See other 9/11 Articles
Title: Are 911 Truth Deniers Dumber Than A 5th Grader?
Source:
Rense
URL Source: http://www.rense.com/general76/truther.htm
Published: Apr 13, 2007
Author: Douglas Herman
Post Date: 2007-04-14 21:15:20 by robin
Ping List: *9-11* Subscribe to *9-11*
Keywords: None
Views: 1575
Comments: 157
Are 911 Truth Deniers Dumber The most subversive show on television is on the Fox TV network. Maybe you've seen it. Hosted by a guy named Jeff Foxworthy, the show is called "Are You Smarter Than A 5th Grader?" Hopefully, the show is broadcast to every nation of the world, including China, the Middle East and the English-speaking nations of the former British empire. Why? To show the rest of the world what they already suspect: that most Americans are a bunch of greedy nitwits, numbskulls and knuckleheads. Truly, most Americans are Not smarter than a fifth grader. Indeed, judging from the shows I've seen, quite a few American adults are dumber than a FIRST grader. The adults--and I use that word loosely--who participate on the show are college graduates with good jobs. Some of them graduated with honors--whatever that means in collegiate circles. Uniformly, they perform badly. If ignorance is bliss then most of the adults on the show are positively delirious. They win a few thousand dollars, sometimes a quarter million, but for the most part, look like greedy imbeciles. They ALL remind me of 911 truth deniers. First question: What is jet fuel? Don't know? Yes, you are dumber than a fifth grader. Could a kerosene fire (basically jet fuel) melt steel beams? No, but sometimes it does if the government says it can and the Twin Towers are involved. Sorry, wrong answer. You are dumber than any first grader possessing a basic understanding of a barbecue grill. I'm forever delighted by the faces of the wise children everywhere. They remind me of "Truthers," those citizens concerned with nothing so much as unraveling a great crime against America, convinced we can persuade even the dumbest Americans--and God knows there are millions of them---that steel building do not just fall down at the speed of gravity, no matter how many morons at MIT say they can. Okay: How many sides to a trapezoid? Every Truther, and fifth grader on the show that I happened to watch, knew the answer to that. Four, as in the shape of the WTC-7 foundation. Indeed, one of the World's Most Famous Smart Persons, a professor at MIT named Chomsky, said the perplexing anomalies of 911 didn't really matter to him. Huh? That would be like asking a group of fifth graders how did the Titanic sink? And then remarking to them to ignore the iceberg altogether and focus instead on the weight and volume of the water that filled the ship. All while manipulating computer models to show that a few open portholes caused the Titanic to sink. Because that was EXACTLY what the Kean Commission did to WTC-7. They ignored the collapse of a 600 foot World Trade Center building altogether. And that was EXACTLY what NIST has done also, for the past five years. They have ignored the obvious, ignoring the iceberg, focusing on the floodwater. Are Americans dumber than 5th graders? Yes, especially most of the top scientists working for the US government. For example, a videotape was shown---but not identified---to a top Dutch demolition expert. The videotape was of a 47 story government building collapsing in 6.5 seconds. The Dutch expert---unlike many of the top US experts---said unequivocally that the building had been blown down. A controlled demolition. Indeed, you could show that same videotape to those 5th graders and get the same answer. The chief difference? Neither the Dutch expert nor the 5th graders depend on the US government to pay their salaries, or fund their think tanks or universities. Thus they can answer honestly and without fear of retribution. Magna Cum Laude in Cowardice? Simply look around. Next Question: Who met with the (alleged but never proven) head hijacker's bagman, met him for breakfast on 9-11? If you answered a top Al Qaeda member, you would be WRONG. But if you answered several top US intelligence figures met with the man who provided Mohammed Atta with $100,000 you would be right. Another question. Why couldn't NORAD get even one plane aloft to encounter even one