't know the meaning of it.
Rational would have been for NIST to follow through on their mission statement and investigate the numerous reports, sitings, and eyewitness who saw the melted steel "flowing like little rivers" like Robertson clearly said in the video that you tried to lie and claim was not true.
Rational would be to honestly look at the information posted in a thread that shows your stupid assumptions that "something else" was in the "melted mats" are more then highly unlikely to be accurate. You still can't explain why WTC 7 had the exact same fucking phenomena underneath it, as the towers. 7 didn't have aluminum cladding.
Again you must ignore stronger evidence against your official CT to keep it going in your feeble little troll mind.
Or maybe you want us to all believe that the GZ workers, who you claim should have taken it upon themselves to do the investigation for NIST, are Nazi's who think it was Da Jooos as well?
Get lost you trolling imbecilic idiot. I proved my point with facts, and figures, and calculations that even used your stupid debunking site, and I even showed what a liar you and your site are about Leslie Robertson, that tried to claim there were only 2-3 instances of the molten steel even reported..


----------



## daws101 (Mar 15, 2013)

eots said:


> these threads should be in the clean debate zone..these clowns could not possible hold a debate with out their silly pictures strawmen and ad hominem


whine on.....


----------



## daws101 (Mar 15, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...


the above is a masterpiece of irrationality bigotry, paranoia, hubris, egomania and the author claims everybody that disagrees with him is irrational. (place irony here)


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 15, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



Unlike you I neither have a CT nor do I lie. There's another video in this thread perhaps, from another poster, in which Richard Gage quotes from the James Williams article. 
So Robertson said he saw a "river of steel" flowing _weeks after the attack_. As well established here, molten steel looks like molten aluminum. Did Robertson do any testing to substantiate his suspicion? Could you post his proof? Do you know of any material which could burn through thick steel and continue to melt it _weeks later_? 
BTW, you have only proven 9/11myths.com contains "lies and disinformation" in your small, delusional mind. 
Carry on, Princess.


----------



## Montrovant (Mar 15, 2013)

A few quick questions.

Are there any photographs or video recordings of the molten steel at GZ?  If not, why not?

Where did this steel go?  At some point it would cool and harden, and anyone seeing it would probably be able to tell it had been molten.  Are there any reports of the cooled steel being found, or only sightings of it in molten form?

If molten steel was so prevalent, does that mean most of the GZ workers saw it?  Should there be more accounts about it, more people questioning?  Do you think most of the workers were threatened/bribed/coerced to be silent about seeing molten steel?

What constitutes confirmation in your mind?  Every time I see that molten steel was confirmed to be at GZ I wonder just what that is supposed to mean.  Molten steel samples were taken and tested?  Steel hardened after having been liquid was found?  To date I have still only seen some eyewitness reports, not anything like conclusive proof or confirmation.

Finally, if the problems with the NIST report are so glaringly obvious, why is there not more of an uproar about it?  Do you think that all the scientists in the country (and world) who have had access to the report have simply ignored its flaws?  Are all the scientists who have said the collapses WERE due to the planes and subsequent fires being coerced or paid by the government?  If that is the case, doesn't it lend credence to the idea that this conspiracy and cover up required a lot of people to implement?


----------



## daws101 (Mar 15, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> A few quick questions.
> 
> Are there any photographs or video recordings of the molten steel at GZ?  If not, why not?
> 
> ...


here's the closest thing to molten metal at GZ I could find 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 this image shows what seems to be cooled aluminum.
but there is no way to tell if it happened during or just after the collapse or during clean up .could be residue from cutting torches. 






 this photo shows red hot metal ,if it were molten it would be a thick liquid.   







this photo was touted by twoofers as smoking gun evidence of molten steel...in reality it was a work light being lowered into the 1st basement..
any help?


----------



## eots (Mar 15, 2013)




----------



## eots (Mar 15, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WWAnCd_6lg]9/11 WTC Meteorites Molten Iron Concrete - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 15, 2013)

eots said:


> 9/11 WTC Meteorites Molten Iron Concrete - YouTube



So you are now claiming a nuke hit the WTC. Woo.


----------



## eots (Mar 15, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > 9/11 WTC Meteorites Molten Iron Concrete - YouTube
> ...



I am not claiming anything I am providing information from the curators of the 9/11 museum .. why ? does it make you think a nuclear device was used ?


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 16, 2013)

eots said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



That's what they said on your video, Princess. You did watch it, right?


----------



## eots (Mar 16, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



that was the speculation of one person I am only interested in the fact that according to the museum curators and NBC reporters there was both molten concrete and this physical evidence still exist..


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 16, 2013)

eots said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



There has been a lot of speculation by a lot of people but I too found that video interesting. Did either the curators or reporters test to find what mats had melted and fused it all together?


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 16, 2013)

eots said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Notice how this troll tries to spin things and put words in your mouth, when all you were doing is providing info relevant to the above posts?


----------



## daws101 (Mar 16, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...


relevant to what ?
it only proves high heat not causation (thanks for playing )


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 16, 2013)

> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > A few quick questions.
> ...


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 16, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_sx4XJfGR0]9/11 Molten Steel At World Trade Center Site For Weeks After The 1 Hour Fires - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 16, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqJSDn5dgJc]9-11 Molten Steel Forensic Evidence & Eyewitness Accounts - YouTube[/ame]


Funny no mention of any aluminum in the basement levels, but Leslie Robertson mentioned he saw steel "running like little rivers" at the B1 level. All these numerous sightings and reports by so many people yet NIST decides to ignore this. Why would that be?
You can't answer this with any amount of reasonable logic. It's no wonder that people distrust the NIST.
Now you know. What else did NIST ignore, that you have to jump through hoops in trying to justify in order to keep your 9-11 official conspiracy myth going?
NIST and John Gross are simply fucking lying, plain and simple. Office fires do not reach the temp level required to melt steel, and not one of you people have even come close to making a rational argument it might have been aluminum, and the reasoning that you clowns are trying to use is pathetic and laughable. WTC 7 had no mass quantity of aluminum.
There was waay more steel within the towers then aluminum.
The molten steel wreckage was reported centered in the sub basements of all 3 buildings.
These are facts that can not be rationally explained away, and should not have been ignored, and lied about.
How fucking more obvious does this have to be, or must you have to try to continue to explain this away so nothing deviates away from the planes, jetfuel, and Alqaeda narrative?
This is no longer up for debate. I will not discuss this part of your CT anymore.

But I will show you where else NIST was forced to stray from honest investigative policy, namely the reports of  numerous secondary explosions
and devices.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 16, 2013)

EXPLOSIONS-

There were many reports and witnesses to explosions within the WTC towers. These came from many sources that included news reporters who were told to step back because of reports of 2ndary devices. There were witnesses to huge explosions in the basements as well.
It would seem logical that an investigation would include some analysis of these explosions.
The WTC was bombed in 1993 afterall, and so many people on 9-11 reported this.
Something ripped through the WTC 1 concourse lobby at about the time of the impact, blowing out windows and crumpling steel doors. The same blast even knocked marble slabs off the walls in the lobby. Custodians also heard explosions in the WTC 1 basement. A machine shop was wrecked, as well as a car garage.
NIST, has never identified an energy source in the WTC capable of producing such massive explosions.
We can see on videos explosions taking place throughout the towers, some many stories below the collapse fronts. I even found one video that shows a person being blown out of a window...
We can also see that much of the towers were pulverized by some energy source that remains unidentified. If this were a collapse with floors pancaking down on top of each other, we should expect to see some floors remaining relatively intact, in the middle of the "pancaked" floors primarily.

Each floor of the 110 story WTC towers, one acre in size, consisted of a 4-inch thick slabs of concrete on a deck of 22 gauge steel. During the collapse some force pulverized nearly all of this concrete into dust. 

The concrete wasn't pulverized as the 1 acre floors hit the ground, but instead, they seemingly were pulverized in midair as the buildings explosively disintegrated.
One towers top section even tilted, but mysteriously instead of toppling over, it disintegrated and there were forcible ejections of massive tons of building materials.
Concrete wasn't the only thing to be disintegrated as many of the furnishings, like desks, chairs, storage cabinets, and people were blown to bits. Some bone fragments were found way across the street on the Deutsch Bank building.
Less than 300 corpses were recovered in the wreckage.
Workers found more than 700 slivers of bone, on the roof and within the that structure.

These towers did not seem to pancake floor by floor, and provide any resistance, instead they looked to just be exploding one by one in rapid succession.  The towers fell straight down as if there was no resistance whatsoever., as we can see plumes of ejected materials exploding out of the buildings with great force, and again some of these plumes were 10-20- stories BELOW the collapse fronts. This would rule out them being "air" caused by the "pancaking" floors.

So I challenge any of you OC theorists, to explain this and point out what the NIST report has to say regarding these other anomalies...

Could gravity turn massive slabs of concrete, thousands of tons of material, into fine dust, in midair?


----------



## Montrovant (Mar 16, 2013)

There's a lot of talk in these videos about things that are clearly NOT molten steel.  Red hot metal =/= molten.  1500 degrees =/= molten steel.  Bent and twisted beams =/= molten steel.  Even the 'meteorite' is questionable because I don't know if it was caused by fires, compression, or both, and I don't know if there is actually steel that melted and cooled in it.  I also have no idea who the guy is in the video saying it was molten steel and concrete or what he's basing that statement on.

My point, again, is that while you have provided some evidence in witness accounts of molten steel, I have not seen confirmation of it.  I have not seen photos or videos of anything that is indisputably molten steel.  I have not seen steel that 'ran like a river' and then cooled.  I have even seen accounts in the very videos you have provided which would indicate steel could NOT have melted (one of the WTC workers saying it must be 1500 degrees, well below the melting point of steel).  

There may have been molten steel.  I'm not dismissing the possibility.  What I'm doing is asking for more concrete evidence than a few eyewitness accounts, the reliability of which is certainly in question (how did they know any molten metal they saw was steel?).  

If we need to question everything to attempt to find the truth, we need to question these accounts as well.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 16, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> There's a lot of talk in these videos about things that are clearly NOT molten steel.  Red hot metal =/= molten.  1500 degrees =/= molten steel.  Bent and twisted beams =/= molten steel.  Even the 'meteorite' is questionable because I don't know if it was caused by fires, compression, or both, and I don't know if there is actually steel that melted and cooled in it.  I also have no idea who the guy is in the video saying it was molten steel and concrete or what he's basing that statement on.
> 
> My point, again, is that while you have provided some evidence in witness accounts of molten steel, I have not seen confirmation of it.  I have not seen photos or videos of anything that is indisputably molten steel.  I have not seen steel that 'ran like a river' and then cooled.  I have even seen accounts in the very videos you have provided which would indicate steel could NOT have melted (one of the WTC workers saying it must be 1500 degrees, well below the melting point of steel).
> 
> ...



I don't know what else can be said, linked to and seen, and heard about this.
I think if NIST had done due diligence your questions might have answered, and this is my point. Because they ignored this, we have to base our conclusions on the numerous eyewitnesses accounts like Robertson, consider how much aluminum was present in the towers compared to how much steel there was,
where the melted steel was seen in these cases they were seen and reported in the centers at the sub basement levels, and this would preclude aluminum as the aluminum was present in quantities on the outside as cladding, and the aluminum bodies of the planes were 70-8-90 stories high.
You can answer "how did they know any molten metal they saw was steel?" by using rational logic using the above facts, and the credibility of the people, and also that not one of them said they saw molting aluminum running like little rivers.
Plus you have the exact same thing at Building 7...Use your head. It's only logical that it was steel that was reported and seen. There is no mention of aluminum. Aluminum is silver. The WTC towers were made of 200,000 tons of steel. The outsides were forcibly ejected. How could the planes magically transport themselves into the sub basements?

We don't know the answers that you seek because NIST chose to pretend this phenomena didn't even exist. Does this mean all the numerous r sightings and reports were a figment of the imaginations of these credible people? Fuck, I highly doubt it.

Why do you feel you have to defend this when so much is against it being aluminum?
I'm not going to rehash all that I posted at length about it, including all the links, and videos, data including figures and calculations. You'll have to re read what was posted and or take a time out and establish more of an objective and rational thought process to continue, as I detect that you are not able to accept the facts regarding this and how NIST as the main investigative agency completely blew it in handling it.

You can not honestly conclude it was some kind of a mirage, simply because NIST acts like it was. Were there numerous reports of melted molten steel, hell ya there was.
What did NIST do about this? Absolutely nothing. To continue to deny this or try to irrationally explain it away is just plain insane, and a huge denial. I thought we were discussing facts? Or is NIST the unquestionable authority and has the market cornered on facts? Despite them having to contradict hundreds of people?
This is one of the main problems about the NIST report. I'm showing where along the way, we who oppose them because and don't trust them, do so with verifiable proof of WHY.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 16, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> 9/11 Molten Steel At World Trade Center Site For Weeks After The 1 Hour Fires - YouTube



Did he test the molten mats or even take its temp?


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 16, 2013)

Notice around the 4:52 mark or so, the "squibs" are forming in a straight tight line on one side of the building...If these are supposed to be the truss angle clips or parts there of, why aren't they where coming from where ALL the truss angle clips are throughout each floor?


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yli-if4F0DY]2012 New WTC Demolition Flashes and Loud Explosions (Analysis) - YouTube[/ame]


These sure don't look like "pancaking" floors to me at all.
How can anyone say these are the floors of the towers, when these explosions are taking place BEFORE the collapse fronts have a chance to influence the floors directly below the fronts???
Someone try to explain this or point out where in the NIST report I can find ANY info on this....


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 16, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> 9-11 Molten Steel Forensic Evidence & Eyewitness Accounts - YouTube
> 
> 
> Funny no mention of any aluminum in the basement levels, but Leslie Robertson mentioned he saw steel "running like little rivers" at the B1 level. All these numerous sightings and reports by so many people yet NIST decides to ignore this. Why would that be?
> ...



That isn't Robertson but rather Gage quoting from the Williams article which misquoted Robertson _who, like everyone who claims to have seen molten steel, did no tests on the molten mats_. Case still closed.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 16, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > 9-11 Molten Steel Forensic Evidence & Eyewitness Accounts - YouTube
> ...



I showed you the video of Robertson himself speaking...in fucking English...
You willfully ignorant fucking idiot.....Why do you insist on blaming others for NIST's purposeful negligence? How can you keep coming back here and say this insane BS?

You got proven wrong, because you made no case for your assumptions..NONE..
You have not provided any reasonable rebuttal to what I have been posting, choosing instead to lay blame on GZ workers and absolving the NIST?
Man..GTFO here already. Damn right case closed, fuckwad. Molten steel was observed, and NIST ignored it...Case closed.

Waiting to be called a Nazi, and a reference about joooz in 3....2....1...


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 16, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



Molten materials were observed. No one verified the presence of molten steel. No one.


----------



## eots (Mar 16, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



exactly..no one verified much of anything they just ignored and destroyed evidence and made up a story


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 16, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > There's a lot of talk in these videos about things that are clearly NOT molten steel.  Red hot metal =/= molten.  1500 degrees =/= molten steel.  Bent and twisted beams =/= molten steel.  Even the 'meteorite' is questionable because I don't know if it was caused by fires, compression, or both, and I don't know if there is actually steel that melted and cooled in it.  I also have no idea who the guy is in the video saying it was molten steel and concrete or what he's basing that statement on.
> ...


 
No it's not. If that was your point you would not leap to the assumption that the molten mat was steel. You would stop at complaining about NIST's failure to test for melted steel. Instead you assume that since it was not tested it had to be steel. 
Again ... _no one tested the mats_ either when molten or cooled and no one really knows what those mats were.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 16, 2013)

eots said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



So what substance can melt steel and keep it in a molten state under oxygen starved conditions for weeks?


----------



## Montrovant (Mar 16, 2013)

I get that you think the NIST investigators should have looked into the reports of molten metals.  I can understand that.

I wonder, though, is it possible that they DID look into it and decided there wasn't enough evidence to go into depth about it?  The fact that it isn't an issue in the final report doesn't mean there wasn't any discussion about it amongst at least some of the investigators.  Perhaps, after hearing the accounts, after being at GZ, they decided for whatever reason that there was no molten steel, or that the conditions in the debris were so different from those in the towers before collapse that it must have happened afterwards?

I don't know what was or was not looked at in detail or by whom.  I suppose that might be seen as a failure, at least of transparency, in the investigation.

As far as the possibility of aluminum, and needing to be objective to see that it isn't possible....now we're getting into silliness.  I can just as easily tell you that I think your need to see a conspiracy behind the events forces you to dismiss aluminum as a possibility where the reports of molten metals are concerned.

If we are discussing facts, the fact is that you have provided ZERO evidence that anyone confirmed either the existence of molten metals, or that any molten metals seen were steel.  That the reports you have provided of molten steel were accurate is speculation.

If the point of this thread is to see where the other side is coming from, we're doing that fairly well I think.  The fact that we continue to disagree about the conclusions drawn or even the data involved should come as no surprise.  It's inevitable, given the differences in our opinions of what happened and why on 9/11.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 16, 2013)

eots said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



I would congratulate you for being the first CT here to admit the molten steel issue is unverified but your assumption that our gov't "just ignored and destroyed evidence and made up a story" is outrageous enough for me to withhold the kudos. Sorry.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 16, 2013)

How can NIST, or any of you OCT say that the trusses indeed were the fail point that led to global collapses when NIST testing showed, that in reference to the truss fire testing
"All 4 test specimens sustained the maximum design load for approximately 2 hours without collapsing"-NIST page 142-143

This is longer then either of the buildings stood.

"The results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load without collapsing for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in ANY given location on Sept. 11." -NIST page 143

There were many numerous reports of huge explosions, some from the base of the towers.
But I thought they collapsed because of fires? Why are there so many reports of "huge explosions"? Explosions make sense when you watch any video of the actual "collapses"..you can see forcible ejections of material, even BEFORE any floors start to "pancake" onto one another...
Perhaps whatever caused the "molten steel" was a result of these explosions?? How the fuck can aluminum outer cladding make its way into the centers of these buildings and be imbedded some 70 feet below the surface...in the sub basements?

What did NIST have to say in regards to all of this? Did they pretend this was insignificant as well?
How can anyone look at the "collapses" and not notice the huge chunks of the towers being forcibly ejected AWAY...?
Heavy white smoke coming from the lower parts of the towers, even before any parts of them hit the ground?
"Loud rumbles being heard preceding the actual collapses..."
"Explosions...."
"Floor by floor...it started popping out"

One of the more idiotic claims is that no det cord was found...Actually not much was found...it was mostly pulverized..all the non steel was pulverized...
It almost seems that what we were being told was an explanation, of buildings being imploded, without actually coming out and saying that they were actually imploded!
NIST has tasked with explaining and describing a building implosion, and trying to pin it on planes fuel, and fires!

Almost all of the recognizable contents were pulverized....Now how can a gravity ONLY collapse, induced by time consuming "weakening" of steel floor trusses produce all the energy that pulverized so much of the contents? And ejected so many tons of steel material? And reduced human bodies to little teeny slivers that were found hundreds of feet away?

For one the lead investigators to deny the existence of molten steel, and then to say he NEVER even heard of such a claim... and contradict hundreds of GZ people.. I mean how much more obvious does a fucking cover up have to be to you people?


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 16, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Again so because NIST neglected to conduct a proper investigation, and no one took it upon themselves, like the GZ workers to do a forensic analysis..in your idiotic mind that is full of denial and full of shit...the melted steel just did not even exist....You display the worse reasoning skills and severe form of denial so you can keep living with your CT, that I have ever run across..


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 16, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



NIST did ignore this you fucking idiot, how much more obvious does this have to be in order for it to sink in?


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 16, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> I get that you think the NIST investigators should have looked into the reports of molten metals.  I can understand that.
> 
> I wonder, though, is it possible that they DID look into it and decided there wasn't enough evidence to go into depth about it?  The fact that it isn't an issue in the final report doesn't mean there wasn't any discussion about it amongst at least some of the investigators.  Perhaps, after hearing the accounts, after being at GZ, they decided for whatever reason that there was no molten steel, or that the conditions in the debris were so different from those in the towers before collapse that it must have happened afterwards?
> 
> ...



Again you are failing to come to grips that there can be no denying what was seen at GZ.
And you just assume that because NIST decides to ignore and outright lie, when John Gross said he never heard of this, that this somehow cancels out all the numerous witnesses. This is a straight up denial on their part and you justify it for the same reasons that NIST did, probably.
How the fuck you can say there is ZERO evidence of this is insane and you are justifying your outrageous claim because you are hiding behind what NIST said.
If , like I said you continue to deny this, you have a serious case of denial going on.

What a crock of shit....Your reasoning is that because NIST denied it it must be OK for you as well....Fuck the information that has been posted right?


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 16, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > 9/11 Molten Steel At World Trade Center Site For Weeks After The 1 Hour Fires - YouTube
> ...



Why? Was he responsible for doing so? You people have the worst case of denial I've ever run across. At least others I've engage on this topic will admit to seeing the point, but they don't just ignore pages of points, people, videos, and witnesses. LOL...


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 16, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Given all the abundance of information about this subject, it is a clear and reasonable assumption to conclude, unless you need to deny all the information posted about it, which is exactly what you are trying to do, and are in a frantic tail chase that includes blaming FDNY and GZ workers for not testing the molten steel! Wow man what an asshole you are!
I mean is this the best you people can come up with....page after page of circular denial??

You all just gave up on trying to come up with failed assumptions, an start to blame everyone else except NIST!! What a hoot! Deny deny deny....distract and deny some more...is that what your assignment is???


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 16, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



Well now that's the mystery isn't it? Do you have any suggestions?


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 16, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



If he is claiming the molten mats were steel he should be responsible enough to actually know that for a fact rather than just speculate and the obvious place to begin would have been to determine the temp of the molten mats. None of your eye witnesses actually knows what the mats were. None. It's all just speculation.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 16, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



That is your self-serving opinion, Princess, but you still have only speculation and no proof which supports it. None of your eye witnesses can honestly say they know what those molten mats were. None.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 16, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



I know of none but isn't it incumbent on you to find out? After all, _your_ CT is based on the melted steel theory and you have proof of neither melted steel nor any substance which can melt it and keep it in its molten state _for weeks_. 
Come back when you have something that makes sense, Princess.


----------



## Montrovant (Mar 16, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > I get that you think the NIST investigators should have looked into the reports of molten metals.  I can understand that.
> ...



I've tried to remain civil and polite in this discussion.  I don't see why you feel the need to do otherwise.

I can deny all kinds of things, including reports of what was seen at GZ.  I'm not even denying it, though, but questioning.  Isn't that supposed to be the whole theme behind the 9/11 truth movement?  That the events need to be questioned?  I question whether the accounts of molten steel are accurate.  I question whether those who made such statements were in a position to determine what type of metal was molten.  I question whether they even truly meant molten, or simply red-hot or warped in some cases.

I didn't say anything about NIST cancelling out witnesses.  I asked a question, about whether it is known what information the NIST investigators had about the supposed instances of molten metal, if it is known that they simply ignored it or if it's possible some amount of investigation was done and it was decided the claims held no merit.  I don't know, and taking your word that all the investigators just ignored it is not something I'm willing to do.  Sure, there's a bunch of websites and youtube videos about this stuff.  That doesn't mean that a)the NIST investigators were aware of all of them, at least those that existed at the time or b)that some segment of the NIST investigators may have looked at the reports of molten metal, found them without merit, and therefore they moved on without worrying about it.

If you'll read what I actually wrote, I didn't say there was zero evidence of molten steel, I said there was zero evidence of CONFIRMATION of molten steel.  In other words, I'll accept someone at GZ saying, "I saw molten steel run like a river" as evidence, but not CONCLUSIVE evidence.  If no one tested the material, if no one checked the temperatures to know if it was even possible the metal could be steel, if no one documented the hardened substance to be steel, there is no confirmation.  I'm not 'hiding behind what NIST said'.  I'm pointing out some facts and giving you my personal conclusions and opinions.  You are the one who seems determined to turn this into some kind of personal attack, you are the one who seems determined to show that I am 'hiding' behind the NIST report (which I've already admitted may well be flawed).

If this is how the conversation is going to go, if you are going to read into anything I write what you want, if you aren't willing or capable of maintaining a civil discourse on the subject, then we can dispense with the niceties.  We can make this the same as every other 9/11 thread, a bunch of insults and silliness and no real discussion.  I'm sure you realized going in that, being as our opinions on 9/11 are so opposed, we were going to find many points of contention.  I hoped that wouldn't lead to loss of temper and name-calling.  You seem to be edging into that realm, however.

Whether this conversation between us (I'm very specifically not including any other posters) goes on as a civil argument or not I leave to you.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 17, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...


These GZ people saw the fucking steel..melting or in a molten state...Maybe a dipshit like you might not be able to tell the difference between a piece of steel channel and a piece of silverish aluminum, It's not like they were looking only at some liquid pools, but many said they saw it dripping from the STEEL. Go watch the Robertson video you conveniently
don't bring up anymore...
They didn't see molten aluminum because of the reasons I already explained.
Mass quantity of steel over aluminum and the placement of it.
As well as the melted steel being reported in the centers of the buildings
70 feet below in the sub basements.
And NO ONE said they saw pieces of aluminum channel  melted and dripping.

You want to try and twist us a tale of how the aluminum cladding or the Boeing bodies
transported themselves down there? Give it a try...


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 17, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



Hundreds of credible witnesses, many in relevant fields who would  know the difference..
All the info regarding aluminum in the towers..quantity vs steel..where it was placed on the towers.....where the Boeings were in the towers....and finally where the sightings were reported....in the centers of ALL 3 BUILDINGS some 70 feet below fucking ground level...If you can't honestly understand all the things going against your molten aluminum assumptions...then you're just being willfully ignorant for the sake of keeping your OCT  
alive in your feeble little troll head of yours...
You lose loser...


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 17, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...


No asshole it is NOT incumbent on ME to find out. My task in this thread is to point out where I have a problem with the NIST report, and for others to try to show me that I am wrong for doubting NIST..It is incumbent for you to show me how the NIST is accurate, and that I am wrong, and you have and continue to fail miserably at your task..

The reality is that is was incumbent on NIST to investigate the entire spectrum of the evidence  using whatever reports and witnesses were available, and you know this. And find out why and how 3 buildings collapsed because of 2 planes, and how and why they all collapsed.
It was not up to anyone else but NIST.
But, nothing that anyone can say...no figures, calculations, no amount of witnesses, and no amount of any information or facts, reason or rationale will ever change the way you view things. It is you who struggles to provide any hint that NIST report is credible, and you who struggles to provide any logical answers that counters what I have presented that I am against regarding NIST..
*Aluminum...GZ workers..hundreds of credible GZ personnel not knowing the difference?
Molten steel being seen and reported in sub basements 70 feet below the earth, but somehow according to your stupidity, it would somehow be more rational to assume it was the Boeing plane bodies that were inside the towers some 80 to 90 stories in the fucking air??*
*Or that it is somehow more rational to assume the thinner aluminum cladding covers that were on the outsides of the towers and that can be seen being forcibly ejected away from the buildings with great energy, were what all the GZ people and Leslie Robertson said he saw???
You also want us to believe your reasoning, that what they really really saw was melting aluminum in the centers of all 3 wreckage piles..that was buried in the sub basements...70 feet below the surface, despite each tower having 200,000 TONS of steel
compared to, and according to your "debunking" site that you claim is a good source of information ""it is probable that 10,000kg of molten aluminum formed in each tower" 
which comes out to approximately only 22,046lbs...
22,046lbs...of aluminum in each tower compared to 200,000 tons of steel in each tower?
The towers had most of its aluminum on the outside, and the Boeing plane bodies were hundred of feet in the air...So how can you even begin to honestly or rationally conclude
that this aluminum in such low quantities compared to the steel contents, could possibly makes its way under the ground, and say that it was most likely melting aluminum?? *
This is just one example of the insane logic and nonsense you have yo use in order to defend YOUR OFFICIAL CONSPIRACY THEORY!!

This is precisely because anything that points towards another possibility is strictly out of bounds for people like you. You are only here in a capacity to spread ridicule, and disinformation, and you will stoop to the lowest levels humanly possible to try to do it, and maintain and perpetuate the lies. It's humorous watching you
being stripped of any honesty, credibility and integrity in your attempts...It's only a message board and no one knows you right? Fuck all those attributes, your task is continue to breath life into a lie. When facts, figures, calculations hundreds of witnesses are against you, you stoop to attacking and try to lay the blame on the blameless, and when 
that doesn't go well, you trot out the race card, and your favorite...the CT label..Do you seriously think that
no one can see right through your BS and tactics? Seriously? You are a joke and you strategy is dependant on
easily observed trolling tactics that look like they came right out of a handbook, or some pre shift meetings..LOL!

NIST  was, as a government agency assigned the task to investigate the collapses of the buildings, but instead given what can be read, was really charged with an "official scientific" coverup, and after observing how they conducted their investigation that is  exactly what they seemed to have produced.

Maybe you purposefully keep yourself from processing many of these things, or maybe you are one of the many stooges that are placed on forums and comment sections to discourage honest discussion, by using ridicule, false unprovable assumptions and the like.
Whether this is the case concerning you and others or not, it makes no great difference just reading the looney assumptions that you post, and watching you tie yourself up in knots, all the while ignoring the obvious contradictions and glaring inconsistencies, in order for you to try and rationalize the absurd..is comical. You are a  dishonest individual
and you have no integrity, but those attributes don't matter to you. America doesn't matter to you, and we can all be damn sure facing the facts about 9-11 is not even on the table when it comes to your task.

Yep...No level is too low for you to stoop to, including laying the blame on GZ workers in a lowdown attempt to cover for NIST, and to keep your OCT intact and in place in your mind and in the minds of others..It is also obvious that you have an immature capacity to reason and rationalize and you have a child's view in regards to America, its politics and policies and history. 

It's ironic you keep mentioning "my CT" when you adhere to one that does not make sense, and must use dishonest tactics and out right lies to keep it afloat in weak scared minds. When this is pointed out, you resort to more of the same obfuscation tactics blaming those who are not deserving of it,and you like to throw in the race/religion card
too when your BS is exposed. You do these tactics in order to avoid continuing talk
about what you simply have no defense for or rational answer to.

Anyone who calls the views of others  a "CT" while wrapping himself in one, and who justifies adhering to it because it is an "official version" that is full of easily verifiable  and discernible holes, is in a state of great denial or has chosen the task of assisting in the spread of propaganda, and disinformation, and using ridicule and the "CT"  label, and the race card to foment ridicule and squelch discussion and prevent awareness of topics that can show others just how bad they have been mislead and lied to.

I have already shown in this thread, where you have lied, and where you used an obscure "debunking" website whose figures and calculations and statements were against the possibility of hundreds of reports and eyewitnesses who supposedly couldn't tell the difference between steel channel and much thinner aluminum pieces of wreckage.

You came on here spewing BS about Leslie Robertson an original WTC engineer, and you claimed he never mentioned seeing melted steel, and I posted a video that shows you were dead wrong. So you stooped even lower and tried to resort to blaming the GZ workers themselves for not "testing" what they saw and reported.....

You have run out of options, so you attack the well meaning innocent GZ workers before you will ever admit that NIST neglected  to do its job properly, and in similar fashion to what NIST did, you go to every possible asinine scenario including ignoring facts, and witnesses that could force you to rationalize honestly. You have no regard for your own credibility or integrity and honesty has no known definition in your mind..

Like Eots has said, the NIST report is a joke. It's full of glaring out right lies and very unlikely assumptions that are based on neglecting and dismissing anything that has a better possibility of showing the attacks were facilitated by something, and someone else.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 17, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...


Any answers were up to NIST to supply, and since they didn't do anything regarding the melted steel, I have tried to interject some logic, and reasoning behind what other credible independent researchers have concluded, and what my views regarding this are..
I have posted pages of information that can show it was more then likely steel that was discovered.
To date no one in this thread has made a valid case for it NOT being steel.
NIST makes no mention of melted steel so we must use what we know and find out regarding the aluminum and the steel within the towers.NIST also made no mention of melted aluminum as most likely being the cause either, as they knew anything that was in a molten state for so long could not possibly have been caused by a diffuse flame office fire, jet fuel or not..Don't you think NIST would have jumped on this melted aluminum BS right away if it had even the most remote chance of being believable?
I just can't understand why this fails to compute to some people, unless they know it is a detriment to their OCT beliefs.

Each tower consisted of approximately 200,000 tons of steel components. No one has posted how much aluminum components the twins had. I looked at another posters link to "9/11 Myths" and used what they mentioned as far as quantity of aluminum is concerned.
They were touted by the poster as a good source of information...
They said ""it is probable that 10,000kg of molten aluminum formed in each tower"
which comes out to approximately only 22,046lbs...for each tower...
Now compare that quantity to the steel in the towers...
Also compare where the aluminum was with respect to the towers. It was mostly on the outside cladding cover them.
Most of this perimeter was forciblt ejected away from where the melted steel was discovered. The melted steel was sighted and reported in the centers up to some 70 feet
BELOW the surface.
Given the lopsided quantities of steel vs aluminum, how is it more likely for it have been aluminum that was sighted and reported under ground in the centers of the towers?
How about the Boeing planes? Well, they were 80-90 stories high up within the structure of the towers..How is it more likely that they ended up, in the centers, below the ground and even remotely be what was sighted?
How is it even remotely possible that all of these numerous GZ personnel, their associated agencies, and that included WTC engineer Leslie Robertson were all wrong and NOT qualified to discern the difference between steel channel and a piece of thin aluminum? You do realize aluminum is sliverish in color?

How can anyone, given the facts above even begin to try and rationally argue that it was aluminum?? This is non sense and intellectual dishonesty.

