Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The NIST 9-11 Report on the WTC Collapse
- Thread starter Mr. Jones
- Start date
PredFan
Diamond Member
Originally Posted by eots
the fact fires consume the combustible materials within in an area and spread is hardly rocket science
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 coolerYou 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.
__________________
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
Fuzzy bears!
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...
Sorry but I can not help but to call you a stupid person...Many credible people from many related fields of study have looked at all of this NIST BS, and have concluded they are flat out wrong, and were deceitful in ways and their tactics. They have proven that this is true. It takes a willingness to actually research what the points are, which is something you are not capable, or willing to go through...It is sufficient for you to see a plane, and a collapse and call it a day, while you call us who know better names and ridicule us, BUT you then cry when the same is thrown back at you...The NIST nad the OCT is not the truth, this has been proved, and whether you believe this or not is irrelevant but I suggest you quit your crying about insults, when you post such unprovable rubbish and ridicule others in the process.
Anyone who wants to defend liars and criminals and enemies of the American nation and her peoples, are exactly what I said you are above...Now go ahead and post the answers to the challenges Imade to you up above...Back up you assumptions with facts or stay out of the fray..Once again you fucking anti American and anti-truth shrills are exposed as the lying, dishonest, deceitful fucks that you really are.[/quote=PredFan;7015966]
Only in your mind. Not in reality.
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
Fuzzy bears!
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
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #526
sister jones will counter with the unprovable retort that the fires were sporadic and small and jet fuel does not burn hot enough.Originally Posted by eots
the fact fires consume the combustible materials within in an area and spread is hardly rocket science
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 coolerYou 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.
__________________
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.
daws101
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #527
bumpWe 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...
Sorry but I can not help but to call you a stupid person...Many credible people from many related fields of study have looked at all of this NIST BS, and have concluded they are flat out wrong, and were deceitful in ways and their tactics. They have proven that this is true. It takes a willingness to actually research what the points are, which is something you are not capable, or willing to go through...It is sufficient for you to see a plane, and a collapse and call it a day, while you call us who know better names and ridicule us, BUT you then cry when the same is thrown back at you...The NIST nad the OCT is not the truth, this has been proved, and whether you believe this or not is irrelevant but I suggest you quit your crying about insults, when you post such unprovable rubbish and ridicule others in the process.
Anyone who wants to defend liars and criminals and enemies of the American nation and her peoples, are exactly what I said you are above...Now go ahead and post the answers to the challenges Imade to you up above...Back up you assumptions with facts or stay out of the fray..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.
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.
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...
Sorry but I can not help but to call you a stupid person...Many credible people from many related fields of study have looked at all of this NIST BS, and have concluded they are flat out wrong, and were deceitful in ways and their tactics. They have proven that this is true. It takes a willingness to actually research what the points are, which is something you are not capable, or willing to go through...It is sufficient for you to see a plane, and a collapse and call it a day, while you call us who know better names and ridicule us, BUT you then cry when the same is thrown back at you...The NIST nad the OCT is not the truth, this has been proved, and whether you believe this or not is irrelevant but I suggest you quit your crying about insults, when you post such unprovable rubbish and ridicule others in the process.
Anyone who wants to defend liars and criminals and enemies of the American nation and her peoples, are exactly what I said you are above...Now go ahead and post the answers to the challenges Imade to you up above...Back up you assumptions with facts or stay out of the fray..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.
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.
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.
Last edited:
sister jones will counter with the unprovable retort that the fires were sporadic and small and jet fuel does not burn hot enough.Originally Posted by eots
the fact fires consume the combustible materials within in an area and spread is hardly rocket science
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
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.
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
no fly list
sister jones will counter with the unprovable retort that the fires were sporadic and small and jet fuel does not burn hot enough.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.
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.
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
no fly list
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PawC4u1U7k]9/11 Science vs. Conspiracy Theories Part 1 of 2 - YouTube[/ame]
daws101
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #532
none was needed.. if explosives had been used even you could have seen the result.sister jones will counter with the unprovable retort that the fires were sporadic and small and jet fuel does not burn hot enough.
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.
where do you get this continue to melt stuff ? and if no testing was done for explosive residue what would you expect to find ?
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.
eots
no fly list
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.
where do you get this continue to melt stuff ? and if no testing was done for explosive residue what would you expect to find ?
how does one check for explosives without testing for explosive residue ?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.
you really need to stop lying
- Thread starter
- #535
My point exactly moron. The "smallish" amounts of aluminum, AND where it was placed in the towers were insignificant compared to steel....yep you're blind.. number#3 photo most all of the smallish debris is aluminum.