hijacked jet? Was it because our highly trained air force pilots are incompetent and dumber than a 5th grader? How do you feel about that? That the rest of the world thinks we are dumber than a newborn babe for believing that the top air defense in the world--NORAD--couldn't even get ONE fighter jet aloft in ninety minutes, 90 MINUTES? We really are a dumb race of people if we believe 9-11 was a case of incompetence. Dumber still if we accept the excuses from our government officials and haven't demanded the indictment of even ONE person that allowed close to 3,000 citizens be murdered. Debunkers would have you believe the official lie. And it is a masterful lie. They want to keep you dumb; that is their whole purpose. To keep you dumb. To keep you from asking too many questions. But mostly to keep you from demanding answers, and then demanding indictments and convictions. But debunkers are relatively few, and mostly shrewd, manipulative liars. 911 truth deniers, on the other hand---the millions of ordinary folks who adhere to the official story--would have us simply give the US government the benefit of the doubt. When you ask them why, when you point to the string of lies before and after 911, when you point to the murderous government policies post- 911, they stare dumbly, like contestants on that TV game show. On that TV show, however, the 5th graders can sometimes help those dumb adults. But only IF the adults want to be helped. Five years after 911, we Truthers are the fresh-faced students, trying to awaken our compatriots to the correct answers. And in this case, they have a whole lot more to win or lose than a few thousand dollars. Footnote: I would like once again to thank my compatriots at 911blogger.com who provided the illustration. As you can see, it doesn't take a rocket scientists to understand 911. Indeed, most American rocket scientists are probably too dumb. Simply put: Can an object fall through mass 5 times greater than itself, falling nearly as fast as it would fall through empty air, when the only force available is gravity? Sure it can, as long as the object is falling through a heavily-insured white elephant housing sensitive government offices. USAF veteran Douglas Herman writes for Rense regularly and clearly understood the scam of the NORAD standdown within a few months after 911. He wrote the recent Rense feature, Why No Norad On 911?
Than A 5th Grader?
By Douglas Herman
Exclusive to Rense.com
4-13-7
Most 911 debunkers love to quote the number of top US scientists, engineers and architects who deny 911 was an inside job. Luckily, we Truthers can demonstrate that many of these top experts are just plain dumb. How? We need only point to a show like "Smarter Than A 5th Grader," a show that readily indicates how dumb so-called educated American people can be. Even ones with advanced degrees and Cum Laude after their names.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-30) not displayed.
.
.
.
#31. To: BeAChooser (#29)
TREASONOUS QUEER! you used to agree that the molten steel really happened. and now you link me to a site that says molten steel didn't exist because for it to exist there must've been something besides jet fuel & the ordinary debris from the office & furnishings in order to produce the molten steel. Well the molten steel is reality. it was reported right in mass media about the hot spots, so for you to sit there and say that the hot spots didn't exist because it would've required something more than jet fuel to produce them is just plain more TREASONOUS QUEER! garbage. NASA flew a plane over the site in the day or two after the event and measured the hot spots. it was reported right in mass media. and you sit there and deny it because you are a TREASONOUS QUEER! You used to agree with us that the molten steel did happen. We've talked to individuals on the internet who live 2 blocks from there and they told us that in personal conversations with firemen they heard stories of the molten steel & the hot spots. and now you change your story. TREASONOUS QUEER!
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Didn't BAC say he was only "experimenting" for a few years? ;) Or was it he was only investigating, like Reverent Haggard? Oh well, as Bob Seger said "turn the page." (Or was that Mark Foley?)