The melting aluminum, being the most likely scenario is asinine, and can be ruled out, in the twins. There is no rational argument available, and to continue to say that it was "never found" or "confirmed" is not the fault of anyone but NIST.

Not to mention that the aluminum cladding, or a Boeing body argument can not be used at WTC 7!

I'm getting tired at having to point these facts out, and pissed off at some assholes trying to hide behind the neglect of NIST on this part of the WTC collapse investigation, and laying the blame on GZ workers for not testing the steel!

NIST failed in their assigned task, and in so doing failed to give any OCT believers any
logical argument against the facts that have been posted regarding melted/molten steel period, end of chapter. NEXT!


----------



## Montrovant (Mar 17, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



I find many of your arguments irrational.  I have found much of your posted information questionable, sometimes irrelevant, and occasionally contradictory.  This has been pointed out numerous times.  You think it should be completely clear to anyone that what you have concluded is true.  I disagree, and have explained why.  You continue to harp on 'hiding behind' the NIST report, despite the fact that multiple posters have said they accept the possibility that the NIST report is flawed while not completely dismissing the idea that the planes and fires were responsible for the collapse of the towers.  

If you want to move on to another point, that's fine.  However, you seem to be taking this too personally and getting angrier about it than you should if you want to continue a polite argument about the subject.


----------



## eots (Mar 17, 2013)

The NIST report is beyond flawed it was an intentional cover - up of the facts


----------



## eots (Mar 17, 2013)

Dr. Quintiere said he originally &#8220;had high hopes&#8221; that NIST would do a good job with the investigation. &#8220;They&#8217;re the central government lab for fire. There are good people there and they can do a good job. But what I also thought they would do is to enlist the service of the* ATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives], *which has an investigation force and a laboratory of their own for fire. And I thought they would put people out on the street and get gumshoe-type information. What prevented all of this? I think it&#8217;s the legal structure that cloaks the Commerce Department and therefore NIST. And so, instead of lawyers as if they were acting on a civil case trying to get depositions and information subpoenaed, *those lawyers did the opposite and blocked everything.&#8221;*&#8220;In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, *and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding.*
OpEdNews - Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 17, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



You conveniently ignore the tons of aluminum and other materials in the Towers which were present and when melted and mixed with aluminum could appear orange. No one who claims to have seen molten metal can say with any degree of certainty what that molten material was, especially you.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 17, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



Your entire premise is based on a lie, Princess, yet you repeat it like it's your job. Is it your job?


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 17, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



You base your CT on a false premise; that molten materials at GZ were steel yet you can't explain what substance could have melted that steel on 9/11 and continued to do so weeks later. Like the NIST I find no reason to investigate your concerns absent either proof of molten steel or a substance which could do what you claim. Sorry, Princess, but your CT is still just speculation, innuendo, unsubstantiated assumptions, half-truths and outright CTBS.


----------



## lynn63 (Mar 17, 2013)

What I finding interesting about the whole incident was the quick response of the military that were able to quickly deploy so many military personal to every business to control the people that lived there.  My friend was there when the towers collapsed and she said it was so well organized that it looked they had been prepared for this event.

Prior to 911 there were many arrests with people getting caught with anthrax in their possession. The media never put two and two together and never mentioned this in the media.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 17, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



Nor has anyone here made the case it was NOT molten gold or bronze or cheese-whiz. The only one here pretending to KNOW what that molten material was is - drum roll, please - you.
No one can say with any degree of certainty what that stuff was and neither can you but you desperately pretend to and I believe I now understand why.
Your CT is your life's work, what you believe to be your claim to fame. You have invested much time and effort in erecting your CT and the molten steel is at the core of it. Admitting that no one, including you knows what the molten mats were destroys your CT, something you just can't face.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 18, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...


----------



## daws101 (Mar 18, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> EXPLOSIONS-
> 
> There were many reports and witnesses to explosions within the WTC towers. These came from many sources that included news reporters who were told to step back because of reports of 2ndary devices. There were witnesses to huge explosions in the basements as well.
> It would seem logical that an investigation would include some analysis of these explosions.
> ...


"Squibs"



Conspiracy theories are often built around anomalies which are difficult to prove either way. The "assumptionists" are convinced they know what the anomaly is. One such anomaly is the so called "Squibs".  



They say this anomaly is an explosive charge going off and a sure sign of Controlled Demolition. It's often followed by more video of charges going off in real Controlled Demolitions. But if we examine the anomaly closely, we see these [would be] explosives work in reverse to an explosive blast. They tend to spurt out and then increase with time. An explosive works in reverse to this. Its strongest point is the moment the charge is set off. It doesn't increase its explosive strength with time.  

So what is this then? Why would debris jet out of windows far below the collapse?  

It could be a number of things, by themselves or in combination. One reasonable explanation is a buildup of pressure caused by the compression of air between the floors as they pancaked, (Please read the link to explain the NIST / Pancaking issue) pushed debris out of the already broken windows and/or open vents. Another is falling debris like elevators or elevator parts/motors and/or columns free falling down the elevator shafts and slamming into lower floors creating debris. In a sense the floors are large plungers and the towers are just one big  Syringe during the collapse.

 During the pancake, the floors acted like a plunger in a Syringe. The towers skin and windows became the tube of the Syringe.  The increased pressure blew the windows out as each massive acre of floor compressed air between them.  It's said that the towers were about 95% air.  But not all the air went so easily out the window space.  There was just as much window as there was steel perimeter columns.  So the air takes the path of least resistance to the core.  The core is collapsing and thick debris is preventing the air from going up.  Its next path of least resistance would be to go down the core. The air pushed though the core any way it could and the pressure built up. It forced its way out on lower floors wherever it could.  According to the survivors of at least one tower, a hurricane wind blows through the staircase which is located in the core...


Matt Komorowski: The first thing I really felt was the incredible rush of air at my back. And maybe I felt it before everybody else, because I was the last guy.
Stone Phillips: Like a gust of wind, behind you.
Matt Komorowski: Gust of wind. Wind tunnel. It was the most incredible push at your back, that you can feel.

http://www.acfd.com/miracle_of_ladder_company_6.htm 


BILL BUTLER, NEW YORK FIRE DEPARTMENT: We took two steps down from the fourth floor and the building started to shake.

 SALVATORE D'AGOSTINO, NEW YORK FIRE DEPARTMENT: You could hear the floors pancaking one on top of the other, huge explosions.

 LIM: Boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, and faster as they get closer. What I remember the most was the wind. It created almost like a hurricane-type force and actually pushed one of the firemen right by me.

 MIKE MELDRUM, NEW YORK FIRE DEPARTMENT: I was flown down a flight of stairs, a little groggy for a while. I noticed somebody on a half landing just up from me, a few stairs and I thought it was one of our guys and it was David Lim.

CNN.com - Transcripts 

 Of course, I expect the conspiracy theorists to say this was just the explosives which caused the high wind ("He even says explosions!") but they have no evidence of explosives.  We do have evidence of   pancaking.  The ejecta coming out of the windows of the pancaking floor was uniform across the floor and light in color.  It was coming out of every floor window until the falling debris obscured its view.  Controlled demolition has staggered ejecta because the charges are only on some columns.  You also always see at least [some] before the collapse and not [only] during it.  There are none of these jets of debris before collapse.

 Another point is the amount of these so called squibs.  Some are laughably small wisps of smoke. I wont even bother with these.  These are people who are searching every video, frame by frame in order to find something which they can use.  Some are simply glass falling and reflecting sunlight or a piece of aluminum cladding doing the same.  Yet, some seem to be heavy jets out of a window on one floor and another jet of debris about 30 to 40 stories below as the collapse progresses.  I have to admit, when I first saw this I didn't know what to make of it.  But as I thought of the possibilities, I also thought of what it needed to be if it were a demolition.  In all the controlled demolitions I've seen, there have been a large amount of explosives on almost all floors.  Even some small buildings have many charges.  Why would they put charges on what seems like only a couple of floors?  And once the collapse progressed, why would they care about the 40th floor?  When the top 70 floors are crashing down on the 40th floor; even conspiracy theorists have trouble believing that floor would stop the collapse.  And even if it did, the message is sent.  The towers were no longer usable after the top 70 stories fell on it.  It would be an added and absurd risk to add explosives on the lower floors. 

 The best explanation which fits the evidence is that there were heavy objects free falling down the elevator shafts and hitting the lowest landings.  The explosive force of one of these...



 ...hitting the elevator, then lower floors would be tremendous.  Hitting an elevator below would only add to the weight and explosive effect.  It would send debris away from the impact point with great force.  It's not unreasonable to suspect these heavy objects obliterated the fireproofed gypsum on the way down. Couple that with the over pressure of the collapse and you have a good candidate for what we see.  Is that the only thing it could be? Not at all.  I, like the conspiracy theorists, don't have an inventory of every window that was broken and every piece of equipment which could have created the effect. 
 So, we are left with jets of debris which do not act like explosives, on not enough floors to have caused the collapse.  We also have some likely explanations which do not involve explosives.  
Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - Squibs


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 18, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



You of all posters on here have failed the most miserably in presenting a valid detailed case against it being molten steel, and for the probability of it being aluminum.
Again you try to deviate from the entire point of this part of the discussion, which is to understand why there is objection to the credibility of the NIST investigation and its reports. You simply must continue to ignore the weakness of your argument and case, and continue to say "there is no proof" while ignoring the facts that the only reason you feel that you can even say that, is the fact that NIST provided an out for themselves and anyone who takes the same stance as you do, by NOT CONDUCTING A THOROUGH AND COMPLETE INVESTIGATION AND IGNORING THIS OBVIOUS TO HUNDREDS MOLTEN STEEL PHENOMENA!!
 Your CT precisely has to rely on "speculation, innuendo, unsubstantiated assumptions, half-truths and outright CTBS" along with shit investigative tactics, including ignoring of this issue, so the OCT myth that only planes flown by inexperienced Islamic jihadists, and fires, and gravity can be said to be the sole cause of the WTC buildings demise..

You lose again.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 18, 2013)

lynn63 said:


> What I finding interesting about the whole incident was the quick response of the military that were able to quickly deploy so many military personal to every business to control the people that lived there.  My friend was there when the towers collapsed and she said it was so well organized that it looked they had been prepared for this event.
> 
> Prior to 911 there were many arrests with people getting caught with anthrax in their possession. The media never put two and two together and never mentioned this in the media.



Well, FEMA was on site in NYC the day before the attacks....


----------



## daws101 (Mar 18, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...


bump


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 18, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Yeah. The evidence of it being molten steel is against you. 

There is no evidence of maintained temperatures of 2,800F within the pile. Also, thermite/thermate cannot maintain temperatures of 2,800F for weeks. 

Now, could what was seen be a byproduct of a eutectic reaction? WPI looked at some steel and said that the pieces showing evidence of a corrosive attack reached temperatures between 1,290F and 1,800F, FAR from the temps of molten steel.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 18, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > EXPLOSIONS-
> ...



Air pressure doesn't make sense. Air pressure had other places to go like in the centers of the buildings, not only that how could air pressure be blown out 10-20-30 stories below the collapse front? Your site is based on BS guesses...Those buildings weren't that air tight...we would have only seen the suibs immediately below the fronts no half way down the sides in a row and in rapid succession like we can see in many videos.


----------



## daws101 (Mar 18, 2013)

WE should change this threads' title to SISTER JONES'S OPUS.. A treatise on obsession....


----------



## daws101 (Mar 18, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...


last time I checked you didn't know what end of a screwdriver to use...now you're claiming to know more then the builders, nist etc...
and you're full of shit, the air pressure increase would be more then enough to blow windows out. the site in accurate but like everything else you'll just deny it.



The story...

"Looking at the upper right-hand corner of [WTC7] we see a rapid series of small explosions travelling upward just as the building itself begins to fall. The size, placement and timing of these "puffs" is very consistent with squibs from cutting charges of the type used in professional controlled demolitions..."
http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/Flashes/squibs_along_southwest_corner.htm

WTC7 Squib Big104

Our take...

Looks very convincing, doesn&#8217;t it? But under closer examination this claim doesn&#8217;t seem quite so robust, and we have concerns in four different areas.

#1, how was this image produced? &#8220;Enhancing&#8221; video footage is a very subjective business, making it wise to compare pictures like this with the source material. Click here to see why.

#2, when did the &#8220;squibs&#8221; really appear? The claim above doesn&#8217;t say exactly, and for good reason. Look at the original footage and you can see the building is falling for some time before they pop up. Here are the images.

#3, everyone who writes about this makes it seem like these images could only be produced from explosives. Look at the video, though, and you&#8217;ll see the building deform, causing windows to break, just as the &#8220;squibs&#8221; appear. So how do we know they weren&#8217;t caused in a similar way? Take a look for yourself.

And #4, presumably these &#8220;squibs&#8221; are supposed to be throwing smoke and material out of the windows. So why is it that the video shows the &#8220;squibs&#8221; staying in more or less the same place relative to the building, even as it&#8217;s falling? It looks like there&#8217;s more smoke ejected from regular broken windows than these supposed demolition charges. Here are the stills.

Put it all together, then, and the &#8220;squibs&#8221; appear after WTC7 has begun to fall, as floors sag across the building, and at almost exactly the same time as this effect causes other windows to break. As these also appear to eject more material than the &#8220;squibs&#8221;, then the most plausible explanation is they&#8217;re nothing more than windows breaking as the building falls.


http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_squibs.html


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 18, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> You of all posters on here have failed the most miserably in presenting a valid detailed case against it being molten steel, and for the probability of it being aluminum.



And YOU have failed to provide evidence of it BEING molten steel. The only "proof" you have is visual claims. 

This molten steel claim is directly refuted by the fact that you have no fuel source that could have maintained 2,800F temperatures over weeks in addition to there being no evidence of measured temperatures being that high.


----------



## Montrovant (Mar 18, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 18, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Air pressure doesn't make sense. Air pressure had other places to go like in the centers of the buildings,



You mean through the core???

Tell me please how the air would have gotten into the core instead of blowing windows out. I can't WAIT to hear this.



Mr. Jones said:


> not only that how could air pressure be blown out 10-20-30 stories below the collapse front? Your site is based on BS guesses...Those buildings weren't that air tight...we would have only seen the suibs immediately below the fronts no half way down the sides in a row and in rapid succession like we can see in many videos.



And you can tell exactly where the collapse fronts were at INSIDE the perimeter walls right?

Tell me why we only see singular "squibs"? Where were the supposed explosions emanating from? The core columns or the perimeter columns?


----------



## eots (Mar 18, 2013)

these debwunkers sound like OJs lawyers ..not people looking at the evidence


----------



## daws101 (Mar 18, 2013)

eots said:


> these debwunkers sound like OJs lawyers ..not people looking at the evidence


what evidence? but don't let that stop you.


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 18, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Air pressure doesn't make sense. Air pressure had other places to go like in the centers of the buildings, not only that how could air pressure be blown out 10-20-30 stories below the collapse front? Your site is based on BS guesses...Those buildings weren't that air tight...we would have only seen the suibs immediately below the fronts no half way down the sides in a row and in rapid succession like we can see in many videos.



Please explain to us all how "explosives" on the core columns created an elongated jet of debris at whose pint of expulsion is at the perimeter columns? You aren't suggesting that an explosion originating at the core columns created a "thin jet of expelled debris" at the perimeter columns are you?

How does one control an "explosive force" to only blow out one or two windows?


----------



## daws101 (Mar 18, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Air pressure doesn't make sense. Air pressure had other places to go like in the centers of the buildings, not only that how could air pressure be blown out 10-20-30 stories below the collapse front? Your site is based on BS guesses...Those buildings weren't that air tight...we would have only seen the suibs immediately below the fronts no half way down the sides in a row and in rapid succession like we can see in many videos.
> ...


his "theory" conveniently ignores there was no evidence of blast waves  either visual or audio..


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 18, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



In your opinion but then your credibility is a bit suspect. No one can say with any degree of certainty what those _untested_ molten mats were and considering there is no known substance which could have melted steel on 9/11 and keep it molten weeks later, assuming it was steel - while fitting for your CT - is nonetheless just wild, self-serving speculation.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 18, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Do you imply, Sir, that some "highly respected" CTs have engaged in half-truths, speculation, self-serving assumptions, fabrications and outright fraud? Ridiculous! Why would they do such a thing?


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 18, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > You of all posters on here have failed the most miserably in presenting a valid detailed case against it being molten steel, and for the probability of it being aluminum.
> ...



Not to mention no evidence of anyone having rigged those buildings for demo nor a single player having come forward to say he was part of the alleged rigging crew. Perhaps GWB and a handful of boy scouts did it on a wild weekend in the Big Apple. Woohoo!


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 18, 2013)

eots said:


> these debwunkers sound like OJs lawyers ..not people looking at the evidence



Once again; you have provided no evidence (because there is none) of molten steel or of the presence of a substance which could have melted the steel on 9/11 and continued to melt it weeks later, nor have you provided any of the buildings having been rigged for demo.
You have posted tons of half-truths, innuendo, speculation, assumptions and fabrications in support of your CTs but nothing convincing. Sorry.


----------



## daws101 (Mar 18, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...


me imply?


----------



## wihosa (Mar 19, 2013)

Here we are trying our best to investigate the biggest attack on America and we are not experts so it is easy to question even at what temp steel melt and at what temp typical hydro carbon fires burn. 

What should be happening is a real investigation by a real prosecutor with real subpoena power who can call to the witness stand real experts who do know what temp steel melts at and at what temp jet fuel mixed with office furnishings burn.

Considering that there was never a prosecutor named to investigate I wonder what the nay sayers are afraid of. If you are so sure I'm wearing a tin foil hat I would think you would jump at the chance to prove me wrong.

Seems to me the nay sayers are more interested in protecting those who would be implicated.

Since we can't agree about who the perpetrators were, lets at least agree we need a real investigation.


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 19, 2013)

wihosa said:


> What should be happening is a real investigation by a real prosecutor with real subpoena power who can call to the witness stand real experts who do know what temp steel melts at and at what temp jet fuel mixed with office furnishings burn.



What does melting steel temperatures have to do with jet fuel mixed with office furnishings have to do with anything?

There is no proof that temperatures reached 2,600F - 2,800F, enough to melt steel.

There is no analysis of the supposed melted steel to PROVE it was melted steel. Furthermore, as stated above, there is absolutely no evidence anywhere of temperatures needed to melt steel. That's proof enough that the melted steel claim is bogus.

Melted steel was not needed to fail the support structure. All that was needed was for the steel to be heated and for an increased load to be applied to that steel. That is enough to fail a structure.

Numerous items have been posted in this tread and elsewhere explaining fire proofing on steel and why they do it. There are explanations about fireproofing restrained versus unrestrained steel.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 19, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > What should be happening is a real investigation by a real prosecutor with real subpoena power who can call to the witness stand real experts who do know what temp steel melts at and at what temp jet fuel mixed with office furnishings burn.
> ...



In Wilhosa's defense, despite having been a member here for 5 years he/she is evidently new to the 9/11 CT Movement and is bursting with newbie exuberance. Just three days ago in a "teaching" moment he/she posted; "OK, number one. *Did you know that a third office tower in New York collapsed entirely into its own footprint on 911?* Many hours (I think it was like at five or six o'clock) building 7 a 47story modern steel frame office tower collapsed." 
To most here and to most in America this is not hot news yet the post leads me to believe Wilhosa either just found that out or is pompous enough to think others here just don't have the "knowledge" that he/she does. Not exactly the brightest bulb on the tree but apparently ready for the ridicule he/she is certain is forthcoming.


----------



## eots (Mar 19, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > What should be happening is a real investigation by a real prosecutor with real subpoena power who can call to the witness stand real experts who do know what temp steel melts at and at what temp jet fuel mixed with office furnishings burn.
> ...



_Yes what a terrible job NIST did ..they do not even have evidence of temperatures required to soften steel_

 although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have.

OpEdNews - Page 2 of Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation


----------



## Montrovant (Mar 19, 2013)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > wihosa said:
> ...



So, wait.....you guys are all over the place.

Is it your contention that it was not hot enough for the towers to collapse?  Do you not subscribe to the molten steel idea, or do you think the steel melted after the collapse?


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 19, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



Montrovant,

As you will notice, eots will never answer the question "At what temperature does steel start to weaken".

Excerpt from an article at Structural Material Behavior in Fire: Steel


> Hot finished carbon steel begins to lose strength at temperatures above 300°C and reduces in strength at steady rate up to 800°C. The small residual strength then reduces more gradually until the melting temperature at around 1500°C. This behaviour is similar for hot rolled reinforcing steels. For cold worked steels including reinforcement, there is a more rapid decrease of strength after 300°C (Lawson & Newman 1990). In addition to the reduction of material strength and stiffness, steel displays a significant creep phenomena at temperatures over 450°C. The phenomena of creep results in an increase of deformation (strain) with time, even if the temperature and applied stress remain unchanged (Twilt 1988).



So steel starts to weaken at 572F and continues to loss it's strength up to 1472F. 

According to the book, Performance-Based Fire Engineering of Structures, page 47, atypical office fire burns at around 1,200F and 1,300F.
Performance-Based Fire Engineering of Structures - Yong C. Wang, Ian Burgess, Franti Ek Wald, Martin Gillie - Google Books


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 19, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



Another thing. Notice how eots contradicts himself by quoting Dr. Quintiere and claims that fire could not weaken steel yet this same person, Dr. Quintiere, says he believes the following in his conclusion.


> An alternative hypothesis with the insulated trusses at the root cause
> appears to have more support. Heat transfer analyses, a scale model, and
> the UL furnace tests all indicate that the steel trusses can attain temperatures
> corresponding to failure based on structural analyses.



How can eots quote Dr. Quintiere and then make a claim that there were NOT temperatures in the fires hot enough to weaken steel, yet Dr. Quintiere believes there were based on his conclusion above.

Eots cherry picks arguments to suit his ill conceived claims. He's nothing more than a troll and that's why he is on my ignore list.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 19, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



From the link that you failed to paste--
*"High temperature creep is dependent on the stress level and heating rate."*
*
"The occurrence of creep indicates that the stress and the temperature history have to be taken into account in estimating the strength and deformation behaviour of steel structures in fire." *

*"The thermal properties of steel at elevated temperatures are found to be dependent on temperature and are less influenced by the stress level and heating rate."*


We have to consider what they say about the temps, the strength of the steel, the insulation, and if there was localized focused elevated temps to fail the steel, within a sufficient amount of time....
What does the NIST testing show us in relation to what this means?

You fail to consider that while steel does weaken, it regains some of its strength and integrity upon it cooling, and the wtc had transient fires and the steel was not subjected to
any localized intense heat, for sufficient amount of time that it would continue to cause it to lose its strength, and you fail to except that heated steel spreads heat along its connected members.

None of what you are trying to imply is supported by the NISTs metallurgical analyses, which showed that not none of the 236 steel samples, that included those from the impact areas and fire damaged floors, showed any evidence of exposure to temps in excess of 1,110 Deg. F. for as long as 15 minutes.
NIST NCSTAR 1, WTC Investigation p. 88.

Out of 170 areas examined on 16 recovered perimeter columns, only 3 of them reached temperatures in excess of 450 Deg. F. during the fires.
Sham Sunder, the lead NIST investigator, admitted, the jetfuel burned out in about 15 minutes.

And that the actual amount of combustibles on a typical floor of the WTC turned out to be less than what NIST expected, only about 4 lbs per sq. foot.and the the fuel loading in the core areas....was negligible.
 Andy Field, A Look Inside a Radical new Theory of the WTC Collapse, Fire/Rescue News, February 7, 2004. Sunder made a similar statement during an October 19, 2004 presentation. See World Trade Center Investigation Status, S. Shyam Sunder, lead investigator, Building and Fire Research Laboratory, NIST. 
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/agenda_oct192004.htm

NIST estimated that a fire in a typical area of the building would have burned through the available combustibles at maximum temperatures 1832 Deg. F. in about 15-20 minutes.
NIST NCSTAR 1, WTC Investigation p. 127.
As the fire left this area and moved on, the affected steel would cool, thereby regaining some of its strength and integrity.

 This time, and the fact that steel wicks away heat to its connected members, is not nearly as long as is needed even at that temperature to cause exposed steel to lose 80% of its strength, and  NIST had no hard evidence about the actual amount of insulation that was dislodged by the plane impacts, and they say this right in their report.
NIST NCSTAR 1-2, WTC Investigation, Executive Summary, p. xli.

But even after saying this they still go on to assume that all structural steel at the time of impact suffered  a 100% loss of insulation. That's really stretching it to make the worse case scenario, but still doesn't jive with their test results.

Again,what many of you continue to fail to consider is that the steel support structure of the WTC did not exists as some isolated components, and that these were not some controlled lab fires. The steel in each tower were part of an interconnected steel framework that weighed at least 200,000 tons. 
Steel is known to be an excellent conductor of heat and this huge interconnected structure functioned  as a huge heat sink. The total volume of the steel framework was massive in comparison with the  small area of exposed steel, and would have transferred much the fire's heat and spread it around,  to unaffected steel thus cooling the immediate effected areas.

Going by the steel samples that were recovered, only three recovered steel samples showed temps  above 482 Deg. F. and is indicative that the steel was indeed behaving as a heat sink.

The low fuel load/combustibles and the short durations of both fire scenarios 56/and 104 minutes, combined with the testing results, indicate that any melting or weakening would have taken many hours, certainly much longer than the short time span of 56 minutes/104 minutes to slowly raise the temperature of the steel framework to the point of weakening/ melting the localized, exposed steel components.

A global collapse, by definition infers that all support columns must fail at once, this implies a more or less constant blaze across a wide area, but this was not the case in the towers.
As already mentioned NISTs lead investigator, Sham Sunder, admitted that the jet fuel was consumed within minutes, and they found that the unexpectedly light combustibles in any given area of the towers were mostly consumed in about 15-20 minutes.
The fires in WTC 1 were transient.
NIST NCSTAR 1, WTC Investigation, p. 126-127.

They flared up in a given area, reached a maximum intensity within about 10 minutes, then gradually died down as the fire front moved on to consume combustibles in other areas. 
So, as the fires moved away from the impact zone to the areas with little or no damage to the fireproofing, the heating of the steel columns and trusses in those areas would have been minimal.
NISTs own data showed that, the fires on floor 96, where the collapse began, reached its peak 30-45 minutes after the impact and waned thereafter. 

Temperatures were actually cooling across most of floor 96, including the core, at the moment of the collapse, and if this is true, the central piers were not losing strength at that point but regaining it.
Steel actually regains its strength when it starts to cool, unlike some of you that try to insist that once it reaches it's point of weakness, it remains so.
NISTs insistence that temperatures and stresses were high in the core area is not consistent with their findings that indicate that the fuel loads/combustibles in the core was negligible.
NIST NCSTAR 1-5, WTC Investigation, p. 121
The report contradicts itself on this point.

The NIST report fails to explain how these transient fires weakened WTC 1s massive central piers and support structure in the allotted time span of 103 minutes for this tower, and triggered a global collapse. 

The NIST report contradicts itself, and assumes that steel wont spread heat around, but will remain in a localized spot, all the while at the fail temps required to fail the steel, in such short durations of time...But then when reports of melted steel, and high temps that would substantiate their assumptions are brought to their attention, they ignore this instead of looking at this instance as an opportunity to help explain the above....But then
that would have forced them to open the door to there being a fuel load/combustible that was not present and not established by their findings wouldn't it?

BTW, there is no mention of any aluminum anywhere in the report either. Especially molten aluminum 70 feet below the ground in sub basements, near the centers of the buildings. Their findings do not substantiate their own hypothesis, and avoid how steel reacts to heat. Their fire testing does not substantiate their theory either, especially when their metallurgical findings are taken into account in which they found that not only were they wrong about the fuel loads/combustibles per sq. ft. were wrong, but they were surprised to find that the steel's integrity was above and beyond what they expected as well.

The floors continued to support the full design load without collapse for over two hours.
NIST NCSTAR 1, Executive Summary, p. xlvi.

Tests showed that the yield strengths of 87% of the perimeter/core columns, and all of the floor trusses samples, exceeded the original specifications by as much as 20%.
The yield strengths of many of the steels in the floor trusses were above 50 ksi, even when specifications required 36 ksi.
NIST NCSTAR 1, WTC Investigation, p. 67.

NIST performed similar tests on a number of recovered bolts, and found that these too were much stronger than expected, based on reports from the contemporaneous literature.
NIST NCSTAR 1, WTC Investigation, p. 67.

None of the above findings support the NIST official explanation for the WTC collapse, and certainly refute the steel weakening in such short times with such low temps, and the steel remaining in a "weakened" state even after the fires spread to other parts and it had a chance to cool.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 19, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



It's even worse than first thought. Today (ID)eots reached a new low when he changed the wording of an NIST answer from a Q&A session claiming the blast necessary to destroy the critical bldg 7 column and cause its failure would be only "as loud as a shot-gun blast or *speakers at a rock concert*..."
The actual answer was "This sound level is consistent with a gunshot blast, standing next to a jet plane engine, and *more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert*." The boy is clearly ready, willing and eager to _lie_ for his "cause" and while I'm not one to block posters but I don't blame you for blocking that asshole.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 19, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Link?


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 19, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



The molten steel proponents have failed, despite repeated requests, to name any known substances which could have melted the steel beams on 9/11 and have continued to melt them weeks later as they contend was the case. Obviously it's back to the ol' CT drawing board.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 19, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Temps in a fire like your link says are dependent on what combustibles are available. Wood desks and chairs are better fuel for a fire then a metal one. NIST over estimated the fuel loads and in reality were only 4lbs per sq. ft.
Their testing of recovered steel showed lower temps, for shorter durations of time, and the steel results showed higher strength then expected. The fires were transient, and did not remain localized.
You aren't considering transient heat transfer either.
Steel regains some of its strength upon cooling. It is made under extreme heat is it not?
Is it not then allowed to cool?
Your view contradicts NIST own findings about the temps,the steel, the fuel loads, and fire durations. You leave out the properties of steel and want people to assume that the fires raged at elevated temps, enough time durations, and that steel doesn't transfer its heat to its connected members, while assuming 100% of the insulation was gone, and not proven.


----------



## daws101 (Mar 19, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...


none of this confirms what the molten blobs were made of.
or your theory of thermite or the rigging of any accelerants.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 19, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



Interesting. I notice you required none of (ID)eots who posted the NIST response in an altered state (and without a link) but do of me who not only busted the lying slug but included this link with that post:
Fire Fighters For 9-11 Truth » Blog Archive » Explosion Witnesses
In response to having his lying ass exposed for all to see he then posted the unaltered version (which matched the version I posted) and included another link:
Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation
Care to comment on (ID)eots' lying?


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 19, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Oh so you want to say there was no molten steel, simply because no one has guessed what could have made it molten?
So you just want to dismiss all that has been said, reported, linked, and basically all the evidence that support the claims because of this stupid reason?
Fuck off...The case for the probability it was indeed molten steel,is too strong for any rational person to dismiss, and you certainly haven't provided anything to deter it.
Again you shit for brains idiot....the point regarding all of this is that this instance was too important for NIST to simply disregard. Why even you seem curious as to what could have possibly caused it, and kept it in a molten state, as well as the stubbornly persistent fires, with confirmed high heat.
Again you try to confirm that which you failed to provide an adequate case for, and because NIST didn't do its job properly, think you can scream "see no proof"?
Get lost you fucking asshole.


----------



## daws101 (Mar 19, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...


no one has dismissed anything, you presented what you believe to be smoking gun evidence, the trouble is, it's far more speculative and a lot less probable then the nist report.
IMO what truly pisses you off is none of the people you're trying to convince are crying out hallelujah sister jones and falling on their knees in gratitude.
it never occurs to guys like you that you are working from false and unprovable premise.
total hubris.


----------



## eots (Mar 19, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



Its not an opinion ..the steel saved showed nowhere near the temperatures required to soften steel ...however the evidence sent for destruction in china I believe would of showed temperatures far in excess of temperatures possible from fires and thats why it was disposed of...easier for NIST to explain the lack of evidence than acknowledge these excessive temperatures and this is why it was it was destroyed...


----------



## eots (Mar 19, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



its you that posted it altered  fucking dip-shit

*In addition, no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses. According to calculations by the investigation team, the smallest blast capable of failing the building's critical column would have resulted in a sound level of 130 decibels (dB) to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile, if unobstructed by surrounding buildings. This sound level is consistent with a gunshot blast, standing next to a jet plane engine, and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert.*



Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 19, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



*I'll accept that as your concession speech, Princess. You are clearly in this waaaay over your pinhead.*


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 19, 2013)

eots said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Yeah ... we're gonna need a credible link for your CTBS, Princess. As you so clearly demonstrated today, you're eager to play fast and loose with the truth.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 19, 2013)

eots said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



Uh-huh. 
Now compare that with your original, altered version of the NIST statement which started this discourse and which you even contained in quotes:  
*"as loud as a shot-gun blast or speakers at a rock concert..."*
You not only conveniently "forgot" to provide a link, you failed to include the part about "*10 times louder* than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert." 
You can wiggle and squirm all you like Princess, but the truth is there for all to see and I will not be letting you off the hook.
Your original post (#132 of this thread):  
"according to NIST it would be.."as loud as a shot-gun blast or speakers at a rock concert...but hey what does NIST know,,,right ?? 
http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...eve-the-official-911-story-9.html#post6973517


----------



## wihosa (Mar 19, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > wihosa said:
> ...



I don't need you to defend me. I don't spend all my free time posting here, I have a business to run and a family to support. It is not exuberance, just applied common sense. I didn't read everything that has been said, I don't have the time, so I laid down the premise for my argument and that is that something that is unprecedented is worthy of examination and extraordinary claims (NIST's assertion as to the collapse of building 7) need extraordinary proof. That has not been provided.