That's right, 200,000 tons of steel" vs 22,046 lbs of 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.
No comparison to the tonnage of steel in the wreckage...That's right "exterior cladding" idiot! Where was the molten steel seen??? Oh that's right 70 FEET BELOW THE GROUND IN THE SUB BASEMENTS!!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 aluminum sheet was used, in the form of 43,600 panels, to
cover the façade of each Twin Tower.
What happened to the exterior walls during the collapses? Oh, that's right..they were FORCIBLY EJECTED AWAY FROM THE CENTERS OF THE TOWERS, SOME EVEN HUNDREDS OF FEET AWAY...
I'll prove it to you asshat, and settle this once and for all so this thread can move on..only in your delusional thinking is that a small amount.
This makes no fucking difference you fucking idiot if the aluminum was no where near where the molten steel was sighted, reported, and confirmed by eyewitness, one who happened to be an original WTC engineer-Leslie Robertson...it's been proven to you numerous times that aluminum has a lower melting point then steel.
The delusional one is you, and the other idiots who argue this failed case for aluminum being the most likely molten substance...BEING SIGHTED 70 FEET BELOW THE FUCKING GROUND IN THE FUCKING SUB BASEMENTS....
Here asshole, I'll use your own "debunking site" that you failed to provide a link for... here
http://www.usmessageboard.com/6913507-post106.html
But that's nothing new for you as witnessed here-
http://www.usmessageboard.com/6914338-post120.html
I tried hard to get you morons to post any numbers regarding how much solid aluminum was in/on the towers and I got BS replies like this that mentions the dust in an attempt to validate your failed arguments---
http://www.usmessageboard.com/6909579-post87.html
Here you finally post a link to your revered debunking site and the lies of Mike Williams-
http://www.usmessageboard.com/6894253-post13.html
The other ridiculous troll, your brethren sayit posted the same link, and seemed to throw his hat in with you and agreed that there was soooo much aluminum...LOL..
http://www.usmessageboard.com/6902817-post46.html
Here sayit reinforces his opinion on the validity of the "debunking" site you both seem to nut hug...
http://www.usmessageboard.com/6892217-post9.html
And especially here LOL!!!
http://www.usmessageboard.com/6895113-post17.html
OK moving on... It's time to trounce you and the other idiots who continue to say that what was sighted was most likely "aluminum"---
There was NO proof or mention of molten aluminum period...The towers were made of steel...
The facts remain the same...that what was sighted in the sub basements of ALL 3 BUILDINGS could not have been aluminum..You especially have not provided any reasonable argument it was not steel, while I have provided more then enough to show the probability of it in fact being steel is far greater.
your "2,000,000 kg of aluminum" is taken from your debunking site -it also states -
"it must be concluded that molten aluminum was produced in significant quantities"
however from the different trajectories of the air strikes, it appears that the fuselage that struck WTC 2 came to REST CLOSER TO AN EXTERIOR WALL then the aircraft that struck WTC 1 which stopped deep inside the building" "NIST report that the fires in WTC 2 were LESS ACTIVE then those observed in WTC 1
Let's use reason to understand what your site is claiming...one fact that can not be ignored is that the planes were hundreds of feet above the ground....
We know for a fact that the molten steel was sighted primarily in the sub basements of the towers....Common sense alone will tell a reasonable person that first of all, the 2,000,000 kg of aluminum is on the OUTSIDE perimeter walls of the towers as a covering...We also know that these heavy walls were ejected AWAY from the centers of the buildings during the collapses...watch any video.....So the aluminum that was on the outside walls could not have been found 70 FEET BELOW THE SURFACE IN THE SUB BASEMENTS IN A MOLTEN STATE. And could not have possibly come together in mid air, and made it's way below the ground and congeeled as one big molten unit...
Get this through your fucking heads, once and for all....
We also know for a fact that the Boeing planes struck WAY UP HIGH IN THE TOWERS...So there is NO WAY THEY WOULD "CUT IN LINE" AND MAKE THEIR WAY INTO THE SUB BASEMENTS AHEAD OF ANY STEEL EITHER...