Whether molten steel caused the collapse or not, what caused molten steel? Molten Metal Workers Reported Molten Metal in Ground Zero Rubble Reports of molten metal in the foundations of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers are frequently noted in literature of proponents of theories that the buildings were destroyed through controlled demolition. The most widely publicized report is one by American Free Press reporter Christopher Bollyn citing principals of two of the companies contracted to clean up Ground Zero. The president of Tully Construction of Flushing, NY, said he saw pools of "literally molten steel" at Ground Zero. Bollyn also cites Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition Inc. (CDI) of Phoenix, MD, as having seen molten steel in the bottoms of elevator shafts "three, four, and five weeks" after the attack. Although reports of molten steel are consistent with the persistent heat at Ground Zero in the months following the attack, we find the American Free Press report suspect for two reasons. First, Tully Construction was one of four companies awarded contracts by New York City's Department of Design and Construction to dispose of the rubble at Ground Zero, and CDI was subcontracted by Tully and was instrumental in devising a plan to recycle the steel. The involvement of Steve Tully and Mark Loizeaux in the destruction of the evidence of the unprecedented collapses would seem to disqualify them as objective reporters of evidence. Interestingly, CDI was also hired to bury the rubble of the Murrah Building in the wake of the Oklahoma City Bombing. That Loizeaux stood trial on charges of illegal campaign contributions casts further doubt on his credibility. [1] A second reason to doubt this molten steel report is the fact that it has been used by Bollyn and others to support the dubious theory that the collapses were caused by bombs in the Towers' basements. Corroborating Reports There are reports of molten steel beyond those cited by American Free Press. Most of these have come to light as a result of a research paper by Professor Steven E Jones, which has stimulated interest in the subject of molten steel at Ground Zero. * A report by Waste Age describes New York Sanitation Department workers moving "everything from molten steel beams to human remains." [2] A report on the Government Computer News website quotes Greg Fuchek, vice president of sales for LinksPoint Inc. as stating: A Messenger-Inquirer report recounts the experiences of Bronx firefighter "Toolie" O'Toole, who stated that some of the beams lifted from deep within the catacombs of Ground Zero by cranes were "dripping from the molten steel." [4] A transcription of an audio interview of Ground Zero chaplain Herb Trimpe contains the following passage: It took me a long time to realize it and I found myself actually one day wanting to get back. Why? Because I felt more comfortable. I realized it was actually warmer on site. The fires burned, up to 2,000 degrees, underground for quite a while before they actually got down to those areas and they cooled off. 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. So this was the kind of heat that was going on when those airplanes hit the upper floors. It was just demolishing heat. [5] A report in the Johns Hopkins Public Health Magazine about recovery work in late October quotes Alison Geyh, Ph.D., as stating: A publication by the National Environmental Health Association quotes Ron Burger, a public health advisor at the National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, who arrived at Ground Zero on the evening of September 12th. Burger stated: An article in The Newsletter of the Structural Engineers Association of Utah describing an speaking appearance by Leslie Robertson (structural engineer responsible for the design of the World Trade Center) contains this passage: A member of the New York Air National Guard's 109th Air Wing was at Ground Zero from September 22 to October 6. He kept a journal on which an article containing the following passage is based. The book American Ground, which contains detailed descriptions of conditions at Ground Zero, contains this passage: A review of of the documentary Collateral Damage in the New York Post describes firemen at Ground Zero recalling "heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel." [11] [image] This construction photograph shows the foundation of South Tower in the foreground, with the foundation of the North Tower in the left background. The foundations were seven stories deep. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- References 1. Fire Power: It Took Three Lawyers to Stop the Destruction of CDI Inc., The Daily Record, 10/7/00
Well Jesus H. Christ - I am talking about this article and it's first claim. Stay on topic. I guess you are not an empiricist - you don't care for the truth - whatever that truth may be - you just care about the fantasy scenario you have accept - every bit as fanciful as the govt thesis. That you don't want to discard evidence or claims proven false tells me you value the story over the facts.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Stay on topic. I guess you are not an empiricist - you don't care for the truth - whatever that truth may be - you just care about the fantasy scenario you have accept - every bit as fanciful as the govt thesis. That you don't want to discard evidence or claims proven false tells me you value the story over the facts. Well aren't you in a snit?! It's a poll. I referred to it. If you don't like it, tough titty. Why don't you go look up the poll, read the source data, specifically found at page 30, question 78? That's the TRUTH you're so afraid to admit.
Do you accept as false Rense's claim that the govt said the steel beams melted? Then we can go from there - this survey was never mentioned by me and your attempt to introduce is is an attempt top skirt the issue.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
I never said anything about Rense. But I'm pretty sure you're supposed to do it twice.