We need a real investigation!


----------



## eots (Mar 19, 2013)

> SAYIT I'm guessing it would have to have been a* fucking large explosive (like a Hiroshima nuke) *and if that *building was so structurally vunerable *why do you doubt the rest of the NIST report on 7's collapse?





> eots
> according to NIST it would be.."as loud as a shot-gun blast or speakers at a rock concert...but hey what does NIST know,,,right ??



It was not an _altered version_ you ninny..it was my response from memory to your crazy comment about Hiroshima nukes and contradicting the NIST collapse theory ..once again .. NIST determined that the building was not structurally vulnerable and the failure of that single column under any circumstance would have resulted in initiation of the collapse sequence...you know.. NIST...the theory you claim to support ?...


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 20, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



Try to keep up dawgshit....I am obviously talking about other instances that don't support NIST....Since no one has presented any reasonable case for it probably being aluminum, and can't refute what I noted about the steel vs aluminum, I am moving on to other aspects of the investigation and report..


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 20, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



Eots didn't lie. You were caught in lies, and you once again are using BS excuses when you can't debate the issues honestly. You have been given every chance to argue for the probability of the molten steel being aluminum and failed.
Now we are talking about other aspects of the NIST that also ignored, or failed to adequately investigate reports of explosions, symmetrical 'squibs" running down the towers  tens of stories below the collapse fronts etc...
Hysterical you calling someone else a liar who knows more about the topic then you do blindfolded. It's clear you can't present any points that substantiate your OCT, and you have to resort to calling others liars, when you are one, and when you yourself believe in things that are lies.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 20, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 20, 2013)

eots said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Especially since their report lacked any evidence to support extremely high temps capable of melting steel during the fires before any "collapses".. 

It's obvious that there was something that caused the steel to melt, and this melting was discovered after the collapses. Of course there was some evidence of extreme temps when we saw molten steel? coming from one of the towers...But the whole point in discussing the molten steel, is to show one instance of NIST dismissing, ignoring, and in the case of John Gross, out right lying about its reported sightings, and existence.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 20, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



You still haven't made a better case or presentation for your melted aluminum theory, and think you can rely on NIST not acknowledging the reports of sightings and ignoring them, as some kind of "proof" they did not exist LOL!
NIST ignored reports, and sightings by numerous credible personnel, including an original WTC engineer. NIST own John Gross lied about it.
You also want others to think you have any credibility while you fail to address numerous facts that all point to the probability of the molten metal being steel over aluminum quite easily.
You have no strong ground from which to debate your theory on because you can't refute the facts and points I have made...Not once have you even bothered to try because you have nothing, and you try to use the fact NIST lied, or that the GZ people didn't do NIST's job as a launching pad in futility....You really are one weak, cowardly, dishonest SOB. Any objective observer following this thread can see right through you.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 20, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



Oh STFU you whiny hypocritical asshole lying little bitch. You have no legs to stand on and no room to speak when it comes to substantiating any of your positions, and think you can escape from answering what is relevant to the thread by posting such BS..


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 20, 2013)

wihosa said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



Wihosa-You must try to understand that this is just one of many posters that tries to discourage any rational, honest discussion regarding the 9-11 attacks. He/she/it has been caught in lies, and has attempted to derail many thread regarding this. Do not let these disinformationalists  deter you from finding time to research this important topic, or others regarding our nation.
This poster is only out to ridicule, and misinform anyone who does not adhere to the official conspiracy theory, which itself is a huge conspiracy theory and a massive cover up.
Evidence of this is available to anyone who is in the process of "waking up" to reality and honestly searches for it.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 20, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> EXPLOSIONS-
> 
> There were many reports and witnesses to explosions within the WTC towers. These came from many sources that included news reporters who were told to step back because of reports of 2ndary devices. There were witnesses to huge explosions in the basements as well.
> It would seem logical that an investigation would include some analysis of these explosions.
> ...



No one wants to try and tackle this issue? It is yet another instance where it can be shown NIST ignored numerous reports, evidence and witnesses, and by doing so they lost more credibility, integrity, and showed they are dishonest.


----------



## Montrovant (Mar 20, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > EXPLOSIONS-
> ...



I'm busy atm, just browsing quickly, but I'll get around to this sometime in the next week or so when I can devote more time to it.


----------



## daws101 (Mar 20, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...


----------



## daws101 (Mar 20, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > EXPLOSIONS-
> ...


asked answered and debunked  there is no evidence of explosives being used . no physical: un exploded ordinance or det cord,   radio controlled detonator parts, no thermite of any kind.
no visual or audio evidence of blast waves . so all your evidence in shit.


how's this for zero credibility :About Xendrius This channel is ENTIRELY covering Illuminati related subjects and conspiracies. This is the home of the original Conspiritus Illuminati series.

All videos, short films and documetaries here are made by Xendrius
bhahahahahahahahahaha!


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 21, 2013)

eots said:


> > SAYIT I'm guessing it would have to have been a* fucking large explosive (like a Hiroshima nuke) *and if that *building was so structurally vunerable *why do you doubt the rest of the NIST report on 7's collapse?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Uh-huh. And you still can't see the diff between the "as loud as a shot-gun blast or speakers at a rock concert" BS you posted and the "10 times louder than speakers at rock concert" from the NIST Q&A session?


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 21, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



If you are conceding the fact that there is no proof the molten mats were steel and that the likelihood of those mats being steel is non-existent, then yeah it's time to move on.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 21, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



Sure he did and given all the info here you are now lying in his defense.
He _quoted_ the NIST as having said the noise from an explosion necessary to destroy 7's central support could have been as little as "speakers at a rock concert" when in truth they had said "10 times louder than speakers at a rock concert." 
Now in your mind that doesn't constitute a lie but then your integrity doesn't pass muster either, Mr.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 21, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 21, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



And indeed the NIST report does not claim the temps ever reached steel melting temps (but you do). The report does justifiably claim that the fires weakened the steel enough to initiate the collapse. Evidently your belief in your CT is so lame you must dance around the truth and post outright fabrications in support of it.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 21, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



I have no "melted aluminum theory," Princess, only the knowledge that you've not proven the presence of any known substance which could melt steel and continue to do so for weeks, which would lead a rational person to conclude that those molten mats must have been something other than steel. I've also made no claims about the NIST lying and it is incumbent on anyone, particularly a professional, to actually know what those molten mats were before pronouncing them to have been steel. No one tested those mats rendering those stated observations of no value and certainly not proof of anything.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 21, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Try as you may you can't save (ID)eots from himself and the damage his lying does to your "cause." Joining him down that road just adds to your own mendacious stench, Princess.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 21, 2013)

wow,"7" farts in a row from you SAYIT. that must be a record for you.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 21, 2013)

wihosa said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...


----------



## eots (Mar 21, 2013)

sayit said:


> mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > sayit said:
> ...



the nist quote was as loud as a shot gun blast or ten times louder than speakers at a rock concert but your inane claim was it was as loud as a hiroshima nuke..lol


----------



## eots (Mar 21, 2013)

sayit said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > > sayit i'm guessing it would have to have been a* fucking large explosive (like a hiroshima nuke) *and if that *building was so structurally vunerable *why do you doubt the rest of the nist report on 7's collapse?
> ...



you mean the nist report that says..the structural integrity of the building was not a factor in the collapse..yet you claim it is  every-time building 7 is mentioned ?...that nist report ?


----------



## eots (Mar 21, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



I misread a portion of the qoute..the as loud as a shot gun blast was accurate and what else that is compared to is not all that relevant anyway..but your claims are knowingly false..*as loud as a Hiroshima nuke".*.and repeating the old popular mechanics claims about how damage factored into the collapse long since rejected by NIst

.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 21, 2013)

eots said:


> sayit said:
> 
> 
> > mr. Jones said:
> ...



BS, yet sooo typical of you. There is no getting around the fact that judging by the noise level there was no blast large enough to destroy a critical support and you _lied_ about the NIST statement you quoted in a lame effort to prove there was.


----------



## daws101 (Mar 21, 2013)

Did investigators consider the possibility that an explosion caused or contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?

Yes, this possibility was investigated carefully. NIST concluded that blast events inside the building did not occur and found no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event.

In addition, no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses. According to calculations by the investigation team, the smallest blast capable of failing the building's critical column would have resulted in a sound level of 130 decibels (dB) to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile, if unobstructed by surrounding buildings. This sound level is consistent with a gunshot blast, standing next to a jet plane engine, and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert.

For the building to have been prepared for intentional demolition, walls and/or column enclosures and fireproofing would have to be removed and replaced without being detected. Preparing a column includes steps such as cutting sections with torches, which produces noxious and odorous fumes. Intentional demolition usually requires applying explosive charges to most, if not all, interior columns, not just one or a limited set of columns in a building.

Is it possible that thermite or thermate contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?

NIST has looked at the application and use of thermite and has determined that its use to sever columns in WTC 7 on 9/11/01 was unlikely.

Thermite is a combination of aluminum powder and a metal oxide that releases a tremendous amount of heat when ignited. It is typically used to weld railroad rails together by melting a small quantity of steel and pouring the melted steel into a form between the two rails.

To apply thermite to a large steel column, approximately 0.13 lb of thermite would be needed to heat and melt each pound of steel. For a steel column that weighs approximately 1,000 lbs. per foot, at least 100 lbs. of thermite would need to be placed around the column, ignited, and remain in contact with the vertical steel surface as the thermite reaction took place. This is for one column . presumably, more than one column would have been prepared with thermite, if this approach were to be used.

It is unlikely that 100 lbs. of thermite, or more, could have been carried into WTC 7 and placed around columns without being detected, either prior to Sept. 11 or during that day.

Given the fires that were observed that day, and the demonstrated structural response to the fires, NIST does not believe that thermite was used to fail any columns in WTC 7.

Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC buildings, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard used for interior partitions.

An emergency responder caught in the building between the 6th and 8th floors says he heard two loud booms. Isn't that evidence that there was an explosion?

The sound levels reported by all witnesses do not match the sound level of an explosion that would have been required to cause the collapse of the building. If the two loud booms were due to explosions that were responsible for the collapse of WTC 7, the emergency responder-located somewhere between the 6th and 8th floors in WTC 7-would not have been able to survive the near immediate collapse and provide this witness account.
Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 21, 2013)

eots said:


> sayit said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Another of your ever growing list of lies. I neither mention 7's structural integrity in every post nor did I make a claim about it. I did question whether _you_ were making that claim. I am not an engineer and, unlike all you CT "experts," I don't pretend to be.
Frankly, Princess, if I lied as regularly as you do I'd change my SN once a week because I'd be embarassed. You apparently have no shame or integrity.


----------



## daws101 (Mar 21, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > sayit said:
> ...


truer words were never spoken.!


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 21, 2013)

eots said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



Misread? You earlier claimed to have posted the altered quote from memory. So which is it?
I was clearly speculating about how large a blast would have to be to have brought down 7 and you _quoted_ the NIST as having said an explosion only as loud as the speakers at a rock concert when, in fact, they had actually said _"10 times louder"_ than the speakers at a rock concert. 
Give it up, Princess. 
You lie because the truth just doesn't support your POV.
First rule of the hole: When in over your head, STOP DIGGING!


----------



## eots (Mar 21, 2013)

> sayit
> and now you believe the nist report? I'm guessing* it would have to have been a fucking large explosive (like a hiroshima nuke) *and if *that building was so structurally vunerable* why do you doubt the rest of the nist report on 7's collapse?



*liar..*


----------



## daws101 (Mar 21, 2013)

eots said:


> > sayit
> > and now you believe the nist report? I'm guessing* it would have to have been a fucking large explosive (like a hiroshima nuke) *and if *that building was so structurally vunerable* why do you doubt the rest of the nist report on 7's collapse?
> 
> 
> ...


another incisive retort from eots!


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 21, 2013)

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > > sayit
> ...



Eots is correct Sayit  is a liar, just like you are.
WTC 7 experienced the same molten steel and extreme temp phenomena, but had no plane inside of it, and was not covered in aluminum cladding.
The topic of the hread is the NIST report and you people have provided no plausible defense or reason for them to have ignored, and dismissed valuable evidence.
NIST says that one column's failure was all that was needed to fail the massive building, and produce FF for 8 stories and result in molten steel, and extreme temps....because of office fires.....
Just the fact that you people purposefully fail to acknowledge the many discrepancies in the theory of "collapse" of this building, and the other aspects of 9-11 is reason enough to
label you disinformation troll, and anti American, and anti truth.

The towers displayed explosions, squibs, and fell in extremely too fast of decent times, to not be the least bit curious and demand further scrutiny and details...

The NIST report is full of instances of deceitful tactics, the molten steel is just one, the explosions and squibs and ejections of tons of steel is another....You try to say these were air, but anyone with any sense can tell they occurred, waaay below the collapse fronts, and were too much in sync to be any pancaking floors..

So here we have 2 trolls, that have been caught in lies many times, hypocritically accusing another member of lying....Man you assholes have no shame, and only resort to this tactic because you have nothing to contribute to counter the accusations against NIST that have been presented...


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 21, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


----------



## daws101 (Mar 21, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


as always talking a lot and not saying anything. please point where I've lied about anything . this should be good for a laugh or two..


----------



## daws101 (Mar 21, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Mar 21, 2013)

9/11 inside job said:


> wow,"7" farts in a row from you SAYIT. that must be a record for you.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 21, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Eots is spinning furiously because he's been caught in so many blatant lies and you are a fool.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 21, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...


----------



## daws101 (Mar 21, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


he's no fool that would imply a kind of innocence ,instead of the huge ego he displays..


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 21, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



I've seen this tactic before. When these nutters paint themselves into a corner with their lies they try to paint everyone else as the liar. Honesty is just not their strength. Lunacy is.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 21, 2013)

Rat in the Hat said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > wow,"7" farts in a row from you SAYIT. that must be a record for you.



Every board needs a village idiot. Thanks to 9/11 Hand Job, Pauli and (ID)eots the CT Board has a few.


----------



## daws101 (Mar 21, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> > 9/11 inside job said:
> ...


I wonder if they belong to the village idiots union. [ame=http://youtu.be/mlss_LiNeJk]Monty Python - Village Idiots - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 22, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



NIST did not properly consider or investigate any of the things mentioned, and the video is a sold piece of documentary evidence, that you nor NIST can explain, which is why you have to resort to ridiculing the makers who re-posted it on the U Tube channel, instead of
trying to discuss what is in the video...
Again NIST ignores  numerous reports, eyewitnesses, and video evidence, so they can then say" no evidence of any explosions" and in order to keep your OCT in play, you must
defend their dishonesty, because you can't even provide a rational explanation for this either. This is what I mean when you fucks hide behind the NIST dishonest report.
This is another instance, like the melted steel, that was ignored, and went against the many people, and reports of something of significance that was of vital important regarding the 9-11 event at the WTC.

Asshole idiots like you will always assume non of the above parts were ever found, when such a plan would be secret and assured that such no such things would even survive, to even be found, let alone be searched for.
You simply must depend on the fact that NIST did not do a proper job, and ignored things that might have pointed to any evidence other then jet fuel and fires, and you must pretend and act like NIST did no wrong in the face of much opposition to the contrary.
You don't supply even a whimper of substantiating this and many other instances, of NIST deceiving and  lying..So you defend unethical behavior, and defend lies, and think that by doing so, you have some sort of a valid point...

Why are you such a pussy, and wont even try to substantiate or argue in favor of your CT views and choose instead to hide behind NIST skirt?


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 22, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



What do you know about credibility? You avoid providing any response to the points being made, because you have nothing of significance to rebuttal with..So you think the other readers will pay attention to your stupid tactics and divert their attention away from what is actually in the video that is germane to the topic at hand..You assume people are stupid and would just not notice your tired and cowardly tactics and attempt to sidetrack them from the points being made..
This is the kind of BS you and the other anti American, dishonest trolls do on these boards on a daily basis, and it's become obvious..
When you can't defend, or substantiate the deviousness of NIST and the other segments that have lied to Americas people, you try to point in another direction in hopes the readers are so weak, timid and stupid they will forget about what the video actually shows and talks about...
Ridiculing the messenger is just one of the more obvious tactics all of you anti American, anti truth scumbags use a lot around here, especially at times when you are defeated, and can't answer or defend  NIST, the governments own OCT, and your own short comings regarding this topic..

We can all see why you are here, and the purpose behind you selling whatever honesty, and integrity you may have once upon a time had.

You people simply must try to defend the criminal actions of a few criminals that were in positions of authority in our government at the time, and no amount of slimy, shameful trolling activity or tactics and glaringly obvious anti American trolling and behavior is too low for you scumbags to stoop to.

Anything or anyone who opposes the OCT, and NIST you are right there to defend..You don't do a very good job at it and are all very poor spokes people for their behalf, but you whip out every tactic in the book, when it comes to defending the liars and the lies, and every chance you get to try and discredit honest Americans, who have the right to question 9-11 and other things of importance to them, you try with all your tactics that include ridiculing makers of a video whose contents regarding the explosions and "squibs" have been posted every where on U Tube....

The false flag attack committed on the American people, is a crime. It has changed the lives of all who live in America, and the world, and when there is video proof that calls into question the credibility of the NIST investigation and reports and there is evidence
of a cover up, then the American people have a right to know about it, and it doesn't matter who posts a video, or link about it.
The fact is that NIST was dishonest, and many people can see that for themselves, and every chance that you get to stand with Americans regarding this instead of with the liars and criminals, you always always choose the latter.

You never miss out on an opportunity to trash talk anyone or anything that might give an American citizen any  intelligent insight into what is so important to him/her and their nation.
But you suck at defending the lies, and the narrative, and you don't have a clue what you're even talking about at times, but it makes no difference to you, as long as you have a chance to piss on America and her citizens, by God you'll try to go for it, no matter how stupid, ridiculous, dishonest, or wildly unpopular you may be.
I have never run across more anti American sentiment, and accolades FOR dishonesty, and cheer leading for liars, their lies, and criminal behavior...anywhere...then the scumbags that post on here in favor of the most outrageous conspiracy theory and lies that have ever been perpetrated upon the American public in all of history, although the fraud that is the Federal Reserve and the monetary system gives it a run for its money.


I set out in this thread to point out why I don't believe the NIST investigation is honest, thorough, or credible, and I have made 2 points of 2 instances, that other very credible people in the pertinent fields of study, have been pointing out, and that me and many others have taken the time to research and look into.
Some of the defenses of the NIST are weak, lame, and use no rational figures, or calculations, or common sense at all, and depend on having to use the fact that NIST was dishonest...as a defense!!

The melted steel was just one example where you people have not produced any rational counter to a valid point, and one of you even stooped so low as to actually lay the blame and responsibility to the GZ workers and observers, for NIST not doing its job properly..

You are a shameful bunch, that will cling onto the most unlikely, weak unsubstantiated things that you can grab and use them in any way possible, in order to keep people from
thinking about what this thread is about.....
At least those that come here can now see who cares about their nation, and why so many don't trust or believe that what they have been told about the demise of the WTC buildings, and that it is filled with lies and a cover ups.

The WTC had melted steel. It should not have. It had extreme temps in the wreckage piles in the sub basements, some 70 feet below the surface.
They shouldn't have. This was important, and NIST ignored them and the hundreds of credible people.
There were hundreds of reports of explosions, from numerous credible people.
We can see evidence of explosions coming from the sides of the buildings in rapid succession 10-20-30 stories below the collapse fronts...
NIST again ignored this and the numerous credible people.
There were explosions in the basements and sub basements.
NIST again ignored this and the witnesses..
There was pulverization of concrete. NIST ignore this too..

So how can we even begin to believe anything that NIST and the people in charge at the time, is even true, or accurate, when so may times the ignored the evidence?

Because, they had a job to do. And that job was to make sure they came up with an explanation that included 3 things and ONLY those 3 things...Planes, fires, and gravity, and they ignored anything else. You OCT defenders have much the same job today that NIST had  back then, and that is to ignore or ridicule anything that contradicts, with the NIST report, while also defending the fact that they DID IGNORE ANYTHING ELSE!
Problem is, NIST did such an obvious shitty job people can notice it right away, and you fucks do such a shitty job defending THEIR shitty job, that this too can be noticed right away...
We don't know exactly what caused the phenomena s that NIST ignored and purposefully failed to include in their investigation and reports, but because we don't or can't definitively say, does not mean that they did not occur, or that it is justifiable to pretend "there is no evidence". 
The people that think this action by NIST and the government is justifiable, and are happy about it, then you truly are people who don't care about this country or its people, and disrespect all those who died on that day, and all those who died and continue to die because of the lies.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 22, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



*He doesn't seem to have any CT views behind which to hide and the NIST findings are far more rational, logical, truthful and scientifically plausible than anything your CT Movement has produced in the 11+ years since 9/11.*


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 22, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



We all have to determine the credibility of the sources we use and norms consider the NIST findings to be far more rational and believeable than the silliness found at loony tunes web sites like Xendrius. There's a good reason why 11+ years after 9/11 you and your CT Movement have been relegated to sites like and what melted steel are you referring to?


----------



## daws101 (Mar 23, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...


sister jones is so easily lead, only a total mental case would yammer on over two pages creating a wall of text repeating the same debunked nonsense ad infinitum...
so tell me sister jones if your so right, then why is this not being trumpeted from every media source world wide?
any one with functioning grey matter knows that if your masturbation fantasy were true there would be no power on earth that could stop it. 
every country with an ax to grind against the U.S. media would run it 24/7.
the only logical reason they don't is it's bullshit.
like all manifestos yours  is highly detailed, passionately written and has no basis in reality.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 23, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



You say this as if you have taken into consideration, and provided any sort of counter rebuttals or refutation of the points that have been made that show that the NIST is anything but honest, credible, or has any scientific integrity. 
You've been given the chances to substantiate your beliefs that  NIST's investigation tactics were thorough, credible, accurate or hold any validity.
You have nothing except your willingness to deny that which is indefensible, and you continue to deny you believe in a OCT, that others have posted evidence showing why it is not remotely credible..Again you find nothing the least bit unusual, or evasive in their investigative tactics, even when faced with an abundance of proof that gives validity to the objections of others that include credible people in the fields of science, physics, politics, the military and branches of the FBI, and the CIA...
You continue to talk a lot of shit with nothing to back up your reasons for your die hard allegiance to a failed theory, and narrative...
Bottom line...NIST lied, NIST ignored evidence and witnesses, and you were given the opportunity to show when and where, they did not...and all you can infer is that because
they indeed lied, and ignored instances of  great importance regarding a thorough WTC investigation, and in so ding, have claimed "see...nothing here" it is perfectly acceptable.
Well it may be to OCT trolls like you, but rational thinking, normal folks can see the contradictions right off.
It's imperative and vital to your OCT that revolves around the absurd, and highly improbable, and filled with many instances of lies, ignorance, and preconceived outcomes
 for you to pretend that it is perfectly normal to overlook these grievous instances by a government agency whose employees depend on for an income, but other more astute observers that can spot the lies and obfuscations,  know better.
You have failed to make a case for your adherence to your CT, in 2 of the instances that I have mentioned thus far, and it is humorous to watch you try to use wiggle and squirm
tactics to avoid looking like the stupid idiot that you are...

Here is your case so far...
Melted steel? First you tried to say that no one was qualified to "test" it, WITHOUT admitting NIST would seem to be.
You ignore, then minimize the numerous reports, that include vast evidence of their validity...
You say no proof because the GZ workers and observers did not do NIST's job for them.
You say, that because NIST indeed ignored the numerous reports, of sightings and eye witnesses, it is OK to just say "no proof was ever found"!!!!

You say it probably was melted aluminum instead, then when I used your own web sites figures and calculations, and show you the improbability of it being aluminum because of the vast quantity of steel over aluminum within the towers, and where the steel vs aluminum was placed, you cry that no one "tested it"!!!
Again you try to absolve NIST for not following through in their mission statement, and try to play the blame game on others...
You keep bringing up, that no one has a better theory, but ignore the implications of the NIST obfuscations, and the inevitable consequences that have resulted from them...

In short, I have shown you why I do not trust the NIST report, and a few of the instances
where they lost my undying trust, and you have failed to adequately provide anything that
places the reasons for my opinions of distrust in doubt...
You don't seem to mind making yourself look like a fool, even when faced with overwhelming proof and evidence that directly contradict your position....

You keep harping on CT's, while pretending you beliefs are not a huge CT, that offers no credible, substantiated proof that it can be taken even halfheartedly  as being truthful, or  feasible. 
You want people to consider themselves as "normal peeps" who should believe anything you say about the NIST and the OCT, when you can't even post anything that can even substantiate, the instances where they ignored, and lied about evidence and highly improbable occurrences, as being a normal part of the investigation about the WTC buildings. 
You've provided nothing to suggest that people who question and doubt the OCT narrative and the NIST account, are NOT normal...And you continue to ignore just how bad your argument fails, against them being normal thinking Americans who car about their nation, and also care about all that has transpired since they were lied to.
You lost the steel vs aluminum debate, because you have nothing on which to substantiate your points on!, So you resort to calling me a CT, in a desperate attempt to hide your failings!

You're all talk and ridicule, but supply nothing to back it up..Nothing! You clearly are an anti American, anti truth stooge, and the more your tactics fail and are exposed the more obvious and humorous your gaffes are...I even used your web site to make a fool of you....LOL!!!


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 23, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Listen dumbfuck, the video that I posted showing the explosions and squibs, are found everywhere, they were not made up or contrived by the source that actually posted it on the U Tube! The source that posted it isn't lying about what the video actually shows...
And normal thinking Americans know this fact...And they also know that many of the same exact videos were released by FOIA for anyone to use and post..
You don't seem like a "normal" person when you pretend not to know widely known fact, and how you are trying to discredit what the people who uploaded it, instead of what the video actually shows!!
It is soo obvious that you are trying to dismiss what the video shows, because of who uploaded it...LOL...You are so pathetic and weak, this is what you have to resort to....Ridicule and character assassination, instead of addressing the points made, so you can then make it appear that the substance of the video is not valid, or the point I made can be declared false....
Look OCT troll, and anti American stooge.....You fail, and normal thinking, rational people can see right through your BS tactics.

BTW, I can also turn this right around on you, and post all the sources that can be proven to have lied about 9-11, and the wars it helped kick off, and the many sites that helped perpetrate the lies and disinformation, without having to ridicule any particular web site to do it..Try debating the points, and the message, after all the contents in the video are a matter of common, public knowledge......So explain how the symmetrical explosions 
and squibs were "probably air"?


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 23, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Only a total dipshit  like you, would yammer on like he debunked anything without actually doing so. You keep saying BS without ever providing any proof that you actually did/do what you are claiming!!
You seem to  want normal people to think that the mass media would be the first to have the guts to scream loud and wide about any of this, and this assumption really shows how pathetically stupid  you are, and assume others are as well...
You depend on shallow thinking and and likewise shallow knowledge about the world, and the corporations and people that control the flow of information.
I feel like I'm talking to a baby, and having to educate it about the reality of the nation and the goings on of the real world, at times.
Don't you ever bother to take the time to read and learn about such things, or do you think it is sufficient to go through life being stupid and ignorant about your nation, its corporations that control your government and its flow of information??
Don't you ever wonder why things are the way that they are, and try to follow along?
I don't suppose you do, which is why you always look like the fool when you try to engage in such topics.
It's fucking hilarious when all you stupid stooges can do is call everyone else names and ridicule them, when it is you who are the stupid idiots, and believe everything they are told, and don't have the basic instinct of human curiosity to investigate that which effects you and yours....
The label of stupid and ignorant fits you fucks like a custom made glove...

You lose again dawgshit..Now about those WTC explosions and squibs that NIST ignored and lied about.....The video posted shows them, and the source isn't the first or the last to up load it, so you can stop the crying about the source asshole, and try dealing with the point instead....


----------



## daws101 (Mar 23, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...


how could I lose since this is not a competition..although you see it that way..all your yammering is just a dodge around this: "any one with functioning grey matter knows that if your masturbation fantasy were true there would be no power on earth that could stop it. 
every country with an ax to grind against the U.S. media would run it 24/7.
the only logical reason they don't is it's bullshit"-me
none of your endlessly repeated bullshit answers this simple question..


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 23, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


You lose debates, that is how you lose. You provide very poor arguments and reasoning skills, and you always have to try to depend on lying,
and shallow trolling tactics in order to avoid things that show you when and where you are failing...
This is no competition, that is correct, but it is a board where you are supposed to provide substance and rational logic to your arguments and make your points as valid as possible, and when you try to do that....you do indeed lose....Then we all can see you wiggle and squirm, and deny
this is happening to you and your stupid "points" as you post off one liners and call others who have beaten your ass the "conspiracy theorists"..

Honest people that are in tune with the world, know that there are forces at work today, that are controlled by nefarious people and organizations, who control the information that is released and who put their version and spin on events...Man, if you don't know this you solidify the term "dumbed down".

You have no real vision of how things work, and who controls what you hear as "news".
When one has control over the "news" the money supply and its currency, and has influence in many governments around the world, including their laws, and courts, is it any wonder there is so much fear in people who want to expose anything?
How many instances of whistle blowers being thrown in jail, or disappearing, losing their jobs, status and being blackballed, declared "insane" or mentally unfit, does it take for you to realize just how strong and pervasive the forces at work are??

You are a naive, shallow minded idiot. A conspiracy theorists who needs to believe that the conspiracies of the forces that are detrimental to Americans, and mankind are true and just. You are an example of what is known as a "dumbed down" indoctrinated person.
You seem to act as though you are limited in learning and obtaining knowledge about your world, and your surroundings, when the only limits are placed upon you by yourself.

Others know more about their surroundings, then you do, and this is evident by the way you conduct yourself here on the USMB, and your seemingly illogical, and irrational views, and postings..I wonder how anyone could be so fucking stupid and disconnected from reality, when there is so much information available to them, especially with the advent of the internet, that is like a vast library of information......You are a sad sad creature, very humorous but sad just the same...


----------



## daws101 (Mar 23, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...


that's for proving my point about dodging my question. several paragraphs of nonsense to avoid answering..  
if this were a competition I won.
btw sister I will always win until you can prove an actual conspiracy.


----------



## Montrovant (Mar 23, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > EXPLOSIONS-
> ...



I've watched the video a couple of times now.

First, I do not find it particularly compelling.  It seems extremely speculative to me.  

The movement of the shades early in the video is something I can't explain, but that doesn't really mean anything.  I don't know what happens during fires.  Don't fires cause explosions at times without needing explosive materials to be planted?  Windows blowing outwards due to pressure differences, things of that nature?  It could easily be that such an occurrence caused the movement seen in the video.  

I find it odd that the video speculates on bombs being planted not as part of any demolition, but rather just to cause more fire.

I think it's pretty silly that the video cuts off the one witness as he says that what he at first took to be another plane hitting the towers was, in reality, the sound of the collapse starting.

The audio of the beginning of the collapse in no way indicates explosives to me.  I expect a large amount of noise to come from the huge tower beginning to collapse.

I don't see, in a number of the clips showing the collapse, anything that looks like distinctly like explosives.  It looks to me like debris being forced outward from the collapse.

The speculation by news reporters isn't particularly authoritative.  There's no reason to think they have any idea what was going on at the time, and a loud beginning to the collapse can easily explain the notion they were hearing another explosion.

Actually, in general, I think witness reports of explosions are probably pretty unreliable.  Unless there's some reason the witness should know the difference between explosives going off and the noise of some sort of collapse, or the difference between explosives being set off and fire causing a pressure explosion, I don't know how reliable their accounts can be.  Do they have any experience with the sounds of explosives?  Of building collapses?  Of massive fires?  And witness testimony is, I have long heard/read, pretty unreliable.  Personal experience would lead me to believe that people really do see and hear different things in the same situation.  I find it easier to credit reports of seeing molten metal than I do of hearing an explosion caused by some sort of bomb(s).

I also wonder how many people may have said they thought they heard explosives, but later changed their minds.

According to one of the sites that has been linked here recently, questions to the NIST people, they looked into the possibility of explosives having been used and determined they most likely had not been.

As to the concrete being pulverized, I actually think that might make me lean more toward collapse than explosives.  I think the massive amount of force from the top of the tower falling onto the lower floors is more likely to crush concrete into dust than explosives are; I think explosives would more likely create a lot of larger pieces.  Of course, this is purely personal speculation.

Anyway, you clearly think NIST didn't look far enough into the possibility of explosives.  I don't think it's nearly obvious as you do, at least with what I've seen thus far.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 23, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Oh so NOW this is a competition??? See how you contradict yourself you mental retard?
I don't have to prove an actual conspiracy either dumbfuck...
Al anyone has to do is to point out the irregularities, fabrications, and out right lies, in the NIST report to know there is a cover up.
The funny thing is, is when I DO point these out, and provide links to the actual NIST report to prove it, you fail, like always to counter it...

You like to pretend that the NIST report is accurate by ignoring what is posted about it.
This is no way to substantiate your position on anything especially the NIST report and threads purpose...

Tell me....how did any aluminum get 70 feet below the surface, and what are the chances it was even aluminum when according to your web site, there was only about 22,000 lbs of aluminum in each tower, and the planes bodies were 80 stories in the air???
When the aluminum covering on the towers were on the outside perimeter walls, that were ejected away during the explosive collapse fronts???

How come NIST didn't realize what you try to assume was sooo obvious, and just come out and "oh it was probably just some aluminum"?
How come a trained WTC engineer said on tape he saw "little rivers of molten steel" instead of aluminum?