Your web site mentions that the plane that struck "WTC 2 came to REST CLOSER TO AN EXTERIOR WALL" And we all know that the exterior walls (that had the thin aluminum covering) were EJECTED AWAY FROM THE CENTERS OF THE BUILDINGS AND COULD NOT HAVE BEEN FOUND IN THE SUB BASEMENTS 70 FEET BELOW THE SURFACE.
So a rational thinking person, using common sense and logic, will naturally conclude that the plane that "struck "WTC 2 AND ADMIITINGLY came to REST CLOSER TO AN EXTERIOR WALL" could not have been the source of ANY molten aluminum in the sub basements 70 feet below the ground either....
You are trying to argue something that even your own web site invalidates!
Now add the fact that NO ONE NOT EVEN NIST MENTIONED ANY MOLTEN ALUMINUM, 70 FEET BELOW THE GROUND, IN THE SUB BASEMENTS...And that the WTC towers were constructed with 200,000 TONS of STEEL (NOT ALUMINUM), BUT that according to your web site contained "2,000,000 kg of aluminum" ON THE OUTSIDE PERIMETER WALLS AS A COVERING...compared to the 200,000 tons of STEEL INSIDE THE TOWERS AND 56 TONS OF STEEL IN THE BASEMENTS....It is not even a close argument AGAINST what was reported to be MOLTEN STEEL "RUNNING LIKE RIVERS"...Quote, Leslie Robertson WTC original engineer..
To compare aluminum vs steel amounts on the OUTSIDES OF THE WTC TOWERS....
2,000,000 kg = 4,409,245 lb 9.6000oz
4,409,245lb = 22,04US t 1245.0lb of aluminum for each tower
ON THE OUTSIDE PERIMETER WALLS, which can be seen being EJECTED AWAY FROM THE TOWERS...AWAY FROM THE CENTERS....NOT VERY LIKLY TO BE FOUND BELOW THE GROUND
Now your web site ALSO states that the other main source of aluminum was due to the planes..
It is such an insignificant amount that I will quote them on the TOTAL AMOUNT ALUMINUM IN BOTH TOWERS...-
"it is probable that as much as 10,000 kg of molten aluminum formed in each tower"
10,000 total kg = 22,046lb 3.6480oz
22,046 lbs= 11US t 46.000lb
To summarize...11 tons of aluminum that is admitted to have been on the outsides of the towers, and 1 plane on the inside that came to rest next to one of the walls....THAT CAN BE SEEN TO BE FORCIBLY EJECTED AWAY FROM THE CENTERS, AND COULD NOT BE FOUND 70 FEET BELOW THE GROUND IN THE SUB BASEMENTS...We have BOTH PLANES AND SOURCES OF ALUMINUM WITHIN THEM WERE HUNDREDS OF FEET IN THE AIR...
And the total amount of steel--200,000 tons vs 11 tons of "estimated" aluminum at the locations that they are said to be... severely out weighs your stupid and irrational assumptions and arguments...Not to mention...no mention of aluminum by NIST...no mention of it by the numerous witnesses...etc etc...
So the source YOU sited to bolster your "probable aluminum not molten steel" argument that you all have been yammering on about
http://www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf
Totally discredits any validity of your claims and the other idiots on here that have also taken this same unreasonable ignorant and preposterouly wrong position.
The argument of aluminum vs steel is hereby settled in favor of steel, and furthermore
the point of contention that NIST did ignore this factual evidence is also settled. No one has proved anything that favors aluminum over steel, case closed. Now we will see
you shills and idiots do cart wheels in another failed attempt to try to spin your lost argument in the best possible light....I'm up for a good laugh so bring it on, or just be adult enough to concede this and move on to the other parts
that I can show how NIST is not honest or credible....
Last edited:
daws101
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #536
another shining example of eots's ignorance.where do you get this continue to melt stuff ? and if no testing was done for explosive residue what would you expect to find ?
how does one check for explosives without testing for explosive residue ?
you really need to stop lying
explosions leave a readable signature without having to chemically or microscopically test them..
those tests are used to determined what kind of explosives were used..
since there were no obvious signs of explosives none were needed..
Ollie is right you're not playing ignorant..
eots
no fly list
another shining example of eots's ignorance.
explosions leave a readable signature without having to chemically or microscopically test them..
those tests are used to determined what kind of explosives were used..
since there were no obvious signs of explosives none were needed..
Ollie is right you're not playing ignorant..