BeAChooser says he is not gay. This causes him a lot of problems on Log Cabin. People wonder what he is doing there if he isn't gay. Here is an example from the other day.... #40. To: Romping Fairy (#34) But I'm not gay. I'm married with children. I rarely I blow more than a couple of guys per month. And I sometimes do it with my wife when she starts to get nasty about it. Now is that gay in your book? BeAChooser posted on 2007-04-13 10:41:23 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
The number of Republican activists who are gay is astonishingly high. Gary Bauer? super gay!! John Fund of Wall St Journal? Ga-ay!
Thanks Trace for those insights. and thanks Paul Revere for your expert analysis above. BAC in the past has accepted that molten steel was in the pile of rubble. and he said previously also that this molten steel was caused by jet fuel burning. It is impossible of course because jet fuel doesn't burn anywhere near hot enough to cause the steel to actually become molten. We know beyond shadow of any doubt because of the NASA plane that flew over and measured heat that there were hot spots which cannot be explained by burning jet fuel or office furnishings fire either because those hot spots were way too hot. So per this link BAC provided above he's apparently changed his view. He now says that because the jet fuel didn't burn hot enough to create the molten steel or the hot spots either, that therefore there was no molten steel. Despite witnesses. despite photographs. despite even the two owners of the demo companies used to remove the debris saying that the molten steel pools were real, despite all that he now says that the molten steel didn't exist. Because apparently the molten steel can only be explained by a chemical device like thermite and BAC therefore denies that the molten steel was there. that's why he's a TREASONOUS QUEER!!!!
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Did any of those claiming they saw molten steel actually test it to be sure? And I'm curious. What continuing source of heat kept this supposed *steel* in a molten state for weeks and weeks after 9/11?
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 12 posts I'm allowed each day.
Was it steel? According to the above, the workers reported molten METAL. Were any actual tests done to determine what the molten material was? To confirm it was steel? ROTFLOL! Christopher Bollyn is a hack journalist who completely misrepresented the seismic data and seismologist statements in the same article where he made the above claim about molten steel. The link I provided proves that Loizeaux never said he saw molten steel. And how did Tully determine it was steel that was seen, ASSUMING that Bollyn is accurately quoting him to begin with (and I have doubts about that)? Notice that Bollyn didn't put the word "pools" in quotes. Did Tully actually say what Bollyn claims? Or is he exaggerating? No other witness of 9/11 has used the word "pools" to describe what was seen. Just how much of Bollyn's account can be believed? Red Jones championed Bollyn's report at LP. And then added his own twist to the claim. He claimed there were "60+ POOLS" of molten steel in the basements of the towers. When asked to back that up, he couldn't. Why is that? And here's another question. Loizeaux is on record saying that "molten steel was encountered primarily during excavation of debris around the South Tower when large hydraulic excavators were digging trenches 2 to 4 meters deep into the compacted/burning debris pile." How do you square this ... that the molten material was found primarily around one tower and relatively shallow in the debris with Bollyn claiming it was in the basements and with the notion of thermate being used to bring down BOTH towers? But let's go ahead and assume it was molten steel for the moment. What kept it molten for 5 weeks after the collapse, if it was indeed created by whatever brought down the towers? And, by the way, have you ever heard of Dr Greening and his theory about this?
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 12 posts I'm allowed each day.
And I'm curious. What continuing source of heat kept this supposed *steel* in a molten state for weeks and weeks after 9/11? you just demonstrated why it is that you are a TREASONOUS QUEER! did they have it tested? you are an idiot. You don't have to test such a thing. You just have to look at 2 things - the color and the state of plasticity or liquidity. If it is orange or red, then it is near molten and far hotter than any jet fuel can get it. and if it is liquid it is actually molten which is an amazing thing. You yourself have posted pictures showing it to be both orange and liquid. and jet fuel as your own link said cannot get the steel that hot to be either orange or liquid. the only way you can satisfy your pro-government theories is to lie and say that you yourself have lied. that is why you are a TREASONOUS QUEER! as well as the FACT! that Trace said you are a TREASONOUS QUEER! who hangs out at Log Cabin Republican forum. go back and chew weenie with muscle butt and ralphie and whoever else you know over there. You ask 'what continuing source of heat kept this steel in molten state for weeks'. I have been telling you for 4 years that the only possible thing that could've done that is thermite or thermate or some other chemical related bomb. and that this chemical bomb is also the only thing that could've caused the small earthquake measured by Syracuse Univ. You are an idiot BAC. you are now denying realities that you previously accepted all so that you can conform your mind to the lies that government & big media have told. TREASONOUS QUEER!