You had your chances to answer these questions, but you and others failed at it. You sick twisted fucks even stooped so low as to lay the blame on GZ workers and rescue personnel for not "testing"
You pathetic twats, are defending a vast conspiracy theory, that depends on lies, ignored evidence and witnesses, made up scientific data, and other tactics to give it even only a miniscule chance of being remotely correct...Only in the minds of OCT and government apologists can this be considered honest, or ethical...

Too bad asshole, you failed, like always, and when I said you lose, you said this was no competition....now you say "I won" as though it is....
What a mentally fucked up creature you are, just sad and pathetic. The only thing you design for a living is a made up world, with made up realities..


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 25, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Tell me....how did any aluminum get 70 feet below the surface, and what are the chances it was even aluminum when according to your web site, there was only about 22,000 lbs of aluminum in each tower, and the planes bodies were 80 stories in the air???



I guess you missed this post?



Gamolon said:


> It COULDN'T have been aluminum right? Let's see. What was below the twin towers. Parking levels able to hold 2,000 cars. Hmmm. What percent of cars were aluminum back in 2001?
> 
> Yeah. COULDN'T have been aluminum. There's no source for it.
> 
> ...



Bottom line. There was no evidence of temperatures needed to melt steel. Even your CT buddies admit this.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 25, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Tell me....how did any aluminum get 70 feet below the surface, and what are the chances it was even aluminum when according to your web site, there was only about 22,000 lbs of aluminum in each tower, and the planes bodies were 80 stories in the air???
> ...



LOL...I didn't forget anything, including your flailing attempt, to assume it was whatever cars were in the parking garages...
What did NIST, the chief investigative agency say about that?
How many sightings and reports, mentioned aluminum?
You refuse to admit your premise is false, and the evidence against it is too vast to ignore.
When and original WTC engineer, states publicly he was shown the molted steel and claimed he saw it "running like little rivers"...and NOT MOLTED ALUMINUM, and when you honestly consider how much steel there was compared to aluminum..and where it was placed.....You drown in your failed assumptions...

What percentage "of cars" were made of aluminum? No cars are made strictly and totally of aluminum idiot.. A few may have a small percentage of aluminum parts, heads, intakes, rims, but this is a small percentage, and they were and are still mainly made out of steel frames, and engine blocks....You can not provide any definitive figures, and you struggle to make your assumption plausible...
Again the bottom line, and the point I have made is that NIST ignored this phenomena in the face of many witnesses, and reports, and because they ignored it and never addressed it, you have to sit here and try to come uo with highly improbable, and stupid assumptions in the face of so much evidence against it...
And apparently there were temps in the range to melt steel, as melted steel was seen, and reported, the strange thing is that NIST never found these extreme temps during the actual jet fuel fires, and obviously ignored them in the wreckage...

Not to mention that while there was room for 2000 parking spaces, there is no evidence that they were all occupied at the time...
You keep trying to reach, and plant doubt in the face of the available evidence, you embarrass yourself...

This thread is about what in the NIST report substantiates your assumptions and beliefs that make it accurate?
On this you and yours fail miserably. I suggest you just concede this point and try to find something else within the NIST report, that you can hang your hat on....

The explosions, perhaps?  What did they do ar say about the many reports and witnesses concerning the explosions?  The squibs???


----------



## daws101 (Mar 25, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...


once again sister jones proves he has major reading comprehension problems example:" if this were a competition I won."- ME 
Sister jones' response: Oh so NOW this is a competition??? See how you contradict yourself you mental retard?
I don't have to prove an actual conspiracy either dumbfuck... -sisterjones

ah yes you do... you can't see why?


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 25, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> What percentage "of cars" were made of aluminum? No cars are made strictly and totally of aluminum idiot..



Let me make this easier for you. What percentage of an average car is aluminum. Do you have any clue?


----------



## daws101 (Mar 25, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > What percentage "of cars" were made of aluminum? No cars are made strictly and totally of aluminum idiot..
> ...


no more then he has to why he must prove a conspiracy..
sister jones' dodge answer in 5.....4....3...2..1


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 25, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



You still have a MAJOR problem. No temperatures were reported that could melt steel.

That is a fact and completely blows your theory out of the water. On the other hand I can PROVE there were temperatures to melt aluminum. I can prove there was a source for the possibility of aluminum being present.

I'd give up now if I were you because you're looking quite the fool. At least I have plausible reasons to show molten aluminum was possible. You got NOTHING.



> The explosions, perhaps?  What did they do ar say about the many reports and witnesses concerning the explosions?  The squibs???



EXPLOSIONS do not mean EXPLOSIVES. I guess anytime anyone reports hearing a train when a tornado blows through a town, we can assume it was actually a train.

The squib bullshit has already been squashed. Demolition squibs to not jet out in a thin expulsion. You need glasses dumbass.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 25, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > What percentage "of cars" were made of aluminum? No cars are made strictly and totally of aluminum idiot..
> ...



You aren't making anything easier on yourself by posing such stupid questions, when any rational person can see and understand the point I have made regarding the NIST report and how it deliberately failed in this particular instance..
You try to reach in trying to find anything that may substantiate your assumptions, that NIST left you blowing in the breeze about.
It is one thing to ignore the massive amounts of steel in comparison to the amounts of aluminum in/on the WTC towers, but it is even more embarrassing and foolish to watch you try and quibble over aluminum car parts lol....
Yours is an exercise in futility.....when comparing 200,000 tons of steel...56 tons in the foundation alone, to the miniscule amount of aluminum in a fucking car....

Good grief, give it up, and move on like has been suggested to other parts we can discuss and debate, like the instance where NIST also leaves you hanging regarding the explosions, the squibs, and the eyewitnesses, regarding those events. They are equally important, and have historical precedence attached to the complex.....So what did NIST do and say regarding them???


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 25, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> And apparently there were temps in the range to melt steel, as melted steel was seen, and reported,



As has been pointed out to you many times, it couldn't have been molten steel. There were no temperatures high enough.

You fail.

It could have been caused by a eutectic reaction. It could have been molten aluminum.

Keep clinging to your garbage science. Maybe in another 11 years you'll come up with something better.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 25, 2013)

> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > You still have a MAJOR problem. No temperatures were reported that could melt steel.
> ...


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 25, 2013)

Your opinion it has been squashed falls on deaf ears, and because you provide nothing in the way of any rational rebuttal....[/QUOTE]

Yeah. That's why you and your fellow idiots have done SO much in 11 years. Because your proof and evidence is SO convincing.

LMAO!

You dumbasses have nothing. You'll NEVER have anything. Your garbage science and ridiculous blathering will always amount to nothing.

Nobody pays attention to you except people who are in these forums. That's it. 

That's why you have less than 1% of the total engineers supporting your crap.


----------



## daws101 (Mar 25, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...


hold on a sec... you just said, "any rational person", would that mean that the millions of rational people who (like myself) know you're talking out your ass are not as rational as the three of you who are left in the twoofer movement?


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 26, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Whats the matter? Are you having a hard time connecting the fact that where there is melted steel, there must be the temps to melt it?



That's your problem Mr. Jones. You are working backwards. You have a preconceived thought and are trying desperately to fit evidence to it. the problem is, the evidence is totally against what you are claiming.

1. Molten steel cannot be identified visually from molten aluminum. That has been proven.
2. There was no temperatures recorded that were enough to melt steel. Not even close.
3. I can come up with sources of aluminum AND the fact that recorded temperatures were high enough to melt it.
4. I also brought up the "eutectic" theory.

Your molten steel theory is based upon people who have said it was molten steel based on seeing the substance. Cannot be done.

You lose.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 26, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Whats the matter? Are you having a hard time connecting the fact that where there is melted steel, there must be the temps to melt it?
> ...



Square peg, round hole. It's the story of the CT's life. As you noted, Jones begins with his preconceived conclusion ("the Jews did it") and works backwards cherry picking and subscribing to half-truths, assumptions, speculation, and outright fabrications found at Nazi web sites like IHR. Yes, it sucks to be Mr. Jones but that's nobody's prob except his.


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 26, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> The question was "what did NIST say or do about these numerous reports" Why do you constantly avoid answering a direct question, and now you're replacing aluminum car parts with tornadoes? LOL!!!



One can only guess how far you've got your head your ass regarding this conspiracy bullshit.

NIST did address explosives scenarios dipshit. Jesus H. Christ...



> To respond to a number of the questions raised about the collapses of the WTC towers, NIST posted a fact sheet in 2006 stating that NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives or by missiles. In 2007 and 2008, additional fact sheets addressed later questions from the alternative theory groups, including questions related to the collapse of WTC 7.
> The information from these fact sheets has been consolidated into the current FAQs on the WTC towers and WTC 7.


FAQs - NIST WTC Investigation



> Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom, and there was no evidence (collected by NIST or by the New York City Police Department, the Port Authority Police Department, or the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections (including and above the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC 2) began their downward movement upon collapse initiation.
> In summary, NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly show that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward until the dust clouds obscured the view.
> 
> *9. Weren't the puffs of smoke that were seen, as the collapse of each WTC tower starts, evidence of controlled demolition explosions?*
> ...


FAQs - NIST WTC Towers Investigation



> *13. Did investigators consider the possibility that an explosion caused or contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?*
> Yes, this possibility was investigated carefully. NIST concluded that blast events inside the building did not occur and found no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event.
> In addition, no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses. According to calculations by the investigation team, the smallest blast capable of failing the building's critical column would have resulted in a sound level of 130 decibels (dB) to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile, if unobstructed by surrounding buildings. This sound level is consistent with a gunshot blast, standing next to a jet plane engine, and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert.
> For the building to have been prepared for intentional demolition, walls and/or column enclosures and fireproofing would have to be removed and replaced without being detected. Preparing a column includes steps such as cutting sections with torches, which produces noxious and odorous fumes. Intentional demolition usually requires applying explosive charges to most, if not all, interior columns, not just one or a limited set of columns in a building.
> ...


FAQs - NIST WTC 7 Investigation

For you to ask the question "What did NIST say about it?" implying that they never addressed this is a testament to how much of a lying scumbag you really are.

Do you always like being on the receiving end of verbal beatdowns like this? It seems like it because you never learn and always come back for more.


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 26, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> On this melted steel, I have done a far superior job at my task,




Stop! Please... My sides hurt from laughing....

Superior as in the only piece of evidence supporting your bullshit molten steel claims is visual identification???? I trumped that already asshole! There were no temperatures recorded, reported, measured, or analyzed showing temperatures hot enough to melt steel.

PERIOD.

You have absolutely nothing supporting your crazy claims. Let me guess. You want to bring in Harrit's Bentham paper findings? Please do so. I'll make you look stupid on that also.


----------



## eots (Mar 26, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > The question was "what did NIST say or do about these numerous reports" Why do you constantly avoid answering a direct question, and now you're replacing aluminum car parts with tornadoes? LOL!!!
> ...



*blah , blah, blah ,blah ?*


----------



## daws101 (Mar 26, 2013)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...


fyi  that eots's  fall back statement when the what are you babbling about ploy is negated.
he doesn't understand the concept: discretion is  the better of valor.


----------



## eots (Mar 26, 2013)

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



why dont you address the rest of the post loser


----------



## eots (Mar 26, 2013)

Quote:
13. Did investigators consider the possibility that an explosion caused or contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?
Yes, this possibility was investigated carefully. NIST concluded that blast events inside the building did not occur and found no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event.
In addition, no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses.
completely false statement



> > Quote:
> > According to calculations by the investigation team, the smallest blast capable of failing the building's critical column would have resulted in a sound level of 130 decibels (dB) to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile, if unobstructed by surrounding buildings. This sound level is consistent with a gunshot blast, standing next to a jet plane engine, and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert.



thats only if you used the loudest explosive possible with no sound damping
and does not consider the use of thermite



> Quote:
> For the building to have been prepared for intentional demolition, walls and/or column enclosures and fireproofing would have to be removed and replaced without being detected. Preparing a column includes steps such as cutting sections with torches, which produces noxious and odorous fumes. Intentional demolition usually requires applying explosive charges to most, if not all, interior columns, not just one or a limited set of columns in a building


.
yet NIST concludes the failure of a single column was the cause of the collapse how can it be both ways ?



> Quote:
> 14. Is it possible that thermite or thermate contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?
> 
> NIST has looked at the application and use of thermite
> ...


so not impossible..they just.. feel..it was.. unlikely


> Thermite is a combination of aluminum powder and a metal oxide that releases a tremendous amount of heat when ignited. It is typically used to weld railroad rails together by melting a small quantity of steel and pouring the melted steel into a form between the two rails. Thermate also contains sulfur and sometimes barium nitrate, both of which increase the compound&#8217;s thermal effect, create flame in burning, and significantly reduce the ignition temperature.
> To apply thermite to a large steel column, approximately 0.13 lb. of thermite would be needed to heat and melt each pound of steel. For a steel column that weighs approximately 1,000 lbs. per foot, at least 100 lbs. of thermite would need to be placed around the column, ignited, and remain in contact with the vertical steel surface as the thermite reaction took place. This is for one column; presumably, more than one column would have been prepared with thermite, if this approach were to be used.



*THERMITE CUTTING STEEL - VALIDATED - EXPERIMENTALLY DEMONSTRATED -*

 




> Quote:
> It is unlikely that 100 lbs. of thermite, or more, could have been carried into WTC 7 and placed around columns without being detected, either prior to Sept. 11, 2001, or during that day.
> Given the fires that were observed that day, and the demonstrated structural response to the fires, NIST does not believe that thermite or thermate was used to fail any columns in WTC 7.
> Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC buildings, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard used for interior partitions.


----------



## daws101 (Mar 26, 2013)

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


I did loser X 10...


----------



## daws101 (Mar 26, 2013)

eots said:


> Quote:
> 13. Did investigators consider the possibility that an explosion caused or contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?
> Yes, this possibility was investigated carefully. NIST concluded that blast events inside the building did not occur and found no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event.
> In addition, no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses.
> ...


more specious and silly musing by eots.
so tell me did some one sift through all that debris to steal away with all the sound proofing under their arm ?


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Mar 26, 2013)

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Quote:
> ...



The nano termites ate the soundproofing after they finished burning the columns.


----------



## eots (Mar 26, 2013)

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Quote:
> ...



no they used back hoes to scoop up tons of concrete dust fragments of office furniture ,carpets, fixtures, etc etc ect in one big heaping pile for dumping what would expect some fragments of soundproofing to look like in the midst of all that ?


----------



## daws101 (Mar 26, 2013)

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


so you're as always talking out your ass. besides that whole fantasy run counter to Barry Jennings yarn about explosives, if he heard them there is no reason to use sound proofing  for one small explosion.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 27, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > On this melted steel, I have done a far superior job at my task,
> ...



You're nuts if you think you make any rational sense. It only takes an inquisitive, honest person to see that you have to keep reaching to new heights of absurdity, to say this, let alone even think it.
The temps reached extreme temps, it meted steel wreckage, it was recorded, reported, seen by eye witnesses, no molten pools of aluminum were reported, mentioned, or brought up in any conversation regarding the GZ wreckage being molten.
A reasonable person would consider these facts, and the others such, as the quantity of steel vs aluminum, where the aluminum was placed in/on the towers, where the molten steel was predominately seen, IE: in the centers of the towers, 70 feet deep, not to mention also in WTC 7..
You are delusional if you think reasonable people have not taken these facts into account, while also knowing NIST failed to address these extreme phenomena on purpose..

You are delusional and expect others to reasonably consider these glaring and obvious facts about the melted steel, extreme temps to CAUSE THE STEEL TO BE IN A MELTED STATE, and the willful ignoring of this important fact by NIST,?? Keep dreaming..

The facts are there for people to review, NIST purposefully ignored evidence on many occasions to perpetrate the lie that it was only important to concentrate on planes, fuel that burned well below the melting point of steel, but somehow managed to do so anyway for weeks after the event, and that the explosions with rapid squibs running down the buildings at even greater speeds then the floors could actually have been failing
and way 10-20-30 stories ahead of the "collapse" fronts...

These oddities have been pointed out by credible people in the related fields of study, and they have valid points regarding these facts...

Reasonable people also understand that assholes like yourselves are here to demonizing anyone who dares to challenge anyone, and everything that might undermine the government's claims.

You are here to argue that it is baseless to even question the official account of the 9-11 NIST report, and the other instances where it is obvious that elements of the government have lied to the American people, but you fail miserably.
You and the others stoop to new lows such as trying to blame the GZ workers for not "testing" the molten steel, when it was so fucking obvious what it was, and how it got that way...
You even try so hard to spin the NIST lies and disinformation away from them, by conjuring up pure fucking idiocy about car parts!!! LOL!!! and while trying to pretend the glaring NIST  purposeful negligence is somehow meaningless....

It is obvious what a low life scumbag, anti American asshole you are, but you also have no integrity or an ounce of honesty in your spineless body....

I am here to point out why many Americans that include Senators, FBI agents, Doctors, Lawyers, Professors, Scientists, Engineers, Military veterans, CIA, and many more worldwide don't believe the lies that you try to defend and fail miserably at.
You would like to have Americans thinking that these credible people who have the guts to call out the bullshit of NIST and the criminal factions of the US government, when they can see and read it for themselves, are somehow worthy of being deemed and called idiots?
People can see and read all about the many reasons they are right and just and credible, and honest for speaking out against the liars and criminals who are systematically destroying their nation and their way of life, including the freedoms they have taken for granted here in America.

It's really sad when you try to put down others who actually care about their nation and call them names and ridicule them at every turn, when the idiot is you.
You squirm so very hard and whore yourself out and bring up fucking aluminum car parts??? LOL...What a fucking idiot YOU are to even think any reasonable American would ever take you seriously!!! 

Your argument is an epic fail, and your rationality and logic is an embarrassment, even to other worthless traitors who try desperately to defend the indefensible...


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 27, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> blah, blah, blah...



Two things.

First.

There were no temperatures found that were high enough to melt steel. That is a fact and PROVES that what people perceived as molten steel was not molten steel at all. You even refused to acknowledge the eutectic findings.

Second and most important.

You and your idiot brethren have been at the same tired bullshit for 11 years now and you haven't accomplished a fucking thing. Except maybe funding Richard Gage's vacations and salary.... errr... "truth conventions".

How does that feel freak? You and your conspiracy theories get slapped around at every turn. You can't even get more than 1% of the total engineering population to support you. After 11 years!!!! How does it feel to be a failure after 11 years?

Ah well. You continue to have fun with that. I'm adding you to ignore as you have only idiocy left to blather on about.

Good luck with your future in futility...


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 27, 2013)

It really is telling that not a single person who tries to defend the NIST and their willful negligence and non existent explanations, can actually point to any specifics within their report that  can be called a "slam dunk" and actually answers anything that others have found objectionable....

I mean we got assholes in this thread, blaming GZ people, saying that hundreds of them are wrong, that it was most likely aluminum in the molted wreckage etc...But their reasons for wanting others to assume their positions can at all be considered the least bit plausible are
fucking shamefully hilarious...These assholes don't know when to stop making fools of themselves 

There are many contradictions within the NIST investigation and the subsequent BS reports that real normal everyday folks, that have a semblance of rationality and integrity,  and honesty can easily see.
The glaring contradictions and willful obfuscations that the anti American, anti freedom, and pro anti thinking segment in these threads think that they can actually justify BECAUSE NIST as a government controlled agency, WAS purposefully negligent, and avoided doing a real investigation that included ALL MANOR OF EVIDENCE!!! Are fucking obvious to observant American people..

What we are witnessing here are idiots who have no valid arguments for NIST and the OCT, and are appealing to others they hope are as scared and or intellectually dishonest as they are..

It really is so bad that they have resorted to having to disregard any rational thought or logic, and have stooped to speculating about obscure inconsequential aluminum fucking car parts LOL!!

The fact is that these desperate people only are here to slide blame away from the real
criminals who conducted and facilitated these murderous acts upon the nation they were sworn to protect...The NIST report is only a piece of the cover up, and millions know it, and more are tuning in and waking up about it, hence the desperation tactics of trying to lay blame on GZ workers, and the desperate and laughable attempt to even mention aluminum where non was mentioned or could have been present.
Simple common sense combined with the actual reports including eyewitnesses, and the structures themselves, including figures and calculations, that I have used and taken from one of their own so called "debunking sites" will attest to their failure to provide a rational argument against the hundreds of reports, and statements and sightings of this molten steel.
I mean how much more desperate does one get when he has to say that no temps hot enough to melt steel ever existed in the wreckage when all the evidence suggest otherwise? Including the presence of melted and dripping steel in the fucking wreckage itself???

The shills on this thread want Americans to trust the government and its agencies based on what?
The many verified instances that can be easily pointed out to show exactly the opposite?

Have they earned our trust? Or have they violated it over and over again? Those that have
an agenda to protect the cover up, and continue to perpetrate the lies that have been told to Americans and the world would surely want us to continue to be gullible trust them.

What is even more ludicrous is that they even show up in threads like this in packs to attack and ridicule anyone and everything that exposes the lies and criminal behavior of the NIST and the government agencies ,and they are making fools of themselves, while being stripped naked of any honesty, credibility, and integrity in their failed attempts to do so.

Fucking aluminum car parts ...Fucking seriously? You are one disgraceful weak son of a bitch.
With desperate and weak arguments such as those why should anyone in their right mind trust you and your insane opinions?

Again I ask why should any red blooded American man women or child trust NIST or the corrupt US government? Trust them based on what? Have they earned our trust? Or have they violated it over and over again?  Is it really absurd to suspect them of heinous crimes when we've repeatedly caught them red-handed, and the instances of the many times they have lied can be pointed out?
And how exactly can we expect to expose any of their crimes if simply denying the charge and attacking their accuser is considered sufficient grounds for acquittal? 
They have been exposed by their own works, and their defenders are hoping that we wont expose them, or that fear of ridicule is enough to curtail or halt thinking Americans from even questioning them.
We know the elite lie, we know they can be sadistic, we know they'll stop at nothing to secure and expand their power while diminishing those of the common American. 
We know this has always been the case throughout history.
If that isn't enough to warrant healthy skepticism, what is? 

It is never absurd to question the statements, motives, or actions, of extremely powerful people. To the contrary, all evidence suggests it is absurd not to.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 27, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > blah, blah, blah...
> ...



That's right pussy take your failed anti American stance elsewhere you fucking miserable troll, and all your stupid arguments including aluminum fucking car parts with you.
Sightings of melted and steel running like little rivers as seen by an original WTC engineer, and you want people to take you fucking seriously?
You're a weak fucking coward who would rather stand against the people of America to the point of stripping yourself butt ass naked of any honesty, or integrity and using wild imaginative insane speculations that don't make a lick of sense, and have no solid foundation.

You continue to think that people aren't aware because the criminals that attacked our nation have access and control of the media, or fool the people by putting on the air of legitimacy given to those who secure a high position in government. 

Common criminals may plague our society, but whatever threat they pose, pales in comparison to the threat of those who rule over us.

Common criminals cannot legally seize our money, destroy the purchasing power of our currency or command standing armies. They cannot legislate away our rights, or by their reckless spending, reduce our children to debt slaves. 
They cannot obstruct investigations from inside the system. They cannot seal documents, confiscate video tapes or appoint their own investigators. They cannot subpoena witnesses, find out what the witnesses know, and then use the information they've obtained to more effectively whitewash their crime. 
They cannot have billions of dollars in cash sent into the desert, have it disappear without a trace, and have nobody bat an eye. They cannot orchestrate covert operations that drag us into war. They cannot commission our agencies to carry out atrocities around the world on our behalf destroying America's reputation, undermining its future security, and setting the stage for other great powers to unite against us.

Only an unaware stupid individual would not stop to think and research what has happened and continues to happen to their nation. You on the other hand are a part of the problem and are a willful participant in aiding and abetting crimes against the American people and crimes against humanity around the world.

My BRETHREN are the American people and their families who have suffered and continue to suffer because of the criminal scumbag fucks you and YOUR BRETHREN defend at every turn

John Adams Wrote: "Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people, who have a right ...to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge, I mean the characters and conduct of their rulers."
When speaking of our freedoms, Samuel Adams warned: Let us not be "cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men."   

Good riddance you fucking maggot.


----------



## eots (Mar 27, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > blah, blah, blah...
> ...


----------



## daws101 (Mar 27, 2013)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...


----------



## Montrovant (Mar 27, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> It is never absurd to question the statements, motives, or actions, of extremely powerful people. To the contrary, all evidence suggests it is absurd not to.



I left out the rest of the post as this is the only thing I am going to respond to here.

It's not a matter of questioning.  The problem is that you seem to start with a conclusion, then come up with questions that will lead to that conclusion.

Then there is who and how you question.  It's fine to question the government, to the point that you assume from the start anything they say is a lie.  But to question truthers, or the creators of the various youtube videos posted as evidence that the NIST report is a fabrication....that is ridiculous!

You aren't asking people to simply question.  You are expecting them to come to the same conclusions you have, and get upset when they do not.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 27, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > blah, blah, blah...
> ...



"It takes all kinds" my dad used to say. Most of us are relatively normal peeps but certainly not all. Some seem to enjoy getting spanked. I don't understand them but clearly some of these CTs are in it for the abuse they get.


----------



## eots (Mar 27, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



fail...again


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 27, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> It really is telling that not a single person who tries to defend the NIST and their willful negligence and non existent explanations,
> 
> *What is really telling is that of the thousands of people you claim were in your version of a 9/11 CT not one has come forward in 11+ years. Not one.*
> 
> ...



*I do love when these 9/11 CT loons wrap themselves in our flag and prance around proclaiming their righteousness and patriotism, especially the ones who think their verbosity makes them seem credible.*


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 27, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



Woo. Princess Jones gets mighty brave once Gamer turns his back. Typical CT jackass.


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 28, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...





11 years of failed beliefs, ignorance, and futility will do that to a person.

Reminds me of Christophera and his concrete core (if anyone remembers him).

Oh well...


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 28, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Woo. Princess Jones gets mighty brave once Gamer turns his back. Typical CT jackass.



SAYIT,

I was just thinking about something. Thermite produces aluminum oxide and elemental iron. If there was supposedly enough thermite burning in the debris pile to keep the steel heated to melting for weeks, why didn't anyone see molten aluminum oxide?

There would have had to have been shitloads produced based on the amount of thermite needed to maintain temperatures at 2800 F for weeks. 

All anyone supposedly saw was molten steel.


----------



## PredFan (Mar 28, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Woo. Princess Jones gets mighty brave once Gamer turns his back. Typical CT jackass.
> ...




The whole idea that the building was rigged with thermite is preposterous in the extreme. How did a demolition team rig both towers to drop without anyone seeing it? Not the regular workers, not the building security, not the cleaning crew, no one.

Clearly a ridiculous idea.


----------



## PredFan (Mar 28, 2013)

It might be true that the temperatures that the fires achieved was 1000 degrees less than what is needed to melt steel, but the steel did not need to be liquid to fail. With the amount of weight on the columns, heating them to 1800 degrees is enough to cause them to warp and fail.


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 28, 2013)

PredFan said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



It goes further than that. The idiots here want to claim thermite fueled the fires within the debris pile to create molten steel found weeks (or longer) after the actual collapse.

They claim that people can tell the difference between molten steel, molten aluminum, or other molten substances. 

So if nobody saw anything but molten steel in the debris pile, why didn't anyone see molten aluminum oxide? There had to have been a lot a thermite in the pile to keep the temperatures at 2800 F and produce molten steel for weeks. What about elemental iron? None of these "experts in visual identification of molten substances" reported that either, yet it is also a byproduct of a thermite reaction.


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 28, 2013)

PredFan said:


> It might be true that the temperatures that the fires achieved was 1000 degrees less than what is needed to melt steel, but the steel did not need to be liquid to fail. With the amount of weight on the columns, heating them to 1800 degrees is enough to cause them to warp and fail.



Agreed. That's what I've always said.

But eots will come back and say that NIST says there weren't temps high enough to weaken steel. Yet turns around and believes the molten steel crap.

Pretty funny is you ask me.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 28, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Woo. Princess Jones gets mighty brave once Gamer turns his back. Typical CT jackass.
> ...



Thermites do not burn very long and there is no way that thermite use on 9/11 would or could have kept steel molten for weeks. There is also no way to have burned through enough steel support beams at exactly the same rate to cause the Towers to fall straight down. Uneven burning would have caused the buildings to topple like trees. 
I believe if we've established nothing else in the molten steel debate it is that no one actually knows what that molten material was. It is unfortunate that the NIST did not at least measure its temp but having no reason to believe the material could be steel there was little reason to. It is pathetic that the CTs do not apply the same skepticism to the statements of those who _claimed_ to have seem molten steel that they do to _everything_ the NIST said.
Ironically, it is the "secret super stuff" theory which has a greater probability than thermite but that just highlights the _overwhelming probability_ that there was no CD at all.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 28, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > It might be true that the temperatures that the fires achieved was 1000 degrees less than what is needed to melt steel, but the steel did not need to be liquid to fail. With the amount of weight on the columns, heating them to 1800 degrees is enough to cause them to warp and fail.
> ...



Pathetic if you ask me but he seems to be a man with an agenda other than the truth.
Jones, on the other hand, actually believes the CTBS he posts. Then there is 9/11 Hand Job ... the village idiot.


----------



## PredFan (Mar 28, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



I remember that someone once posted a picture here os a beam that was "melted", when actually it was obviously cut by a cutting torch. Probably any molton steel found in the debris was there because of the torches used to remove the steel/rescue survivors/increase safety.


----------



## PredFan (Mar 28, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > It might be true that the temperatures that the fires achieved was 1000 degrees less than what is needed to melt steel, but the steel did not need to be liquid to fail. With the amount of weight on the columns, heating them to 1800 degrees is enough to cause them to warp and fail.
> ...



Does the NIST report actually state that there weren't temps high enough? If so, that's pretty ignorant of them.


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 28, 2013)

PredFan said:


> It might be true that the temperatures that the fires achieved was 1000 degrees less than what is needed to melt steel, but the steel did not need to be liquid to fail. With the amount of weight on the columns, heating them to 1800 degrees is enough to cause them to warp and fail.



Just to reiterate what Mr. Jones is claiming. The important parts are enlarged/colored/bolded.



Mr. Jones said:


> Because, as I mentioned numerous already...aluminum melts at a lower temp then steel...But, it gets rid of the heat faster then steel. This means that if it was aluminum that was melting, and running "like in a foundry" there had to be a very high, and constant heating source/fuel supply in order for the aluminum to react, and be in a constant state of melting. *Where did this heat fuel source come from? How did it manage to last for 100 days despite constant efforts to extinguish it, and even resorting to thousands of gallons of pyrocool?*
> Steel on the other hand, will hold onto the heat longer then aluminum,* still the source of the heat/fuel source to maintain the temps, in aluminum or steel, that were reported and measured remains a mystery.*



Mr. Jones thinking is basically that thermite kept the steel molten for 100 days.


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 28, 2013)

PredFan said:


> Does the NIST report actually state that there weren't temps high enough?



Nope.



> *15. Since the melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees  Fahrenheit) and the temperature of a jet fuel fire does not exceed 1,000 degrees  Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit), how could fires have impacted the steel  enough to bring down the WTC towers?*
> 
> In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).
> However, when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value. Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers. Thus, yielding and buckling of the steel members (floor trusses, beams, and both core and exterior columns) with missing fireproofing were expected under the fire intensity and duration determined by NIST for the WTC towers.



FAQs - NIST WTC Towers Investigation


----------



## PredFan (Mar 28, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > It might be true that the temperatures that the fires achieved was 1000 degrees less than what is needed to melt steel, but the steel did not need to be liquid to fail. With the amount of weight on the columns, heating them to 1800 degrees is enough to cause them to warp and fail.
> ...



Controlled demolition can be completely ruled out with rational thinking. The buildings could not have been rigged to blow prior to the event. There are too many problems, insurmountable problems with that theory.

So whatever we have left has to be the truth. What kept the heat for 100 days? The fuel perhaps, the burning debris perhaps, the 1800 degree steel maybe, probably a combination of all of those plus the sheer amount of rubble preventing the pyrocool from reaching into where the heat was coming from.

It doesn't mean there was a conspracy other than from Al-Queda and OBL.


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 28, 2013)

PredFan said:


> I remember that someone once posted a picture here os a beam that was "melted", when actually it was obviously cut by a cutting torch. Probably any molton steel found in the debris was there because of the torches used to remove the steel/rescue survivors/increase safety.



Similar to this one?






Torch cut.


----------



## PredFan (Mar 28, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Does the NIST report actually state that there weren't temps high enough?
> ...



And there we have it.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 28, 2013)

PredFan said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



Easy peasy, nice and easy. When skepticism is applied equally to all 9/11 theories the NIST report wins in a landslide. Case closed.


----------



## eots (Mar 28, 2013)

PredFan said:


> It might be true that the temperatures that the fires achieved was 1000 degrees less than what is needed to melt steel, but the steel did not need to be liquid to fail. With the amount of weight on the columns, heating them to 1800 degrees is enough to cause them to warp and fail.



but there is mo evidence of these temperatures exsisting in the steel tested


----------



## eots (Mar 28, 2013)

PredFan said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



you can not rule out explosives because you imagine it to be difficult
to place them


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 28, 2013)

The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the probable collapse sequence, although [the investigation] does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached.'-
WTC Disaster Study

the report does not explain what happens after the collapse began.  This shows that the NIST report essentially a pre-collapse initiation theory.
 One would have hoped that the 20 million dollars used to fund the NIST study would be enough to at least attempt to answer how the 110 floor, 1/4 mile high, steel (not aluminum) twin towers completely collapsed to the ground. 
This shows the absurdity of the NIST report.  
The NIST report is irrelevant if it cant explain the structural behavior of the tower after the collapse began.
It's no wonder why none of you defenders of the NIST can come up with anything when talking about the actual collapses.