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
eots
no fly list
Last edited by a moderator:
daws101
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #539
another yammering wall of text by sister jonesMy point exactly moron. The "smallish" amounts of aluminum, AND where it was placed in the towers were insignificant compared to steel....yep you're blind.. number#3 photo most all of the smallish debris is aluminum.
That's right, 200,000 tons of steel" vs 22,046 lbs of aluminum...
No comparison to the tonnage of steel in the wreckage...That's right "exterior cladding" idiot! Where was the molten steel seen??? Oh that's right 70 FEET BELOW THE GROUND IN THE SUB BASEMENTS!!
What happened to the exterior walls during the collapses? Oh, that's right..they were FORCIBLY EJECTED AWAY FROM THE CENTERS OF THE TOWERS, SOME EVEN HUNDREDS OF FEET AWAY...
I'll prove it to you asshat, and settle this once and for all so this thread can move on..
This makes no fucking difference you fucking idiot if the aluminum was no where near where the molten steel was sighted, reported, and confirmed by eyewitness, one who happened to be an original WTC engineer-Leslie Robertson...it's been proven to you numerous times that aluminum has a lower melting point then steel.
The delusional one is you, and the other idiots who argue this failed case for aluminum being the most likely molten substance...BEING SIGHTED 70 FEET BELOW THE FUCKING GROUND IN THE FUCKING SUB BASEMENTS....
Here asshole, I'll use your own "debunking site" that you failed to provide a link for... here
http://www.usmessageboard.com/6913507-post106.html
But that's nothing new for you as witnessed here-
http://www.usmessageboard.com/6914338-post120.html
I tried hard to get you morons to post any numbers regarding how much solid aluminum was in/on the towers and I got BS replies like this that mentions the dust in an attempt to validate your failed arguments---
http://www.usmessageboard.com/6909579-post87.html
Here you finally post a link to your revered debunking site and the lies of Mike Williams-
http://www.usmessageboard.com/6894253-post13.html
The other ridiculous troll, your brethren sayit posted the same link, and seemed to throw his hat in with you and agreed that there was soooo much aluminum...LOL..
http://www.usmessageboard.com/6902817-post46.html
Here sayit reinforces his opinion on the validity of the "debunking" site you both seem to nut hug...
http://www.usmessageboard.com/6892217-post9.html
OK It's time to trounce you and the other idiots who continue to say that what was sighted was most likely "aluminum"---
There was NO proof or mention of molten aluminum period...The towers were made of steel...
The facts remain the same...that what was sighted in the sub basements of ALL 3 BUILDINGS could not have been aluminum..You especially have not provided any reasonable argument it was not steel, while I have provided more then enough to show the probability of it in fact being steel is far greater.
your "2,000,000 kg of aluminum" is taken from your debunking site -it also states -
"it must be concluded that molten aluminum was produced in significant quantities"
however from the different trajectories of the air strikes, it appears that the fuselage that struck WTC 2 came to REST CLOSER TO AN EXTERIOR WALL then the aircraft that struck WTC 1 which stopped deep inside the building" "NIST report that the fires in WTC 2 were LESS ACTIVE then those observed in WTC 1
Let's use reason to understand what your site is claiming...one fact that can not be ignored is that the planes were hundreds of feet above the ground....
We know for a fact that the molten steel was sighted primarily in the sub basements of the towers....Common sense alone will tell a reasonable person that first of all, the 2,000,000 kg of aluminum is on the OUTSIDE perimeter walls of the towers as a covering...We also know that these heavy walls were ejected AWAY from the centers of the buildings during the collapses...watch any video.....So the aluminum that was on the outside walls could not have been found 70 FEET BELOW THE SURFACE IN THE SUB BASEMENTS IN A MOLTEN STATE. And could not have possibly come together in mid air, and made it's way below the ground and congeeled as one big molten unit...
Get this through your fucking heads, once and for all....
We also know for a fact that the Boeing planes struck WAY UP HIGH IN THE TOWERS...So there is NO WAY THEY WOULD "CUT IN LINE" AND MAKE THEIR WAY INTO THE SUB BASEMENTS AHEAD OF ANY STEEL EITHER...
Your web site mentions that the plane that struck "WTC 2 came to REST CLOSER TO AN EXTERIOR WALL" And we all know that the exterior walls (that had the thin aluminum covering) were EJECTED AWAY FROM THE CENTERS OF THE BUILDINGS AND COULD NOT HAVE BEEN FOUND IN THE SUB BASEMENTS 70 FEET BELOW THE SURFACE.