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
BAC is off the radar, negotiating a peace treaty with Goldi. {:-)) They deserve each other.
Damned good question, BAC - it wasn't jet fuel or burning furniture! Well ......? (Aren't you glad you brough it up?)
The details are unimportant, BAC, the fact that it was confirmed is quite enough. Something is radically wrong in the 'official' story. (Aren't you glad that you brought it up?) Well, ....., your queerness? Got an answer?
It's not an animal, it's a dog!! If you are going to spin it, at least make an effort to hide the cheap crap. Christ Almighty.
.
you are a complete idiot. Stephen Jones formerly of BYU did tests. and he found that the steel had thermite on it. I have been telling you for 4 years now that the only possible cause of this molten steel was thermite or some similar chemical. and I've been telling you that this is a smoking gun which means beyond a shadow of a doubt that the buildings were sabotaged by forces unrelated to the jet airplanes that crashed into them. And you are now saying that there was no molten steel because molten steel could not have been caused by jet fuel and jet fuel is the only solution to the problem you think. I've said 'NO!!!!!' - there was thermite also and it was put there by the saboteurs who were in league with the terrorists. It is the only logical solution to the problem we're presented with. While I solve the problem and you say that I'm a liar you are busy denying that the evidence is the evidence.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
I hope for BAC's sake that he is not going back to LP. Goldi is horrible. Stay away from her BAC!!! Even a TREASONOUS QUEER! deserves better than to associate with her.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
If there was molten steel, then all of the other metals with lower melting points would probably have alloyed with it. Copper, tin, lead, bronze all melt at much lower temperatures than steel. A puddle of molten steel buried in construction debris would probably have other metals from conduits, nails, wirs and such melted in with it. The point is chooser's allegation that it was "metal" and not 100% pure virgin steel is just a diversion from the real issue.
.
If you are going to spin it, at least make an effort to hide the cheap crap. Christ Almighty. LOL!
This picture shows well that when a male has no heart, they say the Pledge of Allegiance with hand over stomach. ;-D [BAC #42] Was it steel? According to the above, the workers reported molten METAL. According to #38 and #40, posters reported you are a Treasonous FELLOW. Are you a FELLOW? Regarding the USS Liberty, I asked BAC if, "you support the 'right' of Israel to deliberately attack a U.S. Navy ship and kill 34 U.S. Navy men and wound 171 more, and shoot at lifeboats...." BAC responded that he had "No Opinion." Have you been able to nut up yet and form an opinion? Or do you still passionately cling to "No Opinion?" According to BAC, in my #33 "the workers reported molten METAL" and not steel. I will quote from it to see what it actually says. Perhaps 12 posts a day are more than BAC can handle. There are reports of molten steel beyond those cited by American Free Press. Most of these have come to light as a result of a research paper by Professor Steven E Jones, which has stimulated interest in the subject of molten steel at Ground Zero. * A report by Waste Age describes New York Sanitation Department workers moving "everything from beams to human remains." [2] A report on the Government Computer News website quotes Greg Fuchek, vice president of sales for LinksPoint Inc. as stating: A Messenger-Inquirer report recounts the experiences of Bronx firefighter "Toolie" O'Toole, who stated that some of the beams lifted from deep within the catacombs of Ground Zero by cranes were "dripping from the ." [4] A transcription of an audio interview of Ground Zero chaplain Herb Trimpe contains the following passage: It took me a long time to realize it and I found myself actually one day wanting to get back. Why? Because I felt more comfortable. I realized it was actually warmer on site. The fires burned, up to 2,000 degrees, underground for quite a while before they actually got down to those areas and they cooled off. 