 The only focus of the report is to prove that the collapse started, not explain what happened after it started, and why the collapse was total and complete.  Even more outrageous, NIST cant even prove convincingly why the collapse began.

NIST, and the insane idiots on here defending what is obviously a BS attempt at covering up evidence to advance a preconceived conclusion, ignore the most important questions and leaves the most important evidence relating to those questions unexamined. This intentional obfuscation of the NIST report is significant because it allows the report to ignore evidence that is devastating to its BS hypothesis, including the unbreakable law of physics known as conservation of momentum.

Also--
NISTs scientific data contradicted their own theory--
*Paint tests indicated low steel temps  of 480 F . despite pre-collapse exposure to fire-*
WTC Disaster Study

*Microstructure tests showed no steel reached critical half-strength values of 1112 F.*
*Lab tests showed only minimal sagging*
*NIST found that there was no floor collapse*

The results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11th."
NIST claims that the temperatures were high enough to weaken the steel, yet their own tests showed that it was not, yet they ignore numerous sightings of molten steel in the wreckage??? LOL....Pointing out the many instances of NIST lies, and disingenuous tactics is easy.

See I can honestly back up my assumptions regarding what I have come to think about NIST, by showing the many instances where they lose credibility and show the telltale signs that scream "cover up"!

However, if you are a person hell bent on being willfully ignorant of what is clear to rational honest and objective people, and if you have to protect your own CT, or protect the liars and criminals as a personal or assigned task, then one can see why you shrills are willing to forgo any semblance of credibility or intellectual honesty when trying to achieve your goal of keeping readers in a state of ignorant bliss...and your arguments fail.

Science demands rejecting a theory if the evidence contradicts it, and NIST "science" completely ignores contradictory evidence at every opportunity.
To make a predetermined conclusion is to accept a theory without examining ALL of the relevant evidence.  This is exactly what NIST did, and this was done so the myth of the OCT can revolve around fanatical Islamic extremists who circumvented America's air defenses (using box cutters!) and who managed to completely, and globally destroy 3 buildings with only 2 planes!!!

Even  NIST contributor Ronald Hamburger said he had the first impression that it looked like explosive charges had been placed in the WTC buildings. -
Press Releases

According to NIST a building which supported its own weight for 30 years cant resist the momentum from the collapse even a little.  NIST claims a small portion of the building is enough to result in crushing the rest of the building at near FF speed...as if the bottom portion of the undamaged, and significantly more robust steel of the building provided no more resistance than the air in the sky. This is called creating your own scientific reality.
Ignoring this and pretending it is not a valid cause to even question it is either lunacy, or willful and intended attempt to misinform yourself and others.

NIST's assertion that the Towers intact structure was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass is absurd. It requires us to believe that the massive steel frames of the towers (and WTC 7) provided no more resistance to falling rubble than air. 
Ignores the fact that the majority of rubble fell outside the towers footprints, and hence could not contribute to any crushing. 
And, is unsupported by any calculation or logical argument.

You cant ignore fundamental laws of physics simply because they are inconvenient to your theory BS!  Normally, although not in NIST  junk science you are supposed to abandon your theory when it is this easily and credibly able to be disproved, as having the only likelihood of probability..

The information that has been provided by credible folks, that proves the NIST is nothing more then a government agency, readily available to provide aid when needed to cover up the lies of the 9-11 events..
Credibility is defined as the quality, capability, or power to elicit belief.
The most reliable form of credibility is based on the scientific method. The least reliable form is established through repeated or pathological lying and combined with willful disregard of verifiable evidence including data, witnesses, and hiding from public view information that is usually made available to others for the intent to replicate a hypothesis.
Dishonesty is the most damning blow to NIST's credibility, and the lying scum that are only here to defend their lies, and the criminals of 9-11...


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 28, 2013)

PredFan said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



And as has been explained to you willfully ignorant idiots, the fires in the WTC (all 3 of them) had transient fires. NIST even admits this, and therefore if you really know anything about fires effects on steel, you wouldn't purposefully leave out the fact that if a fire consumes any combustibles, and moves on to feed elsewhere, the effected steel regains much of its strength during this cooling period.
You fucks ignore this on purpose to make others think that once steel is weakened by elevated temps (that NIST has not proven even existed) the steel remains in a permanent weakened state!!
Steel is made with very high temps, and is strengthened AFTER it is cool..This is just another example of the dishonest attempts by you fucks that are here to only misinform others, and you other idiots that actually agree with your "there you have its" are a sorry, stupid, lazy bunch that only wish to have something, even if it's a lie, to further your insane OCT delusion...STFU, and quit hugging each others nutsacks, and do your own research about what is being said instead, you pathetic fucking whack jobs..

You fucks only want others to depend on "does the NIST report say....?"
And rely on other fucks in your circle of disinformation trolls say, without having to really interpret what it actually is saying and how it contradicts itself!!

A prime example of this is evident in the facts I have posted in this thread about the molten pools of steel are seen in the rubble of the WTC buildings, including WTC 7.
 BUT, jet fuel and normal fires are incapable of melting steel.
 Indeed, NIST claims that &#8220;In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the [jet fuel] fires.&#8221;
Therefore, logic and honest, rational thinking, dictates that something else melted the steel. However...since NIST purposefully ignores this (and other evidence) the same logic
must be applied when others rightly accuse NIST of deceitful investigation tactics, and call BS when they analyze their subsequent reports...

Scientific Method= Start with the facts and then use them to reach an argument or thesis.
Political  (NIST) Method= Start with a thesis and then examine only the facts that confirm the argument. This is exactly what you lying fucks do as well, and it is obvious....and you stoop to incredibly lowdown levels to try to do it too....Aluminum car parts...blaming GZ workers for "not testing" shit...and totally trying to misinform about the transient fires and the cooling and hence re-strengthening of any affected steel....

The Scientific method is significantly more credible as it does not ignore evidence and every detail must be considered.  If there is contradictory evidence, a thesis must be rejected in favor of a new thesis which follows all of the given evidence.  In contrast, the political method often attempts to preserve its thesis even in the face of contradicting evidence, and you fucks continue to ignore the contradicting evidence and continue to make fools out of yourselves in the process....

Once again you fucking anti American and anti-truth shrills are exposed as the lying, dishonest, deceitful fucks that you really are.


----------



## PredFan (Mar 28, 2013)

eots said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



Not difficult, nearly impossible.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 28, 2013)

eots said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



This is the only way they can continue the illusion and fantasy that they are trying to claim is so valid even in the face of 11 years of contradictory findings by so many credible people...Then they try to spin it as NOT credible or valid because a criminal government 
does all it can to continue to lie and suppress everything!!
We can rest our case on whether or not it's "crazy" to question the government's official account of 9-11, because of much historical precedent, that shows one is crazy NOT to question anything we are told 
Corrupt elements within our government have proven they are capable of carrying out, facilitating or covering up crimes of equal or greater criminal depravity this is indisputable.


----------



## daws101 (Mar 28, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...


it's called the god complex .it's root cause is not getting laid.


----------



## daws101 (Mar 28, 2013)

PredFan said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...


because they were in on it!
or an alien race race put everyone in to stasis and rigged the buildings.
the twoofers say it was a demo, then why the planes? dramatic effect?
it would have worked just as well with out them ,if it were an actual demo.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 28, 2013)

PredFan said:


> It might be true that the temperatures that the fires achieved was 1000 degrees less than what is needed to melt steel, but the steel did not need to be liquid to fail. With the amount of weight on the columns, heating them to 1800 degrees is enough to cause them to warp and fail.



Well it apparently was found in liquid form in the wreckage of 3 buildings, one of which was NOT hit by a plane, explain that....Also while you're at it, you might want to try to link us where you get your preposterous, unprovable assumptions from...while you figure out how to prove to everyone how it is that you can assume that once steel is effected by fire and heated to its 'weakening" point, it will remain this way, even after the fires move on to other parts of a building???
You conveniently leave out the facts that steel regains strength when it cools, and the fires in all 3 buildings were transient and did not remain localized..Nor is there proof that any of them did attain the level needed to fail steel, let alone produce the temps needed to actually find it melted and "running like rivers" underneath ALL 3 buildings....You idiots can't explain away the glaring contradictions, and huge holes in your OCT, so you choose instead to act oblivious to them LOL...

You people are such utter failures when your BS assumptions are taken to task it's laughable..The American people know they were lied to and many Vets know it too, and what is even more appalling is their supposed own governments willingness to hold those truly responsible accountable for the lies and crimes...


----------



## daws101 (Mar 28, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...


[ame=http://youtu.be/s4XXZ9G3gik]Thermite at Ground Zero? - YouTube[/ame]


Here's a Debunking911 Fun Fact!   


How much mass would be required to produce molten iron from thermite equal to the same volume of molten aluminum droplets shown flowing from the south tower window:


 A mole of Fe weighs 54 g. For every mole of Fe produced by thermite, one mole of Al and 0.5 mole of Fe2O3 is needed.

 2Al + Fe2O3 = Al2O3 + 2Fe


 One mole of Al weighs 27 g. 0.5 mole of Fe2O3 weighs 80 g. 

 Therefore, (27 + 80) g = 107 g of Al and Fe2O3 is needed to produce 54 g of Fe.

 That means the mass of the reactants to that of Fe produced is a ratio of 107/54 = 2. The mass of thermite reactants (Al, Fe2O3) is twice that of the molten iron produced.

 Comparing the weight of molten aluminum droplets compared with iron:

 Iron is 7.9 g/cc. Aluminum is 2.64 g/cc. Fe is denser than Al by a factor of 3. For the same volume of droplets, Fe would have three times the mass as Al.

 To produce the iron from thermite requires a reactant mass that is a factor of 2 more than the iron produced. Also, Fe is 3 times as dense as Al. So, it would take 2*3 = 6 times as much mass to produce the same volume of molten iron droplets from thermite compared with molten aluminum droplets.


 Example:

 Assume 3000 lbs of aluminum fell from the towers. If it had been molten iron produced by thermite, then 6*3000 = 18,000 lbs of thermite reactants would have been required to produce that same volume of falling mass.

Suppose 10 tons of molten aluminum fell from the south tower, about 1/8th of that available from the airplane. If it had been molten iron produced from thermite, 60 tons of thermite reactants would have to have been stored in Fuji Bank to produce the same volume spilling out of the south tower. The section of floor would have to hold all of that plus the aircraft.

*Amount of aluminum can be ascertained by counting the droplets and measuring their size compared to the known size of the window. It's not easy to get a good number on this. It's based on the number of slugs seen in video stills, their size relative to the window width which was about 22 inches, and the density of aluminum, assuming this was aluminum.

Density of metals

 The weight of a gallon of aluminum is about 22.5 pounds. A hundred of these would already be 2250 lbs. A gallon size is not unlike the size of the slugs that were pouring out the window. Look at them relative to the window size. They look small at first, but when you realize how big the towers were, the slugs were fairly large. It must have been in the thousands of pounds.

 Some of the video stills show what look like 50 to 100 slugs in just one frame. 




The thermite wouldn't have only needed to make a clean cut like the photo above, it would have also needed to cut sideways. Not an easy feat for thermite. You see, it's a powder which burns chaotically. Maybe with some device but no working device has been proven to me to work to cut a vertical column.  You can direct it with a  canister but that method wouldn't work to cut a column. The canister only makes a small hole. Nano-thermite has been talked about but its uses fall far short of cutting these massive columns. It's in its research stage. They include possible uses for  welding molecular devices and possible use as a  heat signature flare decoy. Then there is a patent of a device which has been brought up but as of yet, there is no evidence the idea went any further. Does it even work? Even if it did, they are "Ganged" together to make the cut. You would still need these boxes all over the columns. Once again the answer to this from the "scholars" is "rationalized technology". They need this technology to exist so it exists. There is some secret super thermite which can be placed in a canister which can survive 1,100 degree C so the primary charge doesn't go off. "Gee debunking, you're so dumb."
Thermite and Sulfer- Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 28, 2013)

PredFan said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



Why because a group of liars told you it's impossible or because you purposefully fail to educate yourself on the many aspects that show who was in positions of authority to command and facilitate this false flag attack on America?
You can not rule anything out simply because you are too stupid to learn about the nation and its history out and who has infiltrated key positions within it....God...you're pathetically ignorant!!!


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 28, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



Nothing but a prime example of what has been already debunked as utter BS, coming from someone who doesn't know the first thing about any of this topic, or cares to teach himself...Face it you fucking idiot...you are a miserable failure who can't even distinguish real facts from your strawman sites...


----------



## PredFan (Mar 28, 2013)

eots said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > It might be true that the temperatures that the fires achieved was 1000 degrees less than what is needed to melt steel, but the steel did not need to be liquid to fail. With the amount of weight on the columns, heating them to 1800 degrees is enough to cause them to warp and fail.
> ...



In the steel tested. Changes nothing.


----------



## daws101 (Mar 28, 2013)

PredFan said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



























you mean these?


----------



## daws101 (Mar 28, 2013)

eots said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > It might be true that the temperatures that the fires achieved was 1000 degrees less than what is needed to melt steel, but the steel did not need to be liquid to fail. With the amount of weight on the columns, heating them to 1800 degrees is enough to cause them to warp and fail.
> ...


 link!


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 28, 2013)

daws101 said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



I don't see the tons of aluminum or car parts that you idiots kept yammering on about...


----------



## daws101 (Mar 28, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...


yes sister jones yammer to your hearts content. only problem is it's not been debunked. you and your twoofer friends saying it is,is not credible.
if your ravings were even partially fact then it would be  obvious and could not be covered up.


----------



## daws101 (Mar 28, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...


once again sister jones is lying. I never said anything about cars parts. If you're so right why the compulsion to lie?


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 28, 2013)

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



Done already, try to keep up, it's in the NIST report that you are supposed to know about since you are here trying to defend its credibility, one would think you'd have easy assess to your own copy...Besides you really only care about being argumentative anyway, and have no real desire at being serious or honest in these topics....I wonder what you could possibly be 'designing" as a "designer" that gives you so much free time to 'work" this message board....
The NIST report is a cover up...the evidence is obvious, and you are a delusional troll who has no life, and appears to have a very low IQ, who makes up fanciful lies to make up for his mental and social deficiencies.. Go ahead and ask ME for the links I have saved from your stupid postings to prove this to everyone....


----------



## daws101 (Mar 28, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...


number#3 photo most all of the smallish debris is aluminum.
so either you're blind or in denial .


----------



## PredFan (Mar 28, 2013)

I'll respond to this despite your undeserved insult attack.



Mr. Jones said:


> And as has been explained to you willfully ignorant idiots, the fires in the WTC (all 3 of them) had transient fires. NIST even admits this, and therefore if you really know anything about fires effects on steel, you wouldn't purposefully leave out the fact that if a fire consumes any combustibles, and moves on to feed elsewhere, the effected steel regains much of its strength during this cooling period.
> You fucks ignore this on purpose to make others think that once steel is weakened by elevated temps (that NIST has not proven even existed) the steel remains in a permanent weakened state!!



That is not what I'm saying at all. The fires didn't "move on" because the heat from the massive amount of fire kept the steel hot throughout the building. All it took was enough heat to begin the collapse and the pancake effect took the rest of the towers down.



Mr. Jones said:


> Steel is made with very high temps, and is strengthened AFTER it is cool..This is just another example of the dishonest attempts by you fucks that are here to only misinform others, and you other idiots that actually agree with your "there you have its" are a sorry, stupid, lazy bunch that only wish to have something, even if it's a lie, to further your insane OCT delusion...STFU, and quit hugging each others nutsacks, and do your own research about what is being said instead, you pathetic fucking whack jobs..



Apparently there is a whole lot that YOU do not know. I have done the research, I do know about the properties of steel AND construction. That's why I don't swallow the CTs.



Mr. Jones said:


> You fucks only want others to depend on "does the NIST report say....?"
> And rely on other fucks in your circle of disinformation trolls say, without having to really interpret what it actually is saying and how it contradicts itself!!



I asked that question because if the NIST's report said that then it would be one more mistake that they made. You really should read and understand the posts you're railing on before you open your mouth and insert your foot.



Mr. Jones said:


> A prime example of this is evident in the facts I have posted in this thread about the molten pools of steel are seen in the rubble of the WTC buildings, including WTC 7.
> BUT, jet fuel and normal fires are incapable of melting steel.
> Indeed, NIST claims that &#8220;In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the [jet fuel] fires.&#8221;
> Therefore, logic and honest, rational thinking, dictates that something else melted the steel. However...since NIST purposefully ignores this (and other evidence) the same logic
> must be applied when others rightly accuse NIST of deceitful investigation tactics, and call BS when they analyze their subsequent reports...



Again, just because the NIST's report doesn't explain the "pools of molten steel" it by no means validates a theory that the towers were rigged. You cannot prove your point by simply poking holes in the NIST report.



Mr. Jones said:


> Scientific Method= Start with the facts and then use them to reach an argument or thesis.
> Political  (NIST) Method= Start with a thesis and then examine only the facts that confirm the argument. This is exactly what you lying fucks do as well, and it is obvious....and you stoop to incredibly lowdown levels to try to do it too....Aluminum car parts...blaming GZ workers for "not testing" shit...and totally trying to misinform about the transient fires and the cooling and hence re-strengthening of any affected steel....



Your scientific method contains some very serious assumptions. The assumption that the fires blazed and then went out as they moved along being the major one here.



Mr. Jones said:


> The Scientific method is significantly more credible as it does not ignore evidence and every detail must be considered.  If there is contradictory evidence, a thesis must be rejected in favor of a new thesis which follows all of the given evidence.  In contrast, the political method often attempts to preserve its thesis even in the face of contradicting evidence, and you fucks continue to ignore the contradicting evidence and continue to make fools out of yourselves in the process....



Some things will never be known. Since the actual events cannot be repeated then the true scientific method cannot be applied. One cannot form a theory, and test it, modify the theory and test it again. So far neither you nor any of your counterparts have ever been able to support YOUR theories, you can only poke holes in the NIST's theory. We saw the planes hit, we saw the buildings fall. The NIST's report fits most of the facts, it is most likely as close to the truth as we will ever get. You have a different opinion then prove your case. You cannot prove YOUR case by attacking the NIST's report.



Mr. Jones said:


> Once again you fucking anti American and anti-truth shrills are exposed as the lying, dishonest, deceitful fucks that you really are.



Only in your mind. Not in reality.


----------



## daws101 (Mar 28, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


wow thanks but I was not asking you sister jones I want to see eots cherry picked version I 've already seen yours.
please post the so called stupid posts that you wish would prove your false accusations about me I could use a laugh.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 28, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Where is all the supposed aluminum asshole?? You already admitted that the WTC GZ wreckage had "tons of steel" this after trying to argue for the existence of vast amounts of aluminum that YOU said was what the numerous sightings of molten steel by witnesses actually were!!!! LOL!!!!
You are a fucking joke, you pathetic loser .....Go take your meds, or maybe you should stop them as you are sooo fucking braindead it's obvious you have a mental problem they aren't able to even stabilize...


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 28, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Coming up shortly....you just insist on further showing others on here how dishonest and stupid you really are...LOL....You asked for it....BTW....why do you insist on even arguing with someone who has a far superior knowledge of the topic of 9-11 then you??
Eots has roasted your pathetic ass far too many times to count!!!


----------



## eots (Mar 28, 2013)

> PredFan
> That is not what I'm saying at all. The fires didn't "move on" because the heat from the massive amount of fire kept the steel hot throughout the building. All it took was enough heat to begin the collapse and the pancake effect took the rest of the towers down.


*
once again the debwunkers claim to support NIST yet constantly contradict NIST*

*NIST's findings do not support the &#8220;pancake theory&#8221; of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC .*

FAQs - NIST WTC Towers Investigation





> Apparently there is a whole lot that YOU do not know. I have done the research, I do know about the properties of steel AND construction. That's why I don't swallow the CTs.



*but yet he still doesn't know the NIST collapse theory*




> Your scientific method contains some very serious assumptions. The assumption that the fires blazed and then went out as they moved along being the major one here.



*the fact fires consume the combustible materials within in an area and spread is hardly rocket science*


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 28, 2013)

PredFan said:


> I'll respond to this despite your undeserved insult attack.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 28, 2013)

PredFan said:


> I'll respond to this despite your undeserved insult attack.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





eots said:


> > PredFan
> > That is not what I'm saying at all. The fires didn't "move on" because the heat from the massive amount of fire kept the steel hot throughout the building. All it took was enough heat to begin the collapse and the pancake effect took the rest of the towers down.
> 
> 
> ...



We are dealing with either extremely stupid people, or most likely people who pretend to be stupid.....


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 28, 2013)

It can be observed that the US administration has occasionally made reference to creating our own reality...
*A government or a person develops credibility through the process of publishing or expressing views that are supported by the evidence to be true.  This is also accumulated through repeated accuracy.  The more frequently a source is shown to be accurate, the more that source is held as authoritative.  If a source is shown to be repeatedly incorrect, we therefore doubt this source, and without hesitation question the validity of this source.  *

''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''


Although our perception of reality may be subjectivereality itself is not; it consists of scientific laws that are observed to be true.  Creating our own reality entails using facts that support an imaginary reality and ignoring facts that do not.  This is the very definition of the political method.  But is this policy limited only to political thought?  In 2004, a group of about 60 influential scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates declared:

*The Bush administration has deliberately and systematically distorted scientific fact in the service of policy goals on the environment, health, biomedical research and nuclear weaponry at home and abroad Dr. Kurt Gottfried, an emeritus professor of physics at Cornell University who signed the statement and spoke in the conference call, said the administration had engaged in practices that are in conflict with the spirit of science and the scientific method.*

It also found:

·        There is a well established pattern of suppression and distortion of scientific findings by high-ranking Bush administration political appointees across numerous federal agencies. These actions have consequences for human health, public safety, and community well-being.

There is strong documentation of a wide-ranging effort to manipulate the government's scientific advisory system to prevent the appearance of advice that might run counter to the administration's political agenda.

There is evidence that the administration often imposes restrictions on what government scientists can say or write about "sensitive" topics.

There is significant evidence that the scope and scale of the abuse of science by the Bush administration are unprecedented.
Scientific Integrity in Policy Making (March 2004) | Union of Concerned Scientists

According to these prominent scientists, the US administration is also creating its own scientific reality.  As defined, this is not scienceit is the political method.  It is another form of creating our own reality.  Therefore we must conclude that the credibility of the US administration is lacking if it will distort science to support policy goals.  This statement by prominent scientists is a damning blow to the scientific credibility of the US administration if it considers policy goals more important than objective scientific results.  If the US government is censoring scientists, then we simply can not trust without examination any single report that they release.  Censorship of science is a way to ignore evidence and is therefore no longer science by definition.  This is the political method in action.

A perfect and credibility crushing example of this practice is shown by the EPA shortly after the 9/11 attacks took place:

On September 18, 2001, as fires still smoldered at the trade center, [Christine Todd] Whitman said the air in Lower Manhattan was safe to breathe. She continued to reassure New Yorkers in the days and weeks that followed.
Whitman Sued for Calling 9/11 Air "Safe to Breathe" - WNYC

This has to be one of the most blatant examples of creating our own [scientific] reality. This report was completely false and has resulted in a lawsuit...
09/13/2001: EPA INITIATES EMERGENCY RESPONSE ACTIVITIES, REASSURES PUBLIC ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS

Steel framed buildings have never completely collapsed due to fire in history.
 The scientific method looks for real-life examples to provide a hypothesis.  NIST started with this predetermined conclusion, despite the fact that this hypothesis has never been documented before in history as mentioned above. Destroying evidence is a crime and is not scientific.  It is a way to ignore evidence. You OCT defenders and shrills approve of these criminal actions and try to justify them as a "mistake"
NIST investigator Richard Tomasetti approved the decision to recycle the steel, BEFORE it could be properly studied and analyzed in the most important criminal investigation in our nations history....And you unrepentant defenders of this have the nerve to approve of this?

Despite the overwhelming evidence that you pathetic people want to call "mistakes" you refuse to find any shred of decency or honesty within you to admit what we all have already admitted to ourselves...and that is , that we were lied to, and our brothers and sisters died because we refused to be honest with ourselves about this..It's time to stop the denial...


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 28, 2013)

eots said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > It might be true that the temperatures that the fires achieved was 1000 degrees less than what is needed to melt steel, but the steel did not need to be liquid to fail. With the amount of weight on the columns, heating them to 1800 degrees is enough to cause them to warp and fail.
> ...



Really? That steel was molten when it was formed into beams. What kind of test would tell what temps it had experienced since? 
Frankly, I believe you are a desperate CT jackass who depends on half-truths and lies and makes up this silly shit as he goes. The evidence that they reached the weakened state described by the NIST report is their failure to support the building when heated by the fires on 9/11.


----------



## daws101 (Mar 28, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...


yep you're blind.. number#3 photo most all of the smallish debris is aluminum.
you intentional misrepresentation of what I said "tons of steel" is no admission, it's a statement of fact and stating the obvious and you're still failing to spin it.
I did argue the existence of huge amounts of aluminum because there were huge amounts of aluminum.:By far the largest source of aluminum at the WTC was the exterior cladding 
on WTC 1 & 2. In quantitative terms it may be estimated that 2,000,000 kg of 
anodized 0.09&#61618; aluminum sheet was used, in the form of 43,600 panels, to 
cover the façade of each Twin Tower.  
only in your delusional thinking is that a small amount.
and again you attempt to miss represent what I said :"after trying to argue for the existence of vast amounts of aluminum that YOU said was what the numerous sightings of molten steel by witnesses actually were!!!! LOL!!!!"sister jones 
it's been proven to you numerous times that aluminum has a lower melting point then steel.
to a rational mind that should mean that it is far more likely the  molten pools were made of a mix of substances (mostly aluminum) that have a lower melting point then steel.
 most importantly it is an impossibility to differentiate molten steel from any other molten substances.
what that means O blathering propagandist, is the witness testimony ,that you get such a raging wood over, is only factual in that they saw molten pools of something anything else is specious speculation.


----------



## PredFan (Mar 28, 2013)

eots said:


> > PredFan
> > That is not what I'm saying at all. The fires didn't "move on" because the heat from the massive amount of fire kept the steel hot throughout the building. All it took was enough heat to begin the collapse and the pancake effect took the rest of the towers down.
> 
> 
> ...



For the 3,498,657,456,234,542,746,352,874,673,498,567th time. I will sometimes contradict the NIST's report simply because there isn't anyone, especially me who thinks that the NIST's report is infallible. That is something you people make up in your minds.



eots said:


> *NIST's findings do not support the &#8220;pancake theory&#8221; of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC .*



So? Now YOU support the NIST's version of events?



eots said:


> *but yet he still doesn't know the NIST collapse theory*



Yet again, I'm not quoting from the NIST report.



eots said:


> *the fact fires consume the combustible materials within in an area and spread is hardly rocket science*



You guys just like to make shit up or what? Did I say they didn't spread? MR.Jones assumes that the fires went out after they spread and the temperature returned to room temperature when the towers fell. That is as absurd as it gets.


----------



## eots (Mar 28, 2013)

> Really? That steel was molten when it was formed into beams. What kind of test would tell what temps it had experienced since?
> Frankly, I believe you are a desperate CT jackass who depends on half-truths and lies and makes up this silly shit as he goes.





*Effect of high temperature creep on the &#64257;re response of restrained steel beams*

Under &#64257;re conditions,signi&#64257;cant forces develop in restrained steel beams and these forces induce high stresses in the steel section. The extent of creep deformations is affected by magnitude and rate of development of stress and temperature in steel. 

Effect of high temperature creep on the fire response of restrained steel beams | Mahmoud Dwaikat - Academia.edu


----------



## PredFan (Mar 28, 2013)

Ok, Mr.Jones, I never ever insulted you once yet you continue to do so to me. I enjoy this debate but there are others whom I can debate with. I've given you chance after chance to debate in a civilized manner and you won't. Have fun by yourself. I'm sure you will count this as some kind of victory, well, no one cares pal. Good bye.


----------



## eots (Mar 28, 2013)

> For the 3,498,657,456,234,542,746,352,874,673,498,567th time. I will sometimes contradict the NIST's report simply because there isn't anyone, especially me who thinks that the NIST's report is infallible. That is something you people make up in your minds.







> Yet again, I'm not quoting from the NIST report.




so what your saying is you find the popular mechanics theory of pancaking more believable than  NIST...intresting


----------



## eots (Mar 28, 2013)

Originally Posted by eots 
the fact fires consume the combustible materials within in an area and spread is hardly rocket science



> You guys just like to make shit up or what? Did I say they didn't spread? MR.Jones assumes that the fires went out after they spread and the temperature returned to room temperature when the towers fell. That is as absurd as it gets.
> __________________


yes how absurd to think that when fire diminishes temperature drops...what was I thinking...lol...its like saying when the sun goes down it gets cooler


----------



## daws101 (Mar 28, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...


you have a rich fantasy life!


----------



## daws101 (Mar 28, 2013)

eots said:


> > Really? That steel was molten when it was formed into beams. What kind of test would tell what temps it had experienced since?
> > Frankly, I believe you are a desperate CT jackass who depends on half-truths and lies and makes up this silly shit as he goes.
> 
> 
> ...


 really ? so tell me other than the title how much of this did you understand.?


----------



## daws101 (Mar 28, 2013)

hang around folks sister jones has informed me that his scathing expose' will destroy me utterly...or not.


----------



## PredFan (Mar 28, 2013)

eots said:


> Originally Posted by eots
> the fact fires consume the combustible materials within in an area and spread is hardly rocket science
> 
> 
> ...



What law of physics says that a fire cannot spread while some other part is still burning? A fire does NOT have to burn completely before it can spread to some other place.

From the videos of the towers, it is obvious that several floors were burning at the same time. Certainly enough to weaken the main support beams. We know that this is so because the towers fell.


----------



## Montrovant (Mar 28, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> We don't have to support any theory, this is what you don't understand!!! I have shown you people where and why and how the NIST is a cover up and they used criminally deceptive and unscientific methods to achieve a predetermined conclusion! It is not hard at all to show this in fact has occurred, and is the point of this thread!!!
> NIST theory does not add up at all, when science and physics are applied! This is enough to show that there has to be some other explanation that makes more sense, but even if we don't know exactly how it was done, we at least know for sure that the explanation that NIST and the government have tried to make you gullible people swallow simply because you are not intelligent enough to look beyond the planes, fire balls, and theatrics, is not at all scientifically or physically possible...Their own fucking reports and testing validates these facts...
> 
> 
> ...



I'm only quoting the parts to which I am responding.

You have shown why you believe the NIST report to be a cover up.  That conclusion is not the one many other people have drawn from the same facts.

The NIST report was looking for the details and conclusions to fit the known facts.  Those were that a)two planes struck the twin towers b)fires burned through the twin towers as well as WTC 7 and c)all three of those structures collapsed.  

You say science and physics contradict the NIST report, but haven't actually shown how this is so.  I've heard the same thing said over and over again, but not only were there numerous scientists involved in the investigation, there are many others who have either agreed for the most part with the NIST report or come to the conclusion that while the NIST report may be wrong, the towers DID in fact collapse due to fire/damage.  Certainly the NIST experts and testing do not lead to the conclusion the report is impossible in the minds of some relevant scientists/experts.

If someone is stupid because credible people from relevant fields of study disagree with the NIST report, then you are stupid because credible people from relevant fields of study agree with it as well.  So everyone is an idiot, apparently.  Let's be clear : there is certainly not any scientific or expert consensus that the NIST report is false.  I find it hilarious that you appeal to authority when it fits your agenda, that you trust so easily when it conforms to your viewpoint, yet come off as incredulous that anyone would believe either the government or the scientists and experts who do believe the towers fell due to damage and fire.  At least one of the experts that YOU quoted in order to try and support one of your points said the towers fell because of the fires!

Your anti-American rhetoric is laughable.  You sound like the worst kind of reactionary.  'Anyone who disagrees with me must hate America!'  If you believe that anyone who comes to different conclusions based on the evidence is a lying, dishonest, deceitful anti-American anti-truth shill, well, you sure think most people here hate their own country.  More, since I don't subscribe to your theory, you are putting me in the same category.  So, if that's what you think of me, I guess my attempts at civil discourse on the subject are pretty foolish and I shouldn't bother.


----------



## Montrovant (Mar 28, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Steel framed buildings have never completely collapsed due to fire in history.
> The scientific method looks for real-life examples to provide a hypothesis.  NIST started with this predetermined conclusion, despite the fact that this hypothesis has never been documented before in history as mentioned above. Destroying evidence is a crime and is not scientific.  It is a way to ignore evidence. You OCT defenders and shrills approve of these criminal actions and try to justify them as a "mistake"
> NIST investigator Richard Tomasetti approved the decision to recycle the steel, BEFORE it could be properly studied and analyzed in the most important criminal investigation in our nations history....And you unrepentant defenders of this have the nerve to approve of this?
> 
> Despite the overwhelming evidence that you pathetic people want to call "mistakes" you refuse to find any shred of decency or honesty within you to admit what we all have already admitted to ourselves...and that is , that we were lied to, and our brothers and sisters died because we refused to be honest with ourselves about this..It's time to stop the denial...



If someone has said it was a mistake, then they CLEARLY do NOT approve.  Do you understand the definitions of those words?

You go on about decency and honesty after using mistake and approval as synonyms?  

As usual, you ignore that many people believe we may have been lied to, but disagree as to the reasons or extent of that lying.

You view 9/11 in a strangely black and white way; either one believes wholeheartedly in the NIST report, as though it is without flaw, or one believes the government was an active participant in the events.  That there can seemingly be no other opinion says a great deal about your PoV.