So a rational thinking person, using common sense and logic, will naturally conclude that the plane that "struck "WTC 2 AND ADMIITINGLY came to REST CLOSER TO AN EXTERIOR WALL" could not have been the source of ANY molten aluminum in the sub basements 70 feet below the ground either....
You are trying to argue something that even your own web site invalidates!
Now add the fact that NO ONE NOT EVEN NIST MENTIONED ANY MOLTEN ALUMINUM, 70 FEET BELOW THE GROUND, IN THE SUB BASEMENTS...And that the WTC towers were constructed with 200,000 TONS of STEEL (NOT ALUMINUM), BUT that according to your web site contained "2,000,000 kg of aluminum" ON THE OUTSIDE PERIMETER WALLS AS A COVERING...compared to the 200,000 tons of STEEL INSIDE THE TOWERS AND 56 TONS OF STEEL IN THE BASEMENTS....It is not even a close argument AGAINST what was reported to be MOLTEN STEEL "RUNNING LIKE RIVERS"...Quote, Leslie Robertson WTC original engineer..
To compare aluminum vs steel amounts on the OUTSIDES OF THE WTC TOWERS....
2,000,000 kg = 4,409,245 lb 9.6000oz
4,409,245lb = 22,04US t 1245.0lb of aluminum for each tower
ON THE OUTSIDE PERIMETER WALLS, which can be seen being EJECTED AWAY FROM THE TOWERS...AWAY FROM THE CENTERS....NOT VERY LIKLY TO BE FOUND BELOW THE GROUND
Now your web site ALSO states that the other main source of aluminum was due to the planes..
It is such an insignificant amount that I will quote them on the TOTAL AMOUNT ALUMINUM IN BOTH TOWERS...-
"it is probable that as much as 10,000 kg of molten aluminum formed in each tower"
10,000 total kg = 22,046lb 3.6480oz
22,046 lbs= 11US t 46.000lb
To summarize...11 tons of aluminum that is admitted to have been on the outsides of the towers, and 1 plane on the inside that came to rest next to one of the walls....THAT CAN BE SEEN TO BE FORCIBLY EJECTED AWAY FROM THE CENTERS, AND COULD NOT BE FOUND 70 FEET BELOW THE GROUND IN THE SUB BASEMENTS...We have BOTH PLANES AND SOURCES OF ALUMINUM WITHIN THEM WERE HUNDREDS OF FEET IN THE AIR...
And the total amount of steel--200,000 tons vs 11 tons of "estimated" aluminum at the locations that they are said to be... severely out weighs your stupid and irrational assumptions and arguments...Not to mention...no mention of aluminum by NIST...no mention of it by the numerous witnesses...etc etc...
So the source YOU sited to bolster your "probable aluminum not molten steel" argument that you all have been yammering on about
http://www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf
Totally discredits any validity of your claims and the other idiots on here that have also taken this same unreasonable ignorant and preposterouly wrong position.
The argument of aluminum vs steel is hereby settled in favor of steel, and furthermore
the point of contention that NIST did ignore this factual evidence is also settled. No one has proved anything that favors aluminum over steel, case closed. Now we will see
you shills and idiots do cart wheels in another failed attempt to try to spin your lost argument in the best possible light....I'm up for a good laugh so bring it on, or just be adult enough to concede this and move on to the other parts
that I can show how NIST is not honest or credible....
if this is your scathing expose' it's underwhelming...
none of it is proof that the molten pools were conclusively identified as steel.
not that it matters anyway as the pools were effect not cause.
one more thing sister jones, you've once again misrepresented what was said"yep you're blind.. number#3 photo most all of the smallish debris is aluminum.-me
"My point exactly moron. The "smallish" amounts of aluminum, AND where it was placed in the towers were insignificant compared to steel...."- sister jones
your point is not the same as mine, to say that it is ,is false by either your lack of reading skill or your obsession to be right even when you're completely wrong ,as evidenced in the above quote.
any one how can read would know that I was not referring to the amount of aluminum, although it is evident there was quite a bit of it in that photo (except to you)but the size of the debris as compared to huge steel beams it was mix with.
remember now sister jones when I say huge steel beams I'm referring to their size not the amount.
Last edited:
eots
no fly list
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]
if all they do is look for the...signature...lol[/quote]
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
- Replies
- 3
- Views
- 91
- Replies
- 47
- Views
- 579
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 89
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 12
- Views
- 48
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8399
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 477
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-