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. So this was the kind of heat that was going on when those airplanes hit the upper floors. It was just demolishing heat. [5] A report in the Johns Hopkins Public Health Magazine about recovery work in late October quotes Alison Geyh, Ph.D., as stating: A publication by the National Environmental Health Association quotes Ron Burger, a public health advisor at the National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, who arrived at Ground Zero on the evening of September 12th. Burger stated: An article in The Newsletter of the Structural Engineers Association of Utah describing an speaking appearance by Leslie Robertson (structural engineer responsible for the design of the World Trade Center) contains this passage: A member of the New York Air National Guard's 109th Air Wing was at Ground Zero from September 22 to October 6. He kept a journal on which an article containing the following passage is based. The book American Ground, which contains detailed descriptions of conditions at Ground Zero, contains this passage: A review of of the documentary Collateral Damage in the New York Post describes firemen at Ground Zero recalling "heat so intense they encountered rivers of ." [11]
Look what BeAChooser posted the other day over on Log Cabin .... #29. To: Muscle Butt (#17) I'm not really attacted to women, but I do like Goldi over on LP. I guess this is because she sort of looks like a guy. I have a fantasy about giving her a blow job. But don't take that to mean I'm gay. BeAChooser posted on 2007-04-15 09:12:00 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
he'll still come back and deny everything you've posted. i've never seen the likes of it. your effort may be wasted on him, but it's very appreciated by me and probably everyone else reading the thread.
he doesn't even have to open his mouth to show how dopey he is.
I thought you claimed to be a Summa Cum Laude? I now question that since I suspect most with such credentials would have readily understood that I was referring to the type of metal. Did they test that? But thermite or thermate bombs wouldn't keep burning for weeks and weeks. So that can't be what kept the temperatures high enough to keep the steel molten (assuming it was steel) throughout that time? So what was that source of heat? Right. ROTFLOL!
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
The TREASONOUS QUEER! is a complete idiot to ask that question. Because I was pointing that out to him 4 years ago. that the only POSSIBLE solution to this problem was that a chemical like thermite was continually interacting with the steel to keep it in a molten state. There was a time when BAC did accept the witness statements, the photographs etc showing tht the steel was in a liquid state weeks after the event. and the only possible thing that could've kept it in that molten state was a chemical like thermite. which means absoluteproof, a smoking gun showing sabotage unrelated to the jet fuel. and we showed him this 4 years ago. and he's just realizing its true and now he must deny that there was molten steel in order to support his conspiracy theory. but there was molten steel. and even the workers & firemen on the job site where they removed the debris were freely saying that there was molten steel even 4 & 5 weeks after the event. he's reduced to having to change the known facts in the equation to fit his conspiracy theory.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
BAC, they didn't have anything tested. they purposely avoided and prevented testing even. the steel sample that Stephen Jones tested was a sample that was smuggled off the job-site by a worker. the authorities were purposely not allowing any testing to be done. now I'd think they refer to it as molten steel because it looked like molten steel. and the structure of the building was primarilly steel. this is kind of like 'obvious to the casual observer' stuff that doesn't require testing for one to think that it was molten steel. was it molten aluminum because there was a lot of aluminum on the exterior of building? Well these molten steel pools were found in the interior of the pile. and aluminum will look different than steel.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
The sad part is that there is no scientific data available on the air contaminants at the 9-11 WTC. BAC screwed up by addressing the topic, but the long-lasting thermal signature poses as much a mystery as the two missing 9-11 aircraft. Those are two answers that I don't have.