----------



## daws101 (Mar 28, 2013)

PredFan said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Originally Posted by eots
> ...


sister jones will counter with the unprovable retort that the fires were sporadic and small and jet fuel does not burn hot enough.


----------



## daws101 (Mar 28, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > We don't have to support any theory, this is what you don't understand!!! I have shown you people where and why and how the NIST is a cover up and they used criminally deceptive and unscientific methods to achieve a predetermined conclusion! It is not hard at all to show this in fact has occurred, and is the point of this thread!!!
> ...


bump


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 28, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > We don't have to support any theory, this is what you don't understand!!! I have shown you people where and why and how the NIST is a cover up and they used criminally deceptive and unscientific methods to achieve a predetermined conclusion! It is not hard at all to show this in fact has occurred, and is the point of this thread!!!
> ...



What you have noted is the shrill, often desperate nature of Jones's posts. The source of his desperation seems not to be his eagerness to spread 9/11 truth but rather to defend his POV despite its built-on-sand foundation.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 28, 2013)

daws101 said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



To which someone will respond that no known substance can cut through thick steel and continue to melt it 3 weeks later and that there is no evidence of explosives, demo rigging or a conspiracy. None.


----------



## eots (Mar 28, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



where do you get this continue to melt stuff ? and if no testing was done for explosive residue what would you expect to find ?


----------



## eots (Mar 29, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PawC4u1U7k]9/11 Science vs. Conspiracy Theories Part 1 of 2 - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## daws101 (Mar 29, 2013)

eots said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


none was needed.. if explosives had been used even you could have seen the result.
once again your telling a half truth, the towers and wtc7's debris were checked for explosives in the first hours of the clean up and recovery it's standard operating procedure for a terrorist attack, since nothing was found there was no compelling reason to test further..no matter how much you whine about it.


----------



## daws101 (Mar 29, 2013)

eots said:


> 9/11 Science vs. Conspiracy Theories Part 1 of 2 - YouTube


wonder if natgeo is suing for copy write infringement ...


----------



## eots (Mar 29, 2013)

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 29, 2013)

> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > yep you're blind.. number#3 photo most all of the smallish debris is aluminum.
> ...


----------



## daws101 (Mar 29, 2013)

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


----------



## eots (Mar 29, 2013)

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


----------



## eots (Mar 29, 2013)




----------



## daws101 (Mar 29, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> > daws101 said:
> >
> >
> > > yep you're blind.. number#3 photo most all of the smallish debris is aluminum.
> ...


----------



## eots (Mar 29, 2013)

really and what would this signature be exactly and why do fire investigators routinely test for explosives and incendiaries in major fires other than these ones
if all they do is look for the...signature...lol[/quote]


----------



## eots (Mar 29, 2013)

> really and what would this signature be exactly and why do fire investigators routinely test for explosives and incendiaries in major fires other than these ones
> if all they do is look for the...signature...lol



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uor8NhUr_90]Fire Fighter Erik Lawyer Slams NIST And The 9/11 "Investigation" - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## daws101 (Mar 29, 2013)

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


----------



## eots (Mar 29, 2013)

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > again your ignorance is hilarious.
> ...


----------



## daws101 (Mar 29, 2013)

eots said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


----------



## Mr. Jones (Apr 16, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



How can any evidence that counters the NIST and the OCT be found if the investigating agency chose NOT to look for any?
The fact is that molten steel was at the WTC GZ sites, in particular the sub basements, 70 feet below the ground, and taking the known facts I laid out about the lack of aluminum in these locations (using a link supplied by you OCT defenders) at the towers, AND WTC 7, for anyone to still try to claim that it was aluminum is dishonest unreasonable and just plain stupid.
Now what could have continued to melted the steel for so long after the collapses, and maintained the extremely high temps for 3 months? The theory of office fire combustibles being able to do this are weak at best.
In fact, the NIST reports do nothing to solidify their theory, and they ignored anything that
pointed to other possibilities or other avenues to investigate.
The testing of recovered building components concluded low temps, and surprisingly stronger then anticipated resiliency of the steel.

NIST admits that only a small percentage of columns were severed: 14% in WTC 1 and 15% WTC 2. This is nowhere near the number of columns that the designers claimed could have been removed without causing a problem. 

NIST admits that the web of steel formed by interlocking perimeter columns and spandrel plates were efficient at redistributing loads around the impact punctures. It estimates that loads on some columns increased by up to 35% while loads on other columns decreased by 20%. The increased loads are nowhere near those the designers claimed the columns could handle

NIST tried to _prove _that the plane crashes could dislodge fireproofing by shooting shotguns at surfaces coated with spray-on foam insulation. Contrary to the popular notion that the jolts of the plane crashes could knocked off large amounts of sprayed on insulation from steel not directly in the line of fire, the tests showed that it took being sprayed with shotgun pellets to remove the insulation. In addition to the fact that there is no evidence that a crashing Boeing 757 could have been transformed into the equivalent of the thousands of shotgun blasts it would take to blast the 6,000 square meters of surface area of structural steel in the fire areas.

The maximum temperatures that could have been attained by the steel were much too low to soften it. 
The idea that fires could have caused floors to sag is not unreasonable, since it has been observed in fire tests and in cases of severe fires in steel-framed buildings, such as the One Meridian Plaza fire. What is not reasonable is the degree of sagging NIST used in its computer models compared with the amounts its physical tests showed. Whereas the 35-foot floor model sagged only a few inches in the middle after two hours in a high-temperature furnace, NIST's computer model showed a sagging of 54 inches. 
NIST had to exaggerate temperatures (1300 F), apply these temperatures for 90 minutes, strip all the fireproofing, and then double the height of the inward pull zone to produce even a hint of bowing from fire .

They did not explain why and how the buildings collapsed and their investigation was deceptive and unscientific at every step, They reported findings that were in direct contradiction to their physical testing, They omitted or distorted many important facts such as-
Original design claims and John Skilling's analysis
Resistance from building structure below
WTC 1 antenna moving first
Pools of molten metal lingering for weeks and seen by Leslie Robertson and many others
Numerous eyewitness testimonies about explosions
Sulfur residue on steel.
And we have 3 buildings (2 planes -molten steel in all sub basements)  failing through
parts of them that were undamaged and more robust and should have provided substantially longer "collapse" times yet showed no hesitation or conservation of momentum.
So..in short NIST is full of shit, and 9-11 was a false flag attack.


----------



## Montrovant (Apr 16, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



And there's the part that makes the credibility of the whole post come into question.  Absolutely nothing you've said in this post, even if it's 100% accurate, leads to that conclusion.  The NIST report being wrong does NOT mean 'false flag attack'.  All it would mean is that the NIST investigation was wrong.  In fact, it doesn't even mean that the planes and fires could not have been responsible for the collapses, it merely means that the NIST investigation was wrong in it's conclusions of how it happened.

That's assuming all of your contentions and statements are correct, which is obviously in question already.


----------



## eots (Apr 16, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



The statements are correct and The NIST report is without question incorrect in its _findings _ ..the purpose of the NIST report was to try to come up with any possibility regardless of how improbable so they could offer an explanation other than the obvious one...use of explosives..which is evident in NIST opening remarks at the long awaited press briefing of the final NIST report


At a press briefing, Shyam Sunder, NIST&#8217;s lead investigator, declared that &#8220;the reason for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is no longer a mystery.&#8221;but before I tell what we found let me tell you what we did not find.. we did not find any evidence that explosives were used to bring the building down&#8221;


----------



## SAYIT (Apr 16, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



No known substance can cut through thick steel and continue to melt it 3 weeks later and there is no evidence of explosives, demo rigging or a conspiracy. None. Your speculation about molten steel is still just speculation and _your_ particular agenda ("the Jooos did it") has been exposed. You can't squeeze those worms back into your can, Adolph.


----------



## eots (Apr 16, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



who said it melted it weeks after ?...there would be no evidence of demo rigging and your argument is sooo weak you need to play your joooos card to distract from that fact


----------



## SAYIT (Apr 16, 2013)

eots said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



Which couldn't _possibly_ just mean they found no evidence of explosives, eh? 
Had they said _nothing_ about explosives you would have considered _that_ to be "proof" it was a CD. To one such as you _everything_ (and nothing) are "proof" of your particular CT.


----------



## eots (Apr 16, 2013)

sayit said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > montrovant said:
> ...



they fully admit they did no testing ..as no loud sounds where heard...which is a lie


----------



## SAYIT (Apr 16, 2013)

eots said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



Jones claims molten steel was found "70 feet below the ground" weeks after 9/11 and he also claims - using the oldest and most lame Nazi canards in the book - that the Jooos did it (not that one such as you would notice):

"In fact, Israeli Zionists are the most antisemitic bunch around, and many of them that lay claims to the "Holy Land' are not even of Semitic decent, blood, or origin!
It takes a person an honest effort to find the truth to see that what the Zionists have been saying for generations is all bullshit.
The crimes of the 9-11 attack against Americans point to the real enemy being the Zionists and their Sayanim within this nation, and the evidence is overwhelming. What is more overwhelming is that they have such control of America, its courts, politics, foreign policy and media to keep a lid on many facts about Israel and the Zionists agenda."  - Mr. Jones http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...nections-details-exposed-133.html#post7040226


----------



## SAYIT (Apr 16, 2013)

eots said:


> sayit said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



They considered the evidence and found none of CD explosives. 
They worked with what they had and found no evidence of CD explosives.
You clearly believe the NIST and the Commission were all in on some conspiracy for which there is no proof and nothing they have said (or not said) would dissuade one such as you.


----------



## Montrovant (Apr 16, 2013)

eots said:


> The statements are correct and The NIST report is without question incorrect in its _findings _ ..the purpose of the NIST report was to try to come up with any possibility regardless of how improbable so they could offer an explanation other than the obvious one...use of explosives..which is evident in NIST opening remarks at the long awaited press briefing of the final NIST report
> 
> 
> At a press briefing, Shyam Sunder, NISTs lead investigator, declared that the reason for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is no longer a mystery.but before I tell what we found let me tell you what we did not find.. we did not find any evidence that explosives were used to bring the building down



I'm sorry, but explosives is the 'obvious answer' only to conspiracy theorists.  To most people, the obvious answer as to why the towers collapsed is that two planes were flown into the towers, and then massive fires raged afterward.  The use of explosives is a not-so-obvious explanation, one that is based on speculation.  Your use of the word obvious is in error.


----------



## SAYIT (Apr 16, 2013)

eots said:


> sayit said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Did you modify my post, Princess?


----------



## eots (Apr 16, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > sayit said:
> ...



I did nothing to your post werido


----------



## eots (Apr 16, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



There could well be an israelie connection to 9/11.. there is evidence to suggest this is true of course it would also require complicity by elements within our own government as well.. examine this evidence does not equate to an Anti-Zionist agenda or that the joooos did it ..thats just mindless nonsense

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYIZW959vJc]Fox News expose: Israelis had foreknowledge of 9-11. - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## SAYIT (Apr 16, 2013)

eots said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Hmmm. That Fox (your favorite news source?) report states "there is no indication that the  Israelis were involved in the 9/11 attack" and an _unnamed investigator_ said there _may have been _"tie-ins" but flatly refused to describe them. How convenient. 
11+ years later still no known Israeli connection. 
People like you and Mr. Jones try to keep this BS alive because your agendas have nothing to do with 9/11 truth. So what is the Statute of limitations on your CTBS?


----------



## SAYIT (Apr 16, 2013)

eots said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Me the weirdo? Do you ever take a look at your Avatar?


----------



## eots (Apr 17, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



Ya every morning when I brush my teeth...


----------



## Mr. Jones (Apr 17, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > The statements are correct and The NIST report is without question incorrect in its _findings _ ..the purpose of the NIST report was to try to come up with any possibility regardless of how improbable so they could offer an explanation other than the obvious one...use of explosives..which is evident in NIST opening remarks at the long awaited press briefing of the final NIST report
> ...


You throw the label of  'conspiracy theorist" around as being derogatory, when you and others are in fact conspiracy theorists. Somehow because you adhere to one that is sanctioned by the state, and is THE "official" conspiracy theory, it is somehow not a conspiracy theory?
Or because it is sanctioned and given the stamp of approval by the state or its agencies,
it is therefore deemed out of bounds or placed beyond the reach of criticism?
Governments and their authoritative figures and politicians have been lying to their citizens forever, but somehow because it is YOUR government or its agents that are doing the lying, this simply can not be? 

 Despite the fact that there is evidence that it is full of holes (that you call "mistakes") and full of instances that point to fraud, lies and is a highly improbable one that does not make physical sense. Not to mention that this "official" conspiracy theory was admitted to having only a low (impossible) probability of being correct.

Since the evidence gathering and the NIST investigation as a whole, was limited to only finding that which was beneficial to a plane damage and fire only conclusion, of course there would be speculation that other causes were also responsible for such complete, and global destruction of 3 massive skyscrapers, that were destroyed by 2 planes..that displayed many of the same characteristics of  CD's.
Coupled with the many glaringly obvious attempts at obfuscation, omission and ignoring of important evidence and witnesses, AND the fact that their own testing rejects their CT, it is only natural that many will conclude that a conspiratorial cover up occurred.

NIST went along with the "19 Jihadists with planes and fire" story. Can you imagine the hurt that would have been put on the years of planning to invade the ME, had NIST actually done an honest, no stone left uncovered investigation, that might have pointed
to other suspects and that the 9-11 attacks were done in collusion with and facilitated by entities other then ACIADUH?

IMO,the NIST report is wrong..and intentionally wrong. I have good reasons for having this opinion that I can substantiate with facts.
NIST has earned the negative criticism they deserve.
There is much historical precedent of past "official" lies and people are waking up to this fact, and any skepticism and doubt that arises in people's minds regarding any "official" government explanations or narratives about anything is to be expected.


----------



## Montrovant (Apr 17, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



None of this in any way changes what I said.  For the majority of people I'm pretty sure that the 'obvious answer' as to why the buildings collapsed is that the planes flew into the towers and then the fires burned.  That you and a minority of others believe differently does not affect that.

Correct or not, seeing the planes hit the towers, the fires burn, and then the towers collapsing makes that the obvious answer for most people.


----------



## daws101 (Apr 17, 2013)

eots said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...


hey dick head, if it was so obvious why is there no evidence of any kind?
don't say cover up ,as you have no proof of that either.
as always your assumption is based on a false premise.


----------



## daws101 (Apr 17, 2013)

quote=eots;7100801]





SAYIT said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > How can any evidence that counters the NIST and the OCT be found if the investigating agency chose NOT to look for any?
> ...



who said it melted it weeks after ?...there would be no evidence of demo rigging and your argument is sooo weak you need to play your joooos card to distract from that fact[/QUOTE]bullshit....yes there would be, everything especially explosives  leaves traceable evidence, none was found. again that leads back to your false and unprovable fantasy  cover up.


----------



## daws101 (Apr 17, 2013)

eots said:


> sayit said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



13. Did investigators consider the possibility that an explosion caused or contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?

Yes, this possibility was investigated carefully. NIST concluded that blast events inside the building did not occur and found no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event.

In addition, no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses. According to calculations by the investigation team, the smallest blast capable of failing the building's critical column would have resulted in a sound level of 130 decibels (dB) to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile, if unobstructed by surrounding buildings. This sound level is consistent with a gunshot blast, standing next to a jet plane engine, and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert.

For the building to have been prepared for intentional demolition, walls and/or column enclosures and fireproofing would have to be removed and replaced without being detected. Preparing a column includes steps such as cutting sections with torches, which produces noxious and odorous fumes. Intentional demolition usually requires applying explosive charges to most, if not all, interior columns, not just one or a limited set of columns in a building.
FAQs - NIST WTC 7 Investigation


the sound you are referring to are from the berry Jennings story.
there is no evidence linking what he heard to the collapse.
if his story is fact, then what he heard was the aftermath of the debris falling, on 7 in which it would be expected that loud sounds would be heard..
explosions are not always the result of explosives.


----------



## eots (Apr 17, 2013)

> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


----------



## SAYIT (Apr 17, 2013)

eots said:


> > daws101 said:
> >
> >
> > > 13. Did investigators consider the possibility that an explosion caused or contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?
> ...


----------



## daws101 (Apr 17, 2013)

eots said:


> > daws101 said:
> >
> >
> > > 13. Did investigators consider the possibility that an explosion caused or contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?
> ...


----------



## eots (Apr 18, 2013)

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > > but yet  NIST concluded the failure of a single column was all that was required to initiate collapse ?
> ...


----------



## eots (Apr 18, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4z-Wrp1pY8]Kevin Mcpadden 9/11 First Responder: Building 7 Countdown, Explosions, Controlled Demolition - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## eots (Apr 18, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIIF6P8zBG8]9/11: Sound Evidence for WTC 7 Explosions and NIST Cover Up - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## daws101 (Apr 18, 2013)

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


----------



## daws101 (Apr 18, 2013)

eots said:


> Kevin Mcpadden 9/11 First Responder: Building 7 Countdown, Explosions, Controlled Demolition - YouTube







hearsay not evidence!


----------



## daws101 (Apr 18, 2013)

eots said:


> 9/11: Sound Evidence for WTC 7 Explosions and NIST Cover Up - YouTube


(David Chandler and Jon Cole) are associated with Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.  AE911Truth.
again hearsay, specious speculating, false premise, non credible organization.


----------



## eots (Apr 18, 2013)

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > 9/11: Sound evidence for wtc 7 explosions and nist cover up - youtube
> ...



its a compilation of first responder eye-witnesses testimony dipshit


----------



## daws101 (Apr 18, 2013)

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


and it has no credibility..


----------



## eots (Apr 18, 2013)

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



it is only in your delusional world that first responders who witnessed the events have no credibility...


----------



## gslack (Apr 18, 2013)

I can show 100 people of your choosing, a video of something complex and I will get differing opinions from virtually all of them.. Are they all crazy or lying? No, they just perceive the events differently. Same goes for educated people investigating something they already have doubts about in the first place....


----------



## daws101 (Apr 19, 2013)

gslack said:


> I can show 100 people of your choosing, a video of something complex and I will get differing opinions from virtually all of them.. Are they all crazy or lying? No, they just perceive the events differently. Same goes for educated people investigating something they already have doubts about in the first place....


bump


----------



## E.L.C. (Oct 29, 2013)

Hey guys....

Great thread, I've read it twice.... what a fight! I just love all these conspiracy theorists. Great story, and they tell it with such enthusiasm, as if they actually have the facts behind them.... hilarious!


----------



## eots (Oct 29, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> Hey guys....
> 
> Great thread, I've read it twice.... what a fight! I just love all these conspiracy theorists. Great story, and they tell it with such enthusiasm, as if they actually have the facts behind them.... hilarious!



The NIST REPORT is without question not a fact driven document or investigation..


----------



## E.L.C. (Oct 29, 2013)

Hah! You got that right brother. I'm not talking about you or Mr. Jones though.... I'm talking about the other guys!


----------



## KokomoJojo (Oct 29, 2013)

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin Mcpadden 9/11 First Responder: Building 7 Countdown, Explosions, Controlled Demolition - YouTube
> ...




keep telling ya you aint real good at this are ya!

So the government has first hand knowledge huh?
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





nice!


----------



## KokomoJojo (Oct 29, 2013)

eots said:


> E.L.C. said:
> 
> 
> > Hey guys....
> ...




after 7 years they still couldnt get a collapse to model out like a demolition  LMAO


----------



## E.L.C. (Oct 29, 2013)

Right, seven years and millions of dollars.... only to be corrected by a high school physics teacher!


----------



## eots (Oct 30, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> Right, seven years and millions of dollars.... only to be corrected by a high school physics teacher!



they have been corrected by many highly educated and experienced physicist etc...wo is this high school physics teacher strawman you speak of and what observations do you feel he was incorrect on ?...the numbers of dollars spent and the time wasted is hardly a validation of the NIST collapse theory


----------



## E.L.C. (Oct 30, 2013)

Hey eots (nice to meet you)....

You misunderstand.... I'm not saying the physics teacher was *incorrect*, I'm saying he was *absolutely correct*!

In its July 2008 Draft Report for Public Comment, the NIST initially claimed (lied) that WTC 7 collapsed 40 percent slower than free fall acceleration.

A high school physics teacher named David Chandler objected to the NISTs claim, pointing out that based on video footage of the destruction of WTC 7, the NISTs claim contradicted _ a publicly visible, easily measurable quantity._

Responding to the criticism, the  NIST changed its story in its Final Report issued in November 2008, finally admitting that WTC 7 had in fact descended at free fall.  According to the NIST _ This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft)"._  The NIST did not bother attempting to explain how the free fall of WTC 7 could have occurred.

However, Mr. Chandler does explain how free fall could have occurred.... the ONLY way it could have occurred.

_In the case of a falling building, the only way it can go into free fall is if an external force removes the supporting structure.  None of the gravitational potential energy of the building is available for this purpose, or it would slow the fall of the building."

The collapse we see cannot be due to a column failure, or a few column failures, or a sequence of column failures.  All 24 interior columns and 58 perimeter columns had to have been removed over the span of 8 floors low in the building simultaneously to within a small fraction of a second, and in such a way that the top half of the building remains intact and uncrumpled._

So it was either a controlled demolition, or a miracle.... I don't believe in miracles.


----------



## E.L.C. (Oct 30, 2013)

Just to be clear.... 

As late as August 2008 the NIST continued to claim (lie) that the time it took the upper floors of WTC 7, the only floors visible on the videos, to come down_ &#8220;was approximately 40 percent longer than the computed free fall time and *was consistent* with physical principles."_ This statement implied that any assertion that the building did come down at free fall, assuming a non-engineered collapse, *would not be consistent* with physical principles (basic laws of Newtonian physics). Explaining why during a WTC 7 Technical Briefing in August 2008, the NIST&#8217;s Shyam Sunder said _&#8220;A free fall time would be the fall time of an object that has *no structural components* below it. The time that it took for those 17 floors to disappear was roughly 40 percent longer than free fall. And that is not at all unusual, because *there was structural resistance* that was provided in this particular case. And you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place. Everything was not instantaneous.&#8221;_

In its final report though, which came out in November 2008, the NIST *admitted the very free fall that it previously implied would be inconsistent with physical principles (basic laws of Newtonian physics) in a non-engineered collapse*. The NIST described _&#8220;a freefall descent over approximately eight stories (105 feet) at gravitational acceleration...."_, meaning a *violation of one or more laws of physics* had occurred. 

In other words.... It had to be either an engineered free fall collapse (controlled demolition), or a non-engineered free fall collapse (a miracle). Not surprisingly, there has been no statement from the NIST clarifying their position since the Final Report was issued. Unlike there initial Draft Report though, the Final Report makes no mention of their explanation being consistent with physical principles (basic laws of Newtonian physics).


----------



## KokomoJojo (Oct 30, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> Right, seven years and millions of dollars.... only to be corrected by a high school physics teacher!






*Director of NIST: Disclosure of WTC7 data "might jeopardize public safety"*
http://cryptome.org/nist070709.pdf

yeh theirs!


----------



## KokomoJojo (Oct 30, 2013)

the dark side of the moon!

www.pictureshack.us/images/72721_boddaboom86a.gif


----------



## daws101 (Oct 30, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> Hey guys....
> 
> Great thread, I've read it twice.... what a fight! I just love all these conspiracy theorists. Great story, and they tell it with such enthusiasm, as if they actually have the facts behind them.... hilarious!


damn funny and spot on!


----------



## daws101 (Oct 30, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> Just to be clear....
> 
> As late as August 2008 the NIST continued to claim (lie) that the time it took the upper floors of WTC 7, the only floors visible on the videos, to come down_ was approximately 40 percent longer than the computed free fall time and *was consistent* with physical principles."_ This statement implied that any assertion that the building did come down at free fall, assuming a non-engineered collapse, *would not be consistent* with physical principles (basic laws of Newtonian physics). Explaining why during a WTC 7 Technical Briefing in August 2008, the NISTs Shyam Sunder said _A free fall time would be the fall time of an object that has *no structural components* below it. The time that it took for those 17 floors to disappear was roughly 40 percent longer than free fall. And that is not at all unusual, because *there was structural resistance* that was provided in this particular case. And you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place. Everything was not instantaneous._
> 
> ...


----------



## KokomoJojo (Oct 30, 2013)

daws101 said:


> E.L.C. said:
> 
> 
> > Just to be clear....
> ...




yep nist had 8 years to fudge numbers to get their model to "collapse" like the real building and at best is a MAJOR  














Not even close to the same, roof and sides wrinkle on the model before it even begins to come down.

they wont release their data because of what they had to do to get the right 1/3 to look like that.


----------



## E.L.C. (Oct 30, 2013)

Hah! Good one KokomoJojo.... Got a problem daws101?


----------



## daws101 (Oct 30, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> Hah! Good one KokomoJojo.... Got a problem daws101?


no but you tin foil ass hats do!


----------



## daws101 (Oct 30, 2013)

In a video, it appears that WTC 7 is descending in free fall, something that would not occur in the structural collapse that you describe. How can you ignore basic laws of physics?

In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at WTC Disaster Study), NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions. During the public comment period on the draft report, NIST was asked to confirm this time difference and define the reasons for it in greater detail.

To further clarify the descent of the north face, NIST recorded the downward displacement of a point near the center of the roofline from first movement until the north face was no longer visible in the video. Numerical analyses were conducted to calculate the velocity and acceleration of the roofline point from the time-dependent displacement data. The instant at which vertical motion of the roofline first occurred was determined by tracking the numerical value of the brightness of a pixel (a single element in the video image) at the roofline. This pixel became brighter as the roofline began to descend because the color of the pixel started to change from that of the building façade to the lighter color of the sky.

The approach taken by NIST is summarized in Section 3.6 of the final summary report, NCSTAR 1A (released Nov. 20, 2008; available at WTC Disaster Study) and detailed in Section 12.5.3 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 (available at WTC Disaster Study).

The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:
Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity


 This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent timecompared to the 3.9 second free fall timewas due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.
Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation


----------



## KokomoJojo (Oct 30, 2013)

daws101 said:


> In a video, it appears that WTC 7 is descending in free fall, something that would not occur in the structural collapse that you describe. How can you ignore basic laws of physics?
> 
> In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at WTC Disaster Study), NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions. During the public comment period on the draft report, NIST was asked to confirm this time difference and define the reasons for it in greater detail.
> 
> ...













anyone can time the fall in free software unless they are a total tard.






*it was PUBLICALLY PROVEN ON CAMERA, NIST ADMITTED FREEFALL.

High school physics teacher (truther) kicks Phd Eng Ass around the block!*


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGMvnwjUizY"]WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part I) by David Chandler[/ame]
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aU6KPGvAdx4"]WTC7 NIST Finally Admits Freefall by David Chandler Part 3 [/ame]

The 40% is the speed it took their model, not the real building.
*
SUCKER!*


----------



## E.L.C. (Oct 31, 2013)

daws101 said:


> In a video, it appears that WTC 7 is descending in free fall, something that would not occur in the structural collapse that you describe. How can you blah blah blah....



Yeah yeah, I read that.... the "explanation" that didn't explain anything, very similar to the "careful investigation" of the possible use of explosives that didn't investigate anything.

The NIST says the upper portion of WTC 7 fell in a symetrical non-engineered collapse at gravitational acceleration for 2.25 seconds, or 105 feet in "Stage Two" of it's non-investigation.... What a load! 

The NIST, you, and really anyone who wants to can add all the "Stages" they like, but it will never make the "Official-Magical-Reverse-Conspiracy-Theory" you support consistent with physical principles when it comes to that 2.25 seconds on September 11, and even adding a million "Stages" won't change the laws of physics.

It's a ridiculously impossible notion that the upper portion of WTC 7 could have fallen straight down through eight stories of intact existing structural components beneath it (matter literally falling through matter) at gravitational acceleration for 2.25 seconds, or 105 feet, in a manner virtually indistinguishable from the predicted result for the same size portion of a similarly damaged building falling the same distance through thin air....

Deal with it.


----------



## E.L.C. (Oct 31, 2013)

Not just one, but several "firsts" in the history of architecture on 9/11....

1. First time a steel framed building ever collapsed due to fire.... Never before or since 9/11 has any steel framed build ever collapsed due to fire.
2. First time a non-engineered gravitational collapse ever completely pulverized all the contents of a building to dust.... Desks, chairs, carpet, glass, concrete, computers, file cabinets, people, etc. all reduced to dust.
3. First time a non-engineered gravitational collapse ever caused steel to melt.... Metallurgical studies on WTC steel reveal intergranular melting of steel structural building components making solid steel girders appear like Swiss cheese.
4. First time a non-engineered gravitational collapse ever caused concrete to melt.... Guns from WTC 6 now on display at the NYC police museum encased in molten concrete.  
5. First time a non-engineered gravitational collapse ever resulted in a eutectic reaction.... A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron and oxygen, rich in sulfur, observed to have attacked steel structural building components.
6. First time a non-engineered gravitational collapse ever occured at "free fall" gravitational acceleration.... WTC 7 observed falling for 2.5 seconds (105 feet) at "free fall" gravitational acceleration.

That's a lot of firsts! Any others?


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 31, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> Not just one, but several "firsts" in the history of architecture on 9/11....
> 
> 1. First time a steel framed building ever collapsed due to fire.... Never before or since 9/11 has any steel framed build ever collapsed due to fire.
> 2. First time a non-engineered gravitational collapse ever completely pulverized all the contents of a building to dust.... Desks, chairs, carpet, glass, concrete, computers, file cabinets, people, etc. all reduced to dust.
> ...



First time a pair of skyscrapers were ever run into by a couple of passenger jets?


----------



## KokomoJojo (Oct 31, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> First time a pair of skyscrapers were ever run into by a couple of passenger jets?



excuse me but no plane, (real or imagined) hit world trade 7.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Oct 31, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > In a video, it appears that WTC 7 is descending in free fall, something that would not occur in the structural collapse that you describe. How can you blah blah blah....
> ...




not only did it free fall






physics blows their coverup again,


but it gets even better yet!


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sz7v8EgCzJM"]WTC7 - The Stiffener Plates Explained[/ame]


nist is caught with another very long nose!


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 31, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> not only did it free fall



Explain why, in the graph you posted, the very beginning of the descent shows a period of nonfreefall.

Are you saying that when all the columns were supposedly blown at the same time, the building hanged in midair for about .7 seconds?

Why is there a quick freefall at the beginning of the graph, followed by no freefall, followed by free fall, then followed by no freefall?

Answer a couple of questions.

Did WTC7 completely collapse in about 6 or 7 seconds?


----------



## KokomoJojo (Oct 31, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > not only did it free fall
> ...




Explain why, in the graph you posted, the very beginning of the descent shows a period of nonfreefall.

demolitions do not blow all columns "precisely" at the same instance.  

Didnt you know that?  








There is a 3 stage demolition the last stage failed.  Same as your illthoughtout arguments.

Are you saying that when all the columns were supposedly blown at the  same time, the building hanged in midair for about .7 seconds?

yeh dumbass you can make a building fall anyway you want, even put on a kool fire show just like the wtc.





*
I suppose you are going to tell me that is not a demolition 
and if it is then tell us why wtc7 comparatively would not be.*

arent you one of the people that were unable to answer a simple high school fizix problem?

Why is there a quick freefall at the beginning of the graph, followed by  no freefall, followed by free fall, then followed by no freefall?

What is a "quick freefall"

Answer a couple of questions.

Did WTC7 completely collapse in about 6 or 7 seconds?

do you have records of the time?


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 31, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> demolitions do not blow all columns "precisely" at the same instance.
> 
> Didnt you know that?



Hey dumbass.

Think about what you just said.

Chandler's graph is supposedly showing THE ENTIRE BUILDING, using a single point, falling at freefall for 2.25 seconds.

So explain how the ENTIRE BUILDING started at freefall (the very beginning of the graph), then went into no freefall (next line of the graph), then went into freefall again.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Oct 31, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...




are you sure that is what chandlers graph is showing?  It may be a sectional demolition, is that what you are trying to bring into this now?

Watch where you are driving and when you going to give a number to the answer to that high school (kid tested) fizix question?

oh and there is no freefall at the beginning of that graph, so I have no idea what you are going on about do you?


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 31, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...



You mean you don't know what his graph is showing??? What a joke! He uses the corner of  WTC7 to get data points of the roofline going downward. He then uses that single data point to make the claim that THE ENTIRE BUILDING (not sections or different parts like you claim) came down at freefall for 2.25 seconds.

So explain how the roofline started off at freefall, then no freefall, then freefall. The movement downward indicates, supposedly, that the explosives have gone off and severed the support columns.

I'll wait here as you continue to fumble around. 

Again, the very beginning of the graph shows freefall, then it stops. If beginning indicates "zero resistance below" due to the structure being blown away, what caused the short resistance that followed next?


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 31, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> Watch where you are driving and when you going to give a number to the answer to that high school (kid tested) fizix question?



You were shown to be quite inept at forming your "fizix" question because you think square inches can be converted into cubic inches. There is also another mistake in your "fizix" question which, based on your lack of understanding shown above, you won't find.

Your question is stupid and incorrect. 

What a combination!


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 31, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> oh and there is no freefall at the beginning of that graph, so I have no idea what you are going on about do you?



Really?

You don't see that short vertical green line right before the short horizontal line followed by the freefall line?

Are you blind as well as stupid?


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 31, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> do you have records of the time?



Answer the question Koko. Or are you afraid for some reason?

Did WTC7 totally collapse in about 6 to 7 seconds? Very easy to answer.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Oct 31, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



Since you dont even know what freefall is here is the idiots guide to freefall.






see the pretty red lines?

The pretty red lines are not *parallel* to the green line.

*To be freefall the red line must be parallel to the green line.*



> par·al·lel  (p
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I hope that helps


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 31, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> Since you dont even know what freefall is here is the idiots guide to freefall.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



***knocks on your head***

STOOPID!!!!

Let me clarify this for you. Chandler took a point on the roof and measured it for movement as the building fell. That is what's graphed.

So in the first part, there is freefall, meaning the supposed explosives already went off and the roofline started downward. Then all of a sudden there a measurement of no freefall. Then there's freefall. 

What happened? 

I thought the resistance below was blown away by explosives? Why did he record a sudden instance of no freefall?


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 31, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> URL="http://s1273.photobucket.com/user/mypbemotes/media/wtc%207/pathnamr002_zpsed19c_zpse963738a.jpg.html"]
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hey Koko.

What's that line in the blue oval? Looks "parallel" to your "not freefall" red line. What happened there? Resistance?


----------



## KokomoJojo (Oct 31, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > Since you dont even know what freefall is here is the idiots guide to freefall.
> ...




*OMFG

What a fucking tard!  Go to high school for fuck sake.*





freefall is a downward acceleration of 9.8 m/s/s dumb ass


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 31, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> demolitions do not blow all columns "precisely" at the same instance.
> 
> Didnt you know that?





Better explain that to Chandler...



			
				Chandler said:
			
		

> The collapse we see cannot be due to a column failure, or a few column failures, or a sequence of column failures.  *All 24 interior columns and 58 perimeter columns had to have been removed over the span of 8 floors low in the building simultaneously to within a small fraction of a second*, and in such a way that the top half of the building remains intact and uncrumpled.



Seems to me you're just spewing crap all over and haven't even researched anything!


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 31, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...



Translation:

"Gamolon made me look stupid! WAAAAAAAAAAHHHH"

What does that line in the blue oval mean fuckstick? It's parallel to your red line!


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 31, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> freefall is a downward acceleration of 9.8 m/s/s



No shit asshole.

I'm asking you why, per your own explanation, there is a section of the graph line PARALLEL to your red, no freefall line.

DERRRRRRPPPP!


----------



## KokomoJojo (Oct 31, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > demolitions do not blow all columns "precisely" at the same instance.
> ...




his statement is functionally correct and as expected your understanding is fucked 

again


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 31, 2013)

Once again. 

That green graph line in the blue oval is PARALLEL to your red, no freefall line. What happened? I though WTC7 was in continuous freefall for 2.25 seconds?

You're all over the place Koko. That;s what happenes when you have your ass handed to you.


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 31, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...



Which contradicts what you said idiot!!!


----------



## KokomoJojo (Oct 31, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > freefall is a downward acceleration of 9.8 m/s/s
> ...



because it was not in freefall yet dumbass or because it caught up with the mass piling up on the ground.  Do you enjoy proving you are tarded or something?


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 31, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...



Not in freefall yet???!!! Holy shit!. You really don't know what you're looking at do you???!!! No wonder you're so fucked up.




That blue oval with that section of the green graph line in it is right in the fucking middle of the supposed 2.25 seconds of free fall.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Oct 31, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



no it dont, you already shown us in every post that you are fucking fizix clueless reading some trougher site and dont know what the fuck you are looking at AND


----------



## KokomoJojo (Oct 31, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...




so you think freefall is picture perfect ideal straight line?

what about the part that is faster than freefall LMAO

why are you in this thread you arent even qualified for high school at the rate you are going.

go to fucking school already, stop spewing the debunker bible of lunacy and use your own head.


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 31, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> no it dont, you already shown us in every post that you are fucking fizix clueless



Is that why you said the building wasn;t in free fall yet even though the graph line I circled with the blue oval is right in the middle of the 2.25 seconds of supposed free fall?

You make this too easy moron.


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 31, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> because it was not in freefall yet dumbass or because it caught up with the mass piling up on the ground.



This shows how kucking stupid you are. 

Claiming that the section of no free fall in the MIDDLE of the 2.25 seconds was because it didn't reach free fall yet or met up with the mass at the ground!!!!!

Holy fuck my sides hurt from laughing!!!



And I thought Christophera was bad!


----------



## KokomoJojo (Oct 31, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > no it dont, you already shown us in every post that you are fucking fizix clueless
> ...







*you are totally fucking clueless dont fucking paraphrase what I said or claim using your fucked up understanding and idiocy.*







you have proven yourself to be over the top fucking stoopid.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 31, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...



I came into this late, but what is supposed to be the explanation for why the building would fall at faster than freefall speeds at various points?


----------



## KokomoJojo (Oct 31, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> I came into this late, but what is supposed to be the explanation for why the building would fall at faster than freefall speeds at various points?




standard charting variance


----------



## E.L.C. (Oct 31, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> E.L.C. said:
> 
> 
> > Not just one, but several "firsts" in the history of architecture on 9/11....
> ...



So passenger jets running into skyscrapers suspends the laws of physics? That's a very interesting theory.... I suppose if Elvis Presley had leapt out from the debris pile singing "Great Balls Of Fire" you would attribute that to the airliners too.

*I'm looking at the video of the towers being reduced to steel and dust FROM THE TOP DOWN*, and you're actually able to assert (presumably with a straight face) that not only was gravity responsible for that, but also all of the other "Firsts" I listed too? Did you actually go to school? Was it one of those "special" schools?

I think you're on the wrong forum. Google "Sci-Fi fantasy fiction writers forums" and join one.... they'll love it!


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 31, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> *you are totally fucking clueless dont fucking paraphrase what I said or claim using your fucked up understanding and idiocy.*



Now you're showing you don't know the meaning of "paraphrase"?!?!?

It wasn't a paraphrase you freak. It was a DIRECT QUOTE. Here, I'll show you...



KokomoJojo said:


> because it was not in freefall yet dumbass or because it caught up with the mass piling up on the ground.  Do you enjoy proving you are tarded or something?



What a jackass!!!


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 31, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...



Why was there a period of no free fall in the middle of the supposed 2.25 seconds of free fall?!


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 31, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> I'm looking at the video of the towers being reduced to steel and talcum powder *from the top down*, and you're actually able to assert (presumably with a straight face) that not only was gravity responsible for that,



Talcum powder...



Why isn't it possible for the top to complete collapse the towers? Let's see if your understanding of physics can provide an answer.


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 31, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> 3. First time a non-engineered gravitational collapse ever caused steel to melt.... Metallurgical studies on WTC steel reveal intergranular melting of steel structural building components making solid steel girders appear like Swiss cheese.
> 4. First time a non-engineered gravitational collapse ever caused concrete to melt.... Guns from WTC 6 now on display at the NYC police museum encased in molten concrete.
> 5. First time a non-engineered gravitational collapse ever resulted in a eutectic reaction.... A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron and oxygen, rich in sulfur, observed to have attacked steel structural building components.



Can you show me an engineered demolition that caused these characteristics?

I'll wait here.


----------



## daws101 (Oct 31, 2013)

fun read guys!
gotta point out some major twoofer intentional misrepresentations..
1.the no planes hit wtc 7 ploy is a half truth..
it's designed to make the tin asshats "think" (and I use that word in its loosest definition.) that the jet did not cause any damage to wtc 7.
nothing could be further from the truth(place irony here).
 the jet caused the north tower to collapse and many tons of debris from  it smashed into wtc7 ...
2.the laws of physics were suspended ploy is an out and out whopper..there is no anecdotal or physical evidence,to backup that steaming pile...
you'd think after all this time they'd have come up with some new bullshit!


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 31, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > E.L.C. said:
> ...



Are you claiming that the two planes hitting the towers were not a first?  All you asked was what other firsts happened, and I provided one.  The rest is your own silliness.

Besides, what laws of physics were suspended?  Please provide both the law and how it is supposed to have been suspended by the planes being the original cause of the collapses.

You are not bringing anything new to this.  These have been gone over and over again on these forums.  I am completely confident that, no matter the responses I or anyone else might give you, you will continue to believe the towers were reduced to talcum powder, that the free fall collapse is incontrovertible proof of demolition, or any number of other truther talking points.

Feel free to put more words in my mouth if you reply to this post!


----------



## KokomoJojo (Oct 31, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > *you are totally fucking clueless dont fucking paraphrase what I said or claim using your fucked up understanding and idiocy.*
> ...




*hey shit fer brains freefall starts about .7 seconds.  I know fresh  air is poison to you but pull your head out of your ass anyway. 

got any more strawmen you want me to torch for you on your way over my knee for yet another good ass whooping?*



Gamolon said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > no it dont, you already  shown us in every post that you are fucking fizix clueless
> ...







*you are totally fucking clueless dont fucking paraphrase what I said or claim using your fucked up understanding and idiocy.*







you have proven yourself to be over the top fucking stoopid.








dumbass fucking troll!


----------



## KokomoJojo (Oct 31, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> E.L.C. said:
> 
> 
> > I'm looking at the video of the towers being reduced to steel and talcum powder *from the top down*, and you're actually able to assert (presumably with a straight face) that not only was gravity responsible for that,
> ...



*
He did not say talcum poweder.

Still begging for free physics lessons huh?*




E.L.C. said:


> *I'm looking at the video of the towers being reduced to steel and dust FROM THE TOP DOWN*,  and you're actually able to assert (presumably with a straight face)  that not only was gravity responsible for that, but also all of the  other "Firsts" I listed too? Did you actually go to school? Was it one  of those "special" schools?
> 
> I think you're on the wrong forum. Google "Sci-Fi fantasy fiction writers forums" and join one.... they'll love it!


----------



## KokomoJojo (Oct 31, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



Its not *"supposed"* tardo troll its a *fact*.
*
FOR THE EXACT SAME REASON THERE ARE 3 PERIODS OF FASTER THAN FREEFALL in the middle of the 2.25 seconds of free fall ADMITTED BY NIST.*

Why not first graduate high school before trying to argue with adults.


----------



## E.L.C. (Oct 31, 2013)

Gamaclown said:


> Why isn't it possible for the top to complete collapse the towers?



Look, you're coming down on the "Official Non-Explanation" side claiming the destruction of WTC 1, 2 and 7 was a gravity driven mechanism intiated by fire.

I'm saying I don't believe that's consistent with physical principles and you're asking me why not. Why not? Because it's inconsistent with basic laws of Newtonian physics you clown....

It doesn't make any sense that after, for example, the top ten floors of WTC 1 had done their bit and completely disintegrated that an explosive zone of destruction (made up of ejected pulverized concrete dust and multi-ton steel structural components being laterally hurled hundreds of feet) should continue at/near free fall gravitational acceleration right down to the ground through the 70 or 80 remaining floors of intact un-damaged structural components with no mass above it to explain the mechanism involved.

That's why it isn't possible.... just like asking such a stupid ass question like that shows it isn't possible you went to school.

You're like a perpetual motion enthusiast proposing an absurd un-workable mechanism and then demanding to know "Why can't this work?" when people tell you you're nuts.

It's not up to me or anyone else to show you how or why the "Official Non-Explanation" can't work, it's up to you to show me why it can using logic and science to describe the mechanism of how this (destruction) occured.

It's up to supporters of the "Official Non-Explanation" of events to describe a viable mechanism of operation that conforms to physical principles without resorting to magic or sorcery.... 

Explain how an explosive zone of destruction taking place at the top of a massive falling structure (made up of ejected pulverized concrete dust and multi-ton steel structural components being laterally hurled hundreds of feet) could continue at/near free fall gravitational acceleration right down to the ground through the 70 or 80 floors of intact un-damaged structural components with no mass above it.... 

I'll wait here Gamaclown.


----------



## daws101 (Oct 31, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> E.L.C. said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...


bump!


----------



## daws101 (Oct 31, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...


----------



## daws101 (Oct 31, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> Gamaclown said:
> 
> 
> > Why isn't it possible for the top to complete collapse the towers?
> ...


another wannabe physics douche bag...
newtonian physics were not the only physics at play that day...

and as to who has to explain what  is on you tin foil ass hats to prove your assertions /allegations have any merit..
you are the complainants/ plain·tiff  [pleyn-tif]  
noun Law.
a person who brings suit in a court (opposed to defendant)


----------



## KokomoJojo (Oct 31, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> Gamaclown said:
> 
> 
> > Why isn't it possible for the top to complete collapse the towers?
> ...




they are so far out in left field and ignorant of physics and how the physical world around them works that they force even the nicest person on the planet into a position to simply tell the fucktards to fuck off.

From what I have seen so far they cant even pass a grade school science course much less high school physics.

Person wants to discuss the finer points of the fraud perpetrated on the people and and all we get is





from the trolltards


demanding we teach them physics and/or prove THEIR absurd malframed arguments for them!


----------



## E.L.C. (Oct 31, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> Are you claiming that the two planes hitting the towers were not a first?  All you asked was what other firsts happened, and I provided one.  The rest is your own silliness.



Not a "First". The Empire State Building takes that prize.... which, by the way, did not self-destruct afterward into a neat little pile of steel and dust.



Montrovant said:


> Besides, what laws of physics were suspended?  Please provide both the law and how it is supposed to have been suspended by the planes being the original cause of the collapses.



Let's see.... How about matter literally falling through matter at gravitational acceleration? 



Montrovant said:


> You are not bringing anything new to this.  These have been gone over and over again on these forums.



And it will continue to be gone over until some logical explanation that conforms to physical principles is provided.



Montrovant said:


> I am completely confident that, no matter the responses I or anyone else might give you, you will continue to believe the towers were reduced to talcum powder, that the free fall collapse is incontrovertible proof of demolition



I don't recall saying that I believe in any particular theory (apologies if anything I said came accross that way), only that I don't believe the "Official Non-Explanation" because it's inconsistent (or wholly absent, the NIST only considers events leading up to the initiation of collapse, not the mechanism of the collapse itself) with physical principles, so I'm asking questions. 

You, on the other hand, are actively supporting an "Official Non-Explanation" of an un-proven theory regarding a sequence of events that does not conform to physical principles, making you a fucking nut case.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 31, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> Gamaclown said:
> 
> 
> > Why isn't it possible for the top to complete collapse the towers?
> ...



The top 10 floors 'completely disintegrated'?

All of the mass was ejected laterally?  So, was it completely disintegrated or ejected laterally, or was it the disintegrated talcum powder/dust that was ejected laterally?

Is there some law of physics which holds that a collapsing mass of steel, concrete, and various other materials will be both ejected laterally and completely disintegrated rather than falling downward and exerting ever greater pressure on the structure below?


----------



## daws101 (Oct 31, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Are you claiming that the two planes hitting the towers were not a first?  All you asked was what other firsts happened, and I provided one.  The rest is your own silliness.
> ...


the empire state is a fALSE COMPARISON.
WHY ?
A. DIFFERENT BUILDING MATERIALS. 
B.DIFFERENT DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS 
C. STRUCK BY A MUCH SMALLER,lighter  AND MUCH SLOWER AIRCRAFT...
 (CUE BUZZER) thanks for playing!


----------



## E.L.C. (Oct 31, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> *
> He did not say talcum powder.*



Yeah I did, but then edited for clarity.... Oops!


----------



## E.L.C. (Oct 31, 2013)

> the empire state is a fALSE COMPARISON.
> WHY ?
> A. DIFFERENT BUILDING MATERIALS.
> B.DIFFERENT DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS
> ...



Never said it was a comparison, only that it was the first plane to hit a skyscraper you stupid fuck.


----------



## daws101 (Oct 31, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> > the empire state is a fALSE COMPARISON.
> > WHY ?
> > A. DIFFERENT BUILDING MATERIALS.
> > B.DIFFERENT DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS
> ...


right...


----------



## KokomoJojo (Oct 31, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> E.L.C. said:
> 
> 
> > The top 10 floors 'completely disintegrated'?
> ...


----------



## E.L.C. (Oct 31, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> All of the mass was ejected laterally? So, was it completely disintegrated or ejected laterally, or was it the disintegrated talcum powder/dust that was ejected laterally?



I said that the zone of destruction that continued downward following the complete disintegration of the ten floors of the building above the impact was made up of ejected pulverized concrete dust and multi-ton steel structural components being laterally hurled hundreds of feet. Could you really be that stupid? Do yo think pointing out (or making up) errors on my part helps your non-argument?


----------



## E.L.C. (Oct 31, 2013)

daws101 said:


> newtonian physics were not the only physics at play that day...



Yeah? What other physics were at play Einstein? I can't wait to read this!


----------



## E.L.C. (Oct 31, 2013)

Well.... What was it? 

*Dawsian physics? Gamolonian Physics? Motrovantian physics maybe?*


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 31, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > E.L.C. said:
> ...


*

Really asshole?

Look at the time of his original post, the time of my post which I quoted him, and then the time of his edit.

He edited out talcum powder and put in dust. 

Isn't that right E.L.C.?

Or are you going to lie through your teeth?*


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 31, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > *
> ...



Perfect.

Feel stupid Koko?

You should!

Pay attention next time!


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 31, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > All of the mass was ejected laterally? So, was it completely disintegrated or ejected laterally, or was it the disintegrated talcum powder/dust that was ejected laterally?
> ...



I'll deal with you in the morning dipshit. Your above drivel is chock full of bullshit.


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 31, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> Gamaclown said:
> 
> 
> > Why isn't it possible for the top to complete collapse the towers?
> ...



Two questions.

Provide your proof it was pulverized concert (do you have any clue how much gypsum planking was in the towers?)

Provide proof of your laterally ejected, multi ton, steel components.

I suppose you don't understand what a parabolic trajectory is and how perimeter column sections, hundreds of feet high can fall sideways and land hundreds of feet away.

Can't wait to see this.


----------



## E.L.C. (Oct 31, 2013)

What a moron.... you're all over KokomoJojo like a cheap suit over a simple error but *you* didn't even notice the correction I posted!

*Perfect.

Feel stupid Gamolon?

You should!

Pay attention next time!*


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 31, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> What a moron.... you get all all over KokomoJojo over a simple error but *you* didn't even notice the correction I posted!
> 
> *Perfect.
> 
> ...



Is that why I quoted it dumbass?


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 31, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > E.L.C. said:
> ...


----------



## KokomoJojo (Oct 31, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> I suppose you don't understand what a parabolic trajectory is and how perimeter column sections, hundreds of feet high can fall sideways and land hundreds of feet away.
> 
> Can't wait to see this.




nothing like proving you dont!


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 31, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > All of the mass was ejected laterally? So, was it completely disintegrated or ejected laterally, or was it the disintegrated talcum powder/dust that was ejected laterally?
> ...



Again, are you attempting to say that ALL of the mass was ejected laterally?  

What caused the complete disintegration of the top 10 floors and what is the evidence of this?

Why only the top 10 floors?

What would be causing the dust and components to be laterally hurled hundreds of feet, if not the mass of the collapsing sections of the building above?

You may not have specified a belief about the events, but this description of events certainly seems to indicate a belief in controlled demolition.  If the mass of the collapsing building was being hurled outward rather than downward (except, of course, for the strangely disintegrated top 10 floors which, I can only guess, actually fell downward?) then what other than explosives would cause the collapse to continue and the materials to continue to be hurled outward?


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 31, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Are you claiming that the two planes hitting the towers were not a first?  All you asked was what other firsts happened, and I provided one.  The rest is your own silliness.
> ...



The Empire State Building wasn't hit by a passenger jet, which is what I said was a first.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Oct 31, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> Is it your contention that the dust created from the collapses means the entire building was disintegrated?  Or that the amount of dust means the top 10 floors completely disintegrated?
> 
> Are you saying that if any debris or dust was ejected laterally, then all the mass of the building must have been?
> 
> What, exactly, is your picture supposed to convey?



no they managed to find a couple pieces of iron that survived





so do you have a point you want to make in there somewhere?


----------



## KokomoJojo (Oct 31, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> E.L.C. said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



So Montrovant really isnt your sock then?


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 31, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > E.L.C. said:
> ...



Hah!

And if I were a sock, wouldn't it make sense for me to have an account created after Gamolon's?


----------



## KokomoJojo (Oct 31, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> What caused the complete disintegration of the top 10 floors and *what is the evidence of this*?



another monumental dumbass question from a monumental  ________.

otherwise it would have went down like this






DUH


----------



## KokomoJojo (Oct 31, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



startup date is irrelevant, a sock is a sock despite which one was here first.  you people make some really fucked up useless arguments.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Oct 31, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> E.L.C. said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



it was hit by a b25 bomber LOL

a real one that is.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 31, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...



As I understand the term, startup date is actually completely relevant.  If Gamolon and I were the same person, he would be my sock, not the other way around.  

If you're going to make a ridiculous assertion, you shouldn't be upset at a silly rejoinder.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 31, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > E.L.C. said:
> ...



And you know it was a real b25 how?

Oh, and a b25 is far smaller than a 767 if you weren't aware.  I'm not sure why the fact it was (allegedly) a b25 is funny.


----------



## E.L.C. (Oct 31, 2013)

Really Big Bump!


----------



## E.L.C. (Nov 1, 2013)

Something very unusual (unique?) in the history of conspiracy theories....  

Shyam Sunder (the head of the NIST) and David Chandler (A high school teacher) actually do agree that it's a fact WTC 7 fell at gravitational acceleration (free fall) for 2.25 seconds. They can't both be right.... 
*Only one can be right!*​
I sure hope the stunning new discoveries daws101 is going to announce soon can finally reconcile for us how WTC 7 managed to fall straight down through itself (matter literally falling through matter) for eight stories, or *105 feet*, at gravitational acceleration for 2.25 seconds as if through air! 

*It's really been bugging me man!*


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 1, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> Never said it was a comparison, only that it was the first plane to hit a skyscraper you stupid fuck.



You didn't compare the empire state building to the towers? Are you kidding me? Do you even read what you post?



E.L.C. said:


> Not a "First". The Empire State Building takes that prize.... which, by the way, *did not self-destruct afterward into a neat little pile of steel and dust*.



Why don't you enlighten us and explain what that bolded, enlarged, red text above was in reference to then?


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 1, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> Something very unusual (unique?) in the history of conspiracy theories....
> 
> Shyam Sunder (the head of the NIST) and David Chandler (A high school teacher) actually do agree that it's a fact WTC 7 fell at gravitational acceleration (free fall) for 2.25 seconds. They can't both be right....
> *Only one can be right!*​
> ...



So you use solid objects to represent a steel structure composed of many different components connected together by connections?

Tell me something E.L.C. Apply your understanding of physics that you portrayed above to a complex structure such as the towers and let's see what you come up with.

How much of a load was the first floor impacted below the descending upper block designed to hold up?


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 1, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> Shyam Sunder (the head of the NIST) and David Chandler (A high school teacher) actually do agree that it's a fact WTC 7 fell at gravitational acceleration (free fall) for 2.25 seconds. They can't both be right....
> *Only one can be right!*​



So free fall for 2.25 seconds?

Explain what the portion of Chandler's graph means that I circled in blue. 





That portion of the green line plot of his data point is not parallel with solid green line. Not free fall. Right in the middle of the 2.25 seconds.

What does this mean E.L.C.?


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 1, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> E.L.C. said:
> 
> 
> > Gamaclown said:
> ...



I see you didn't answer this. You're providing two pieces of evidence to try and support your conclusion and I need to see what you are using as proof that these two claims are 100% correct.

So what proof do you have that the dust and material was all pulverized concrete and what proof do you have that multi-ton steel components were ejected laterally?

I have not seen your proof yet.


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 1, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > I suppose you don't understand what a parabolic trajectory is and how perimeter column sections, hundreds of feet high can fall sideways and land hundreds of feet away.
> ...



And you do?

You don't think it's possible for a multi-ton, steel perimeter column section, 1000 feet up the tower to fall sideways with force (created by the falling upper section, severing floor truss connections as it came down) and land hundreds of feet away? You need explosives to do that?



Tell us Koko. Maybe even E.L.C. can answer. How much force/explosives is/are needed to propel a section of the perimeter facade VERTICALLY at 40 or 50 miles an hour.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 1, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



you got a point to this superficial nonsense aside from damage control to distract us from the fact that you are continually making a fool out of yourself?


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 1, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > E.L.C. said:
> ...



still trying to capitalize on his corrected typo huh, how fucking lame.

not surprising that you think aliens scooped up and carried the steel a block away then threw it on the neighboring buildings huh.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 1, 2013)

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...




we have seen enough of your fizix to last a lifetime but the comedic value wears off quickly.


Truthers  put of graphs and charts 






that you do not know how to correctly by scientific  method understand or grasp and respond with your usual 





shit  slinging ad hominem name calling or absolutely ridiculous arguments  with the expectation truthers are required to teach tards physics.  

its the same group of science rejects I have encountered on other boards.





too fucking stoopid to understand how to chart data or grasp the meaning of the results.

Trougher tards subtract from any debate by injecting frivolous bullshit.


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 1, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



You're clueless and are adding nothing to this conversation. Back on ignore you go.


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 1, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> Explain how an explosive zone of destruction taking place at the top of a massive falling structure (made up of ejected pulverized concrete dust and multi-ton steel structural components being laterally hurled hundreds of feet) could continue at/near free fall gravitational acceleration right down to the ground through the 70 or 80 floors of intact un-damaged structural components with no mass above it....
> 
> I'll wait here Gamaclown.



Are you claiming that there wasn't enough mass to shear the structure apart? You have to be because as you keep claiming that the concrete and multi-ton steel components were ejected outward, leaving "no mass above the intact structure".

So explain.

How did you come to the assumptions that:

1. All the concrete was ejected outward
2. All the steel inside the perimeter columns was ejected outward

This is your first problem.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 1, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...




_*thanks!  *_

*you are fucktard TROLL **and subtracting from it!*

you are always welcome back if you ever get above the level of abject troll fucktard.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 1, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> E.L.C. said:
> 
> 
> > Explain how an explosive zone of destruction taking place at the top of a massive falling structure (made up of ejected pulverized concrete dust and multi-ton steel structural components being laterally hurled hundreds of feet) could continue at/near free fall gravitational acceleration right down to the ground through the 70 or 80 floors of intact un-damaged structural components with no mass above it....
> ...



Being put on iggy can be a can be a beautiful thing!

Saves so much typing.

ELC dont you love the way that dishonest tard frames his argument NOT within your parameters but creates a strawmen to redefine your position within his impossible or otherwise bullshit parameters!   

The only way he can feel like he scored a point in his pea brain is to fabricate a totally bullshit argument on top of yours redirecting to anything superficial!

Like with the chart, he cherry picked one section of the data set reading it as less than freefall while completely ignoring and pretending that the 3 sections of faster than freefall.

Thats as fraudulent and dishonest as it gets.

Now you are in his sites







SSDD 



Fortunately he is not immune to





and put me on iggy


----------



## daws101 (Nov 1, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> Really Big Bump!


way to to completely misrepresent!
I did not state, infer,hint at or otherwise indicate any "new physics"


----------



## eots (Nov 1, 2013)

daws101 said:


> E.L.C. said:
> 
> 
> > Really Big Bump!
> ...



yes you did...we all read it


----------



## daws101 (Nov 1, 2013)

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > E.L.C. said:
> ...


you're talking out your ass as always..
here's the non cherry picked original statement #post 643 "another wannabe physics douche bag...
newtonian physics were not the only physics at play that day...

and as to who has to explain what is on you tin foil ass hats to prove your assertions /allegations have any merit..
you are the complainants/ plain·tiff [pleyn-tif] 
noun Law.
a person who brings suit in a court (opposed to defendant)"-daws

if you are seeing any reference to new physics you are either reading in or hallucinating or lying..


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 1, 2013)

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...




we have seen enough of your fizix to last a lifetime but the comedic value wears off quickly.


Truthers  put of graphs and charts 






that you do not know how to correctly by scientific  method understand or grasp and because of your ignorance are only capable of responding with your usual 





shit  slinging ad hominem name calling or absolutely ridiculous  arguments  with the expectation truthers are required to teach tards  physics.  

its the same group of science rejects I have encountered on other boards.

too fucking stoopid to understand how to chart data or grasp the meaning of the results.

Trougher tards subtract from any debate by injecting frivolous bullshit.


----------



## E.L.C. (Nov 1, 2013)

You raise a couple of good points Gamolon and I'll get to your posts this evening (busy day ahead).

So, daws101, here's the full quote.... 

"another wannabe physics douche bag...
newtonian physics were not the only physics at play that day..."

You did say that "newtonian physics were not the only physics at play that day..." 

*What other physics were you talking about?*


----------



## daws101 (Nov 1, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


yes dear..


----------



## daws101 (Nov 1, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> You raise a couple of good points Gamolon and I'll get to your posts this evening (busy day ahead).
> 
> So, daws101, here's the full quote....
> 
> ...


wrong! that's not the full quote..
this is: #post 643 "another wannabe physics douche bag...
newtonian physics were not the only physics at play that day...

and as to who has to explain what is on you tin foil ass hats to prove your assertions /allegations have any merit..
you are the complainants/ plain·tiff [pleyn-tif] 
noun Law.
a person who brings suit in a court (opposed to defendant)"-daws


----------



## E.L.C. (Nov 1, 2013)

Alright then you little hair splitting moron....

*What did the whole fucking quote mean? *


----------



## daws101 (Nov 1, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> Alright then you little hair splitting moron....
> 
> *What did the whole fucking quote mean? *


nothing  little about me..
which part?
the one you're trying and failing to find fault with?
or the correct description of plaintiffs like yourselves in this debate..?


----------



## E.L.C. (Nov 1, 2013)

Which part?

*How about any part?*


----------



## E.L.C. (Nov 1, 2013)

I'm cherry picking when I ask what one part means, and if I ask what the whole thing means he asks me what part! He thinks like a penis.... only smaller!


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 1, 2013)

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > E.L.C. said:
> ...



yep and when busted red handed the crying starts






and we hear








Do you believe there were 52 chocolate chip cookies with 5 chocolate chips per cookie or 51 cookies with 6 chocolate chips?  

1) How do you know they were chocolate chip cookies?
2) Are you sure they were not raisin cookies.
3) How do you know there was more than one cookie.
4) Are you sure the spacing between chips were the same.
5) How do you know you wont get one chocolate chip per bite.


when that fails in comes the next sock for the impass.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 1, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> I'm cherry picking when I ask what one part means, and if I ask what the whole thing means he asks me what part! He thinks like a penis.... only smaller!




because these people cant answer one question.  If you could be a fly on the wall you would see they run over to jrand and ask their flunky debunker pals how to respond.  I have challenged them on an open board many times and yep you got it they cowar and run with their tail between their legs as fast as they can get out of dodge.  lol

Like that one poster um 911 something always said they spend all their time shitting on threads to keep people who would like to have a rational discussion chasing red herring bullshit.

They detract from every thread they are in.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 1, 2013)

daws101 said:


> E.L.C. said:
> 
> 
> > You raise a couple of good  points Gamolon and I'll get to your posts this evening (busy day ahead).
> ...



yep look at that he certainly said it didnt he!


----------



## daws101 (Nov 1, 2013)

http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf
newtonian physics aka classical mechanics ..do not operate independently from non newtonian physics...


----------



## daws101 (Nov 1, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > E.L.C. said:
> ...


wrong! that's not the full quote..
this is: #post 643 "another wannabe physics douche bag...
newtonian physics were not the only physics at play that day...

and as to who has to explain what is on you tin foil ass hats to prove your assertions /allegations have any merit..
you are the complainants/ plain·tiff [pleyn-tif] 
noun Law.
a person who brings suit in a court (opposed to defendant)"-daws


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 1, 2013)

daws101 said:


> http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf
> newtonian physics aka classical mechanics ..do not operate independently from non newtonian physics...




wow thats pretty smart stuff!

it splains collapses really good!

Now is there anything in particular in there that you think makes your case because posting a fucking library pointing the answer is there is a non answer.

So if you think you have a pertinent point to make make it because if da ciperins dun right day look da same and day dunna lok da same and nist is hiding dar cipherin from from us.





further more nist agreed that it freefell 





and your friend gamorons errors, that twisted stupid shit about going into freefall then not then stopping and starting again and other trougher misunderstandings in charting were pointed out.

So dog right back to your own vomit.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 1, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> Something very unusual (unique?) in the history of conspiracy theories....
> 
> Shyam Sunder (the head of the NIST) and David Chandler (A high school teacher) actually do agree that it's a fact WTC 7 fell at gravitational acceleration (free fall) for 2.25 seconds. They can't both be right....
> *Only one can be right!*​
> ...




yeh another one they dodged that everyone will be till they are old and gray for them to comprehend and respond to is ELC's.


----------



## E.L.C. (Nov 1, 2013)

That chart you posted is right on man! Unfortunately, what it really means and your description of it don't match up.

Beginning with the upper left corner of the chart you posted (if you can find it) is the start, or foundation, of Newtonian mechanics. It's from that (Newtonian) foundation that all the other categories in the chart are derived and they are all sub-fields of Newtonian mechanics, hence they are all Newtonian. 

Are you some kind of internet masochist or something? Because you're getting the shit beat out of you on a regular basis now and it almost seems you're enjoying it!


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 1, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> That chart you posted is right on man! Unfortunately, what it really means and your description of it don't match up.
> 
> Beginning with the upper left corner of the chart you posted (if you can find it) is the start, or foundation, of Newtonian mechanics. It's from that (Newtonian) foundation that all the other categories in the chart are derived and they are all sub-fields of Newtonian mechanics, hence they are all Newtonian.
> 
> Are you some kind of internet masochist or something? Because you're getting the shit beat out of you on a regular basis now and it almost seems you're enjoying it!



since both of us posted charts who are you referring to?  If you are referring to me then explain.


----------



## E.L.C. (Nov 1, 2013)

Who posted the chart first?


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 1, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> Who posted the chart first?



oops that was supposed to say, I believe I did


----------



## E.L.C. (Nov 1, 2013)

From what I can tell, the first poster of the image was here. Either way KokomoJojo.... it's the other guy. If it was you I think I would have noticed. Your posts? *Very cool man!*


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 1, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> From what I can tell, the first poster of the image was here. Either way KokomoJojo.... it's the other guy. If it was you I think I would have noticed. Your posts? *Very cool man!*



Thanks for clarifying,  no I posted it several pages farther back,

here is nists confirmation and agreement.


----------



## E.L.C. (Nov 1, 2013)

I want to go back to Gamolon's posts and then (immediately) come back to this. If I don't I'll never here the end of it!


----------



## E.L.C. (Nov 1, 2013)

Where is Mr. Jones in all this?


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 1, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> Where is Mr. Jones in all this?



its and old thread someone revived 

OP = 03-01-2013, 01:25 PM


----------



## E.L.C. (Nov 1, 2013)

Right.... the someone that revived it was *me*. I've always had a fascination with WTC 7.


----------



## E.L.C. (Nov 1, 2013)

Gamolon.... Are you there?


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 2, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> Gamolon.... Are you there?




He is busy consulting with the jref kids on which is the best red herring or strawman can be used to redirect the argument, or find some meritless black hole quagmire to pull you off your argument and into something that falls within their script.  LOL

If you are a sadist or have any sadistic tendencies you will love it!


----------



## E.L.C. (Nov 2, 2013)

Hah!

*THE UNRESOLVED MYSTERY OF WTC 7 *

Shyam Sunder, of the NIST, states free fall only happens when an object (or building) &#8220;...has no structural components below it.&#8221; He says despite the existence of structural components (mass) below it, WTC 7 went into free fall as if through air for eight stories, or 105 feet.  

David Chandler, a retired physics teacher, states free fall only happens (to a building) when an "....external force removes the supporting structure." He says explosives would have to remove structural components (mass) below it for free fall to occur as if through air for eight stories, or 105 feet.






They agree that WTC 7 fell at gravitational acceleration for 2.25 seconds, or 105 feet but....

*There can be only one!*

Is it *Chandler* on the left, or *Sunder* on the right?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Nov 2, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> E.L.C. said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon.... Are you there?
> ...



yeah he is having a long discussion with his handlers over there on what strawman argument to use next.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 2, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> Hah!
> 
> *THE UNRESOLVED MYSTERY OF WTC 7 *
> 
> ...




Heheh!

Yeh they have not been able to develop a script for that problem yet that even ranks a level of intelligence of being retarded much less plausible.

then again a couple of them have tried anyway however, coming in with well thought out rebuttals consisting of claims like;

The interkinematic momentum of the convergent left hand friction resulting from the inelastic collision of monumental inverse differentiated energy integrals of the second hand order which exceeded the mental stress and yield of the core velocity was the real cause of the collapse.



​ 
Now while I am sure those kinds of loony arguments make perfect sense to them, the rest of us are having a great belly laugh!


----------



## eots (Nov 2, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > YES can you read ? "Well, I think, more likely, its one of the floors falling down."
> ...



I  have disrespected Quintierre  and only posted his exact words ...unlike you who to put words in his mouth


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Nov 2, 2013)

agent Gam never has any answers for the fact that these buildings were much closer to the towers with far more extensive damage done to them and far more severe fires yet they did not collapse.

Politician in post# 234 on that link spells it out for him dummies style.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...question-for-the-911-conspiracy-buffs-16.html

this video also proves the fires were more severe in those other buildings yet they did not collapse,the trolls never have any answers for these facts.they ignore it.


----------



## daws101 (Nov 2, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf
> ...


the only thing that made any sense in your post was nist agreed that (and this is where you and the facts part company) is for 2.5 SECONDS some of wtc7 was in freefall.
the reality is who cares .
you have no evidence proving that tiny amount of time in  freefall was anything more other than what should happen when a building constructed like wtc7 was is damaged by impact and fire..
there is no company (that I know of ) that studies freefall time when buildings are demoed.


----------



## daws101 (Nov 2, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> That chart you posted is right on man! Unfortunately, what it really means and your description of it don't match up.
> 
> Beginning with the upper left corner of the chart you posted (if you can find it) is the start, or foundation, of Newtonian mechanics. It's from that (Newtonian) foundation that all the other categories in the chart are derived and they are all sub-fields of Newtonian mechanics, hence they are all Newtonian.
> 
> Are you some kind of internet masochist or something? Because you're getting the shit beat out of you on a regular basis now and it almost seems you're enjoying it!


really?that's funny as nothing you said or posted has proven me wrong...
as getting the shit kicked out of me ...that's a shared  masturbation fantasy with all you twoofers..
you seem to forget in 12 years you tin asshats have proven nothing...


----------



## daws101 (Nov 2, 2013)

e.l.c. said:


> where is mr. Jones in all this?


sister jones left the site in shame....


----------



## daws101 (Nov 2, 2013)

Did investigators consider the possibility that an explosion caused or contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?

Yes, this possibility was investigated carefully. NIST concluded that blast events inside the building did not occur and found no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event.

In addition, no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses. According to calculations by the investigation team, the smallest blast capable of failing the building's critical column would have resulted in a sound level of 130 decibels (dB) to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile, if unobstructed by surrounding buildings. This sound level is consistent with a gunshot blast, standing next to a jet plane engine, and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert.

For the building to have been prepared for intentional demolition, walls and/or column enclosures and fireproofing would have to be removed and replaced without being detected. Preparing a column includes steps such as cutting sections with torches, which produces noxious and odorous fumes. Intentional demolition usually requires applying explosive charges to most, if not all, interior columns, not just one or a limited set of columns in a building.

Is it possible that thermite or thermate contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?

NIST has looked at the application and use of thermite and has determined that its use to sever columns in WTC 7 on 9/11/01 was unlikely.

Thermite is a combination of aluminum powder and a metal oxide that releases a tremendous amount of heat when ignited. It is typically used to weld railroad rails together by melting a small quantity of steel and pouring the melted steel into a form between the two rails.

To apply thermite to a large steel column, approximately 0.13 lb of thermite would be needed to heat and melt each pound of steel. For a steel column that weighs approximately 1,000 lbs. per foot, at least 100 lbs. of thermite would need to be placed around the column, ignited, and remain in contact with the vertical steel surface as the thermite reaction took place. This is for one column . presumably, more than one column would have been prepared with thermite, if this approach were to be used.

It is unlikely that 100 lbs. of thermite, or more, could have been carried into WTC 7 and placed around columns without being detected, either prior to Sept. 11 or during that day.

Given the fires that were observed that day, and the demonstrated structural response to the fires, NIST does not believe that thermite was used to fail any columns in WTC 7.

Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC buildings, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard used for interior partitions.

An emergency responder caught in the building between the 6th and 8th floors says he heard two loud booms. Isn't that evidence that there was an explosion?

The sound levels reported by all witnesses do not match the sound level of an explosion that would have been required to cause the collapse of the building. If the two loud booms were due to explosions that were responsible for the collapse of WTC 7, the emergency responder-located somewhere between the 6th and 8th floors in WTC 7-would not have been able to survive the near immediate collapse and provide this witness account.

In June 2009, NIST began releasing documents in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request from the International Center for 9/11 Studies for "all of the photographs and videos collected, reviewed, cited or in any other way used by NIST during its investigation of the World Trade Center building collapses." One of the items released, a video obtained from NBC News , shows World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC 7) in the moments before it collapsed, then cuts to the collapse already in progress, with the building's east penthouse "disappearing" from the scene (as it had already fallen in the intervening time). Other videos of the WTC 7 collapse show the penthouse falling first, followed by the rest of the building. Did NIST edit the NBC News video to remove the collapse of the penthouse?

The video footage released under the FOIA request was copied from the original video exactly as it was received from NBC News, with video documentation of the WTC 7 east penthouse collapse missing. The footage was not edited in any way by NIST. 

Did fuel oil systems in WTC 7 contribute to its collapse?

No. The building had three separate emergency power systems, all of which ran on diesel fuel. The worst-case scenarios associated with fires being fed by ruptured fuel lines-or from fuel stored in day tanks on the lower floors-could not have been sustained long enough, could not have generated sufficient heat to weaken critical interior columns, and/or would have produced large amounts of visible smoke from the lower floors, which were not observed.

As background information, the three systems contained two 12,000 gallon fuel tanks, and two 6,000 gallon tanks beneath the building's loading docks, and a single 6,000 gallon tank on the 1st floor. In addition one system used a 275 gallon tank on the 5th floor, a 275 gallon tank on the 8th floor, and a 50 gallon tank on the 9th floor. Another system used a 275 gallon day tank on the 7th floor.

Several months after the WTC 7 collapse, a contractor recovered an estimated 23,000 gallons of fuel from these tanks. NIST estimated that the unaccounted fuel totaled 1,000 ±1,000 gallons of fuel (in other words, somewhere between 0 and 2,000 gallons, with 1,000 gallons the most likely figure). The fate of the fuel in the day tanks was unknown, so NIST assumed the worst-case scenario, namely that they were full on Sept. 11, 2001. The fate of the fuel of two 6,000 gallon tanks was also unknown. Therefore, NIST also assumed the worst-case scenario for these tanks, namely that all of the fuel would have been available to feed fires either at ground level or on the 5th floor.
Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation


----------



## daws101 (Nov 2, 2013)

http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/7/563913536.png


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 2, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Did investigators consider the possibility that an explosion caused or contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?
> 
> Yes, this possibility was investigated carefully. NIST concluded that blast events inside the building did not occur and found no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event.
> 
> ...




Did investigators consider the possibility that an explosion caused or contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?

Yes, this possibility was investigated carefully.  


 Wow kool!  

*POST THE FULL SCOPE OF ALL TESTS AND RESULTS.*


 NIST concluded that blast events inside the building did not occur and found no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event.


*AGAIN POST THE FULL SCOPE OF ALL TESTS AND RESULTS IN SUPPORT OF THAT CONCLUSION.*

In addition, no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses.  


*THAT IS PATENTLY FALSE, SEVERAL VIDEOS RECORDED BLASTS AND WITNESSES STATEMENTS WERE MADE.*


 According to calculations by the investigation team, the smallest blast capable of failing the building's critical column would have resulted in a sound level of 130 decibels (dB) to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile, if unobstructed by surrounding buildings.  


*DECEPTIVE REPORTING!  A MUFFLED CUTTER WOULD HARDLY BE DETECTABLE OUTSIDE THE BUILDING.  

*  This sound level is consistent with a gunshot blast, standing next to a jet plane engine, and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert.


*GUNSHOT BLASTS CAN BE COMPLETELY MUFFLED BUT CUTTERS CANT?  WHOS DREAM WORLD DID THAT TURD DROP FROM?*

For the building to have been prepared for intentional demolition, walls and/or column enclosures and fireproofing would have to be removed and replaced without being detected.  


*PROVE IT,  AGAIN POST ALL TESTS THAT LED TO THAT CONCLUSION.*


 Preparing a column includes steps such as cutting sections with torches,  


*WRONG, NOT NECESSARY, PROVE IT IS NECESSARY POST THE STUDIES THAT IT IS REQUIRED.*


 which produces noxious and odorous fumes.  


*FRIVOLOUS ARGUMENT.*


 Intentional demolition usually requires applying explosive charges to most, if not all, interior columns, not just one or a limited set of columns in a building.


*USUALLY?  WHAT DOES IT REQUIRE WHEN ITS NOT USUAL, TEST RESULTS AND INVESTIGATIVE REPORTS PLEASE.*

Is it possible that thermite or thermate contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?


*YEP.*

NIST has looked at the application and use of thermite and has determined that its use to sever columns in WTC 7 on 9/11/01 was unlikely.


*UNLIKELY?  WHAT THE FUCK KIND OF INVESTIGATING IS THAT?  FRAUD ON ITS FACE.  THEY ARE CHARTERED TO PRESENT ANSWERS NOT BULLSHIT.*


*


*

*POST THE STEPS AND TEST RESULTS USED BY NIST TO CONCLUDE IT WAS UNLIKELY.*

Thermite is a combination of aluminum powder and a metal oxide  


*ITS ALSO A COMBINATION OF MAGNESIUM AND A METAL OXIDE*


 that releases a tremendous amount of heat when ignited.  


*THAT DOES NOT BEAR THE NAME THERMATE BUT CREATES SUBSTANTIALLY GREATER HEAT.*


 It is typically used to weld railroad rails together by melting a small quantity of steel and pouring the melted steel into a form between the two rails.


*SO WHO GIVES A SHIT.*

To apply thermite to a large steel column, approximately 0.13 lb of thermite would be needed to heat and melt each pound of steel. For a steel column that weighs approximately 1,000 lbs. per foot, at least 100 lbs. of thermite would need to be placed around the column, ignited, and remain in contact with the vertical steel surface as the thermite reaction took place. This is for one column . presumably, more than one column would have been prepared with thermite, if this approach were to be used.


*SO YOU THINK THE COLUMS WERE 8 INCHES THICK?   WTF KIND OF DECEPTIVE SHIT IS THAT?  PROVE MAGNESIUM BASED THERMETIC MATERIAL WAS NOT USED.  PROVIDE ALL TESTS, PROCEDURES AND RESULTS.*

It is unlikely that 100 lbs. of thermite, or more, could have been carried into WTC 7 and placed around columns without being detected, either prior to Sept. 11 or during that day.


*UNLIKELY?  MORE GUESS AND HUCKEE GEE BY GOLLY GOODNESS GRACIOUS MILDRED FUCKTARD KOOLAIND?  THAT IS WHAT YOU WANT POST AS YOUR FUCKING REBUTTAL?  POST THE TESTS PROCEDURES AND RESULTS NIST USED TO COME TO THIS PROFESSIONAL CONCLUSION.*









Given the fires that were observed that day, and the demonstrated structural response to the fires, NIST does not believe that thermite was used to fail any columns in WTC 7.


*BELIEVE?   MORE GUESS AND HUCKEE GEE BY GOLLY GOODNESS GRACIOUS MILDRED FUCKTARD KOOLAIND?  THAT IS WHAT YOU WANT POST AS YOUR FUCKING REBUTTAL?  POST THE TESTS PROCEDURES AND RESULTS NIST USED TO COME TO THIS PROFESSIONAL CONCLUSION.*

Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive.  


*THATS WHAT WE PAY THEM FOR INCONCLUSIVE RESULTS.*


 The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC buildings, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard used for interior partitions.


*POST ALL ANALYSIS AND REPORTS SHOWING THE THE MAXIMUM PERCENTAGE OF SUT THAT COULD HAVE EXISTED AFTER SWEEPING THE FLOORS AND DUSTING THE FURNITURE AS COMPARED TO THE AMOUNT THAT EXISTED AFTER THE DEMOLITION.  *

An emergency responder caught in the building between the 6th and 8th floors says he heard two loud booms. Isn't that evidence that there was an explosion?

The sound levels reported by all witnesses do not match the sound level of an explosion that would have been required to cause the collapse of the building.  

*SO SOMEONE WAS MEASURING THE SOUND LEVELS OUTSIDE THE BUILDING? GREAT POSTS ALL SOUND LEVEL MEASUREMENTS, INSTRUMENT POSITIONS, CALIBRATION RECORDS EQUIPMENT USED AND ANY OTHER BONAFIDE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THAT CONCLUSION.*


 If the two loud booms were due to explosions that were responsible for the collapse of WTC 7, the emergency responder-located somewhere between the 6th and 8th floors in WTC 7-would not have been able to survive the near immediate collapse and provide this witness account.


*JENNINGS DID, BUT GOT DEAD TALKING ABOUT IT.  NO LONGER DECEPTION AND GRADUATING TO BOLD FACE LIES NOW?*

In June 2009, NIST began releasing documents in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request from the International Center for 9/11 Studies for "all of the photographs and videos collected, reviewed, cited or in any other way used by NIST during its investigation of the World Trade Center building collapses." One of the items released, a video obtained from NBC News , shows World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC 7) in the moments before it collapsed, then cuts to the collapse already in progress, with the building's east penthouse "disappearing" from the scene (as it had already fallen in the intervening time). Other videos of the WTC 7 collapse show the penthouse falling first, followed by the rest of the building. Did NIST edit the NBC News video to remove the collapse of the penthouse?


*WELL ITS MOST LIKELY JUST A REALLY FREAK &#8220;COINCIDENCE&#8221;, NIST WOULD NEVER EDIT OF FALSIFY INFORMATION DESPITE THE FACT THEY HAVE ALREADY BEEN BUSTED SEVERAL TIMES DOING SO.*


 The video footage released under the FOIA request was copied from the original video exactly as it was received from NBC News, with video documentation of the WTC 7 east penthouse collapse missing. The footage was not edited in any way by NIST. 


*AH THERE YOU GO, SOMEONE ELSE EDITED IT FOR NIST, SEE I KNEW IT.*

Did fuel oil systems in WTC 7 contribute to its collapse?

No. The building had three separate emergency power systems, all of which ran on diesel fuel. The worst-case scenarios associated with fires being fed by ruptured fuel lines-or from fuel stored in day tanks on the lower floors-could not have been sustained long enough, could not have generated sufficient heat to weaken critical interior columns, and/or would have produced large amounts of visible smoke from the lower floors, which were not observed.


*BUT OFFICE MATERIALS WOULD!  POST THE TEST RESULTS 
*


*





*

As background information,  


*SNIP IRRELEVANT  *

Several months after the WTC 7 collapse, a contractor recovered an estimated 23,000 gallons of fuel from these tanks. NIST estimated that the unaccounted fuel totaled 1,000 ±1,000 gallons of fuel (in other words, somewhere between 0 and 2,000 gallons, with 1,000 gallons the most likely figure). The fate of the fuel in the day tanks was unknown, so NIST assumed the worst-case scenario, namely that they were full on Sept. 11, 2001. The fate of the fuel of two 6,000 gallon tanks was also unknown.


*SOMEONE STOLE IT AND FILLED THEIR HOME FUEL TANK UP SO THE FUCK WHAT.*


  Therefore, NIST also assumed the worst-case scenario for these tanks, namely that all of the fuel would have been available to feed fires either at ground level or on the 5th floor.


*SO INVESTIGATION REPORTS ARE BASED ON ASSUMPTIONS NOW DAYS?  HOW INTERESTING.  WELL GET TO WORK AND PROVE UP YOUR CLAIMS.*





 YOUR BOY JOHNNY POSING SHOWING OFF THE EVIDENCE OF THE  CRIME.


----------



## E.L.C. (Nov 2, 2013)

Of course, it's just my opinion but....

*Fraud Site!*​


----------



## daws101 (Nov 3, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Did investigators consider the possibility that an explosion caused or contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?
> ...



edited for wall of text violation and sheer nonsense..
 Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.


----------



## daws101 (Nov 3, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> Of course, it's just my opinion but....
> 
> *Fraud Site!*​


another classic twooferism when getting your ass handed to you....don't let the door hit on the ass on your way out!


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 3, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation



_*edited for wall of text violation and sheer nonsense..
 Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.*

_
Did investigators consider the possibility that an explosion caused or contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?

Yes, this possibility was investigated carefully.  


 Wow kool!  

*POST THE FULL SCOPE OF ALL TESTS AND RESULTS.*


 NIST concluded that blast events inside the building did not occur and found no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event.


*AGAIN POST THE FULL SCOPE OF ALL TESTS AND RESULTS IN SUPPORT OF THAT CONCLUSION.*

In addition, no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses.  


*THAT IS PATENTLY FALSE, SEVERAL VIDEOS RECORDED BLASTS AND WITNESSES STATEMENTS WERE MADE.*


 According to calculations by the investigation team, the smallest blast capable of failing the building's critical column would have resulted in a sound level of 130 decibels (dB) to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile, if unobstructed by surrounding buildings.  


*DECEPTIVE REPORTING!  A MUFFLED CUTTER WOULD HARDLY BE DETECTABLE OUTSIDE THE BUILDING.  

*  This sound level is consistent with a gunshot blast, standing next to a jet plane engine, and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert.


*GUNSHOT BLASTS CAN BE COMPLETELY MUFFLED BUT CUTTERS CANT?  WHOS DREAM WORLD DID THAT TURD DROP FROM?*

For the building to have been prepared for intentional demolition, walls and/or column enclosures and fireproofing would have to be removed and replaced without being detected.  


*PROVE IT,  AGAIN POST ALL TESTS THAT LED TO THAT CONCLUSION.*


 Preparing a column includes steps such as cutting sections with torches,  


*WRONG, NOT NECESSARY, PROVE IT IS NECESSARY POST THE STUDIES THAT IT IS REQUIRED.*


 which produces noxious and odorous fumes.  


*FRIVOLOUS ARGUMENT.*


 Intentional demolition usually requires applying explosive charges to most, if not all, interior columns, not just one or a limited set of columns in a building.


*USUALLY?  WHAT DOES IT REQUIRE WHEN ITS NOT USUAL, TEST RESULTS AND INVESTIGATIVE REPORTS PLEASE.*

Is it possible that thermite or thermate contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?


*YEP.*

NIST has looked at the application and use of thermite and has determined that its use to sever columns in WTC 7 on 9/11/01 was unlikely.


*UNLIKELY?  WHAT THE FUCK KIND OF INVESTIGATING IS THAT?  FRAUD ON ITS FACE.  THEY ARE CHARTERED TO PRESENT ANSWERS NOT BULLSHIT.*


*


*

*POST THE STEPS AND TEST RESULTS USED BY NIST TO CONCLUDE IT WAS UNLIKELY.*

Thermite is a combination of aluminum powder and a metal oxide  


*ITS ALSO A COMBINATION OF MAGNESIUM AND A METAL OXIDE*

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uace_eC1CWk"]Thermite + Magnesium - YouTube[/ame]

 that releases a tremendous amount of heat when ignited.  


*THAT DOES NOT BEAR THE NAME THERMATE BUT CREATES SUBSTANTIALLY GREATER HEAT.*


 It is typically used to weld railroad rails together by melting a small quantity of steel and pouring the melted steel into a form between the two rails.


*SO WHO GIVES A SHIT.*

To apply thermite to a large steel column, approximately 0.13 lb of thermite would be needed to heat and melt each pound of steel. For a steel column that weighs approximately 1,000 lbs. per foot, at least 100 lbs. of thermite would need to be placed around the column, ignited, and remain in contact with the vertical steel surface as the thermite reaction took place. This is for one column . presumably, more than one column would have been prepared with thermite, if this approach were to be used.


*SO YOU THINK THE COLUMS WERE 8 INCHES THICK?   WTF KIND OF DECEPTIVE SHIT IS THAT?  PROVE MAGNESIUM BASED THERMETIC MATERIAL WAS NOT USED.  PROVIDE ALL TESTS, PROCEDURES AND RESULTS.*

It is unlikely that 100 lbs. of thermite, or more, could have been carried into WTC 7 and placed around columns without being detected, either prior to Sept. 11 or during that day.


*UNLIKELY?  MORE GUESS AND HUCKEE GEE BY GOLLY GOODNESS GRACIOUS MILDRED FUCKTARD KOOLAIND?  THAT IS WHAT YOU WANT POST AS YOUR FUCKING REBUTTAL?  POST THE TESTS PROCEDURES AND RESULTS NIST USED TO COME TO THIS PROFESSIONAL CONCLUSION.*









Given the fires that were observed that day, and the demonstrated structural response to the fires, NIST does not believe that thermite was used to fail any columns in WTC 7.


*BELIEVE?   MORE GUESS AND HUCKEE GEE BY GOLLY GOODNESS GRACIOUS MILDRED FUCKTARD KOOLAIND?  THAT IS WHAT YOU WANT POST AS YOUR FUCKING REBUTTAL?  POST THE TESTS PROCEDURES AND RESULTS NIST USED TO COME TO THIS PROFESSIONAL CONCLUSION.*

Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive.  


*THATS WHAT WE PAY THEM FOR INCONCLUSIVE RESULTS.*


 The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC buildings, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard used for interior partitions.


*POST ALL ANALYSIS AND REPORTS SHOWING THE THE MAXIMUM PERCENTAGE OF SUT THAT COULD HAVE EXISTED AFTER SWEEPING THE FLOORS AND DUSTING THE FURNITURE AS COMPARED TO THE AMOUNT THAT EXISTED AFTER THE DEMOLITION.  *

An emergency responder caught in the building between the 6th and 8th floors says he heard two loud booms. Isn't that evidence that there was an explosion?

The sound levels reported by all witnesses do not match the sound level of an explosion that would have been required to cause the collapse of the building.  

*SO SOMEONE WAS MEASURING THE SOUND LEVELS OUTSIDE THE BUILDING? GREAT POSTS ALL SOUND LEVEL MEASUREMENTS, INSTRUMENT POSITIONS, CALIBRATION RECORDS EQUIPMENT USED AND ANY OTHER BONAFIDE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THAT CONCLUSION.*


 If the two loud booms were due to explosions that were responsible for the collapse of WTC 7, the emergency responder-located somewhere between the 6th and 8th floors in WTC 7-would not have been able to survive the near immediate collapse and provide this witness account.


*JENNINGS DID, BUT GOT DEAD TALKING ABOUT IT.  NO LONGER DECEPTION AND GRADUATING TO BOLD FACE LIES NOW?*

In June 2009, NIST began releasing documents in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request from the International Center for 9/11 Studies for "all of the photographs and videos collected, reviewed, cited or in any other way used by NIST during its investigation of the World Trade Center building collapses." One of the items released, a video obtained from NBC News , shows World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC 7) in the moments before it collapsed, then cuts to the collapse already in progress, with the building's east penthouse "disappearing" from the scene (as it had already fallen in the intervening time). Other videos of the WTC 7 collapse show the penthouse falling first, followed by the rest of the building. Did NIST edit the NBC News video to remove the collapse of the penthouse?


*WELL ITS MOST LIKELY JUST A REALLY FREAK &#8220;COINCIDENCE&#8221;, NIST WOULD NEVER EDIT OF FALSIFY INFORMATION DESPITE THE FACT THEY HAVE ALREADY BEEN BUSTED SEVERAL TIMES DOING SO.*


 The video footage released under the FOIA request was copied from the original video exactly as it was received from NBC News, with video documentation of the WTC 7 east penthouse collapse missing. The footage was not edited in any way by NIST. 


*AH THERE YOU GO, SOMEONE ELSE EDITED IT FOR NIST, SEE I KNEW IT.*

Did fuel oil systems in WTC 7 contribute to its collapse?

No. The building had three separate emergency power systems, all of which ran on diesel fuel. The worst-case scenarios associated with fires being fed by ruptured fuel lines-or from fuel stored in day tanks on the lower floors-could not have been sustained long enough, could not have generated sufficient heat to weaken critical interior columns, and/or would have produced large amounts of visible smoke from the lower floors, which were not observed.


*BUT OFFICE MATERIALS WOULD!  POST THE TEST RESULTS 
*


*




*

As background information,  


*SNIP IRRELEVANT  *

Several months after the WTC 7 collapse, a contractor recovered an estimated 23,000 gallons of fuel from these tanks. NIST estimated that the unaccounted fuel totaled 1,000 ±1,000 gallons of fuel (in other words, somewhere between 0 and 2,000 gallons, with 1,000 gallons the most likely figure). The fate of the fuel in the day tanks was unknown, so NIST assumed the worst-case scenario, namely that they were full on Sept. 11, 2001. The fate of the fuel of two 6,000 gallon tanks was also unknown.


*SOMEONE STOLE IT AND FILLED THEIR HOME FUEL TANK UP SO THE FUCK WHAT.*


  Therefore, NIST also assumed the worst-case scenario for these tanks, namely that all of the fuel would have been available to feed fires either at ground level or on the 5th floor.


*SO INVESTIGATION REPORTS ARE BASED ON ASSUMPTIONS NOW DAYS?  HOW INTERESTING.  WELL GET TO WORK AND PROVE UP YOUR CLAIMS.*





 YOUR BOY JOHNNY POSING SHOWING OFF THE EVIDENCE OF THE  CRIME.











*line by line rebuttal with your wall of test removed.

Now come up with another reason to dodge this one as well, tard.

Not my problem if you cut and paste bullshit and your mouth is writing checks your ass cant cash.*


----------



## daws101 (Nov 3, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation
> ...


_edited for wall of text violation and sheer nonsense..
 Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.[/COLOR][/B]_


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 3, 2013)

daws101 said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


_


ok everyone the cut-n-paste fucktard dodged everything what a supreme fucking loser.

*The Following User Says Thank You to daws101 For This Useful Post:* Remove Your Thanks KokomoJojo (Today)


yep thanks again for proving my points for me._


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 4, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> You raise a couple of good points Gamolon and I'll get to your posts this evening (busy day ahead).





E.L.C. said:


> I want to go back to Gamolon's posts and then (immediately) come back to this. If I don't I'll never here the end of it!



Waiting...





E.L.C. said:


> Gamolon.... Are you there?



Yup.


----------



## E.L.C. (Nov 4, 2013)

Yeah? Well, Gamaclown.... you can just keep waiting for all I care. If there's any consensus on WTC 7 (the other thread getting trashed), we can move on to the towers and the pentagon. Until then....


----------



## E.L.C. (Nov 5, 2013)

*daws101 "Newtonian physics were not
 the only physics at play that day...."*


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 5, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> Yeah? Well, Gamaclown.... you can just keep waiting for all I care. If there's any consensus on WTC 7 (the other thread getting trashed), we can move on to the towers and the pentagon. Until then....



Fine by me.

Now go back to the other thread and answer my questions regarding how Newton's laws apply to a complex structure made up of components with varying load strengths:

1. Columns
2. Floor trusses
3. Bolted connections
4. Welded connections

Just to name a few.


----------



## Rockland (Nov 5, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> Yeah? Well, Gamaclown.... you can just keep waiting for all I care. If there's any consensus on WTC 7 (the other thread getting trashed), we can move on to the towers and the pentagon. Until then....



In other words, you've got nothing.  Yeah, we knew that.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 5, 2013)

Rockland said:


> E.L.C. said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah? Well, Gamaclown.... you can just keep waiting for all I care. If there's any consensus on WTC 7 (the other thread getting trashed), we can move on to the towers and the pentagon. Until then....
> ...




so quantum failure, have you figured out that the bank trust building is not wtc7 yet?


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 5, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> E.L.C. said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah? Well, Gamaclown.... you can just keep waiting for all I care. If there's any consensus on WTC 7 (the other thread getting trashed), we can move on to the towers and the pentagon. Until then....
> ...




so you think newtons laws are inappropriate and do not apply to a complex structure and we are back to your laws of massive asshat huh.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Nov 5, 2013)

Rockland said:


> E.L.C. said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah? Well, Gamaclown.... you can just keep waiting for all I care. If there's any consensus on WTC 7 (the other thread getting trashed), we can move on to the towers and the pentagon. Until then....
> ...



Did you know if your take the sentence "building seven was a controlled demolition" and jumble the letters and remove some and add a couple, you get the words "total bullshit"


True story. 








*Cleese.*


----------



## Rockland (Nov 5, 2013)

You talkin' to me, KooKooDooDoo?  You're on my ignoramus list, remember?


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 5, 2013)

Rockland said:


> You talkin' to me, KooKooDooDoo?  You're on my ignoramus list, remember?




unfucking believable

after having your ass handed to you:



> You talkin' to me, KooKooDooDoo?  You're on my ignoramus list, remember?  ​ *The Following User Says Thank You to Rockland For This Useful Post:* Rat in the Hat (Today)





> Rat in the Hat
> 
> 
> 
> ...


missed your appointment again huh.





you need to make a new moniker "OWNED"


----------



## psikeyhackr (Nov 12, 2013)

I have searched this entire thread for "conservation" to find any mention of the Conservation of Momentum and that has been done several times by Mr. Jones.  But he did not explain what it had to do with anything.

The north tower came down in just under 26 seconds though some estimates are as low as 10 seconds.  The 26 seconds includes the time of the remains of the core to come down after most of the mass had already fallen.

But all of this supposedly occurred because the portion above the impact zone fell and forced the rest down.  That is where the conservation of momentum comes in.

When moving mass A impacts stationary mass B at velocity V the resulting combined mass will have a velocity less than V but it is highly dependent on the relative sizes of the masses.  But with the collapse of the north tower there would be a complex sequence of collisions also accelerated by gravity which will affect the collapse time.

I did a simplified analysis of this years ago.

The Next Level :: View topic - Basic Skyscraper Physics

This program reads a data file for 109 masses floating in the air, held up by nothing.  It then simulates dropping the top 14 and computes resulting velocities due to the conservation of momentum slowing things down.  The program has been updated a bit since then but the results are still pretty much the same.  Since it only uses the conservation of momentum a real collapse from the top down would have to be significantly slower because energy would be lost bending and breaking supports.

But these are the three extreme cases.

A 1500 ton mass is placed at the top and all 108 lower masses are only 0.1 tons.  This means very little mass is available to slow to falling top one and is almost like falling through empty space.

It takes 9.1 seconds.  The top of my stack is only 1308 feet so it is somewhat less than the 9.2 seconds from the top of the WTC.

The next run is with equal masses of 1500 tons at every level.  This takes 11.9 seconds.  But this is more than the 11 seconds that Dr. Sunder of the NIST said in a PBS podcast.  So how could a real building requiring energy loss due to breakage be less than very simple simulation.

The last run is extremely bottom heavy.  From the top to the 55th floor it is a steady increase from 1 to 100 tons.  Then from 55 to the bottom it is a linear increase from 100 to 10,000 tons.  This takes 19.5 seconds.

So the distribution of mass of the tower changes the collapse time just because of the conservation of momentum.  So discussing this for 12 years without accurate data on the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level is unscientific nonsense.

Freshman engineers at schools all over the country should be able to write programs duplicating these results.  So why isn't this even discussed by "experts"?  9/11 is a JOKE!  

psik


----------