well I wish you luck over at Log Cabin Club's discussion forum. If you like hanging out with Ralphie & Muscle Butt & Long-Joe or whatever his name is, and if you have this fantasy fixation for Goldi - well that's your business and I wish you luck. I just want to remind you that I told you the molten steel pools were a smoking gun 4 years ago. and you began to spam me like crazy with all kinds of ridiculous arguments. But you accepted that the molten steel pools were real because we showed you evidence of this. and now you've finally figured out (4 years later) that there couldn't have been any molten steel pools (or aluminum either you idiot) 4 weeks after the event unless a chemical was used to melt the steel and the chemical continually interacted. I know this because of my background in studying engineering at the university as I told you. and I realized this instantly and told everyone that it was a smoking gun. and you took 4 years to figure it out. and now in reaction to finally figuring it out you deny that the molten steel pools exist. That is why you are a TREASONOUS QUEER! I suppose if you want to continue having those exciting dates with Jeff Gannon as you told us, then you have to deny certain realities so that you can fit in politically with those Republican QUEERS! To be a Republican QUEER! is to be a TREASONOUS QUEER! by definition. and if it's your chosen lifestyle, then I say go for it. but how come you don't tell us whether you are the boy or the girl in these dates you have with Jeff Gannon and other Republicans apparently. Sure am glad Trace came on and confirmed this, I knew from the way you talked that you were TREASONOUS QUEER!, but Trace has confirmed it and now everyone knows.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Thank you for the kind words. BAC is a fun kind of guy. He will ignore or deny that another of his posts has been documented as nonsense. He really does not care. When I want to tweak him, I ask him about Jonathan Pollard or the USS Liberty or UN Resolutions that condemned Israel. The protocol his ilk follows does not allow him to respond or engage in argument on those subjects, or any subject that tends to cast Israel or Zionists in a bad light. It is sort of like sprinkling holy water on a vampire. "Be A Chihuahua" answers to some Big Dog who keeps him on a leash. There is a good vision of "Be A Chihuahua" - a little pipsqueak dog barking and making noise, and straining against his leash. His only accomplishment seems to be making noise and chihuahua poop.
Never mind that Jones is a physicist who spent the last 30 years looking at nothing but sub-atomic particles and cold fusion. Never mind that he's not a chemist or a metallurgist ... i.e., someone qualified to make such a determination. For the record, he didn't do tests that confirmed the material was molten steel (http://www.911myths.com/html/traces_of_thermate_at_the_wtc.html ). And his tests for the presence of thermite/thermate consisted of looking for the compounds associated with thermite/thermate. But guess what? Those compounds existed in the very structure of the WTC towers in large quantities. Thermite/thermate bombs didn't need to be present to detect them. Thermite/thermate bombs didn't need to be present to produce a situation where those types of reactions could occur. This fact is carefully examined in the following article by Dr Greening who, unlike Ex-Professor Jones, really is a chemist with metallurgical experience. http://www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf He doesn't rule out the possibility that aluminum related reactions occurred in the WTC rubble. On the contrary, he examines that possibility and finds that it was quite likely to have occurred. And he's not to first to suggest this. As noted in his article, "the idea that molten aluminum-thermite reactions may have been involved in the collapse of the Twin Towers is not new. It was first proposed by S. Ashley in an October 2001 article published in Scientific American. Ashley noted that the aviation fuel fires in the Twin Towers burned sufficiently hot to melt and even ignite the airliners". But Greening's work expands on that possibility, showing that "tinue to burn at high temperatures for weeks on end. As he concluded, "simply put, thermite-induced reactions WERE largely responsible for the destruction of the Twin Towers on that terrible September day in New York City -- but the fatal damage was NOT from deliberately planted thermite charges." But thermite bombs wouldn't keep burning for weeks and weeks. There is one of the fatal flaws in your thesis. Something else must have provided the heat to keep the steel (if that's what it was) molten throughout that time. What? I'm still waiting for an answer from you. No, I am not. I'm simply saying there's no definitive proof that the molten materials that were seen were steel. And that there are other ways that temperatures high enough to melt steel AND KEEP IT HOT could have been produced without resorting to thermite bombs and time-delayed thermite bombs. I'm saying that someone with the credentials of Dr Greening has a lot more credibility than someone with the credentials of Jones, when it comes to the chemical reactions that took place at the WTC site on 9/11 and thereafter.
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
I've already addressed Christopher Bollyn's claims and shown that much of what he claims simply isn't established fact. The fact is that several individuals he quotes in his out of context fashion, have made statements in technical reports and other venues that directly contradict what Bollyn claims they said. You wish to ignore what I posted about that, fine. Ignore it but I'm sure any visitor to 4um who chances upon this thread will grasp the significance of you ignoring the criticisms I leveled about that claim. I'm curious, what is a molten steel BEAM? Didn't 4um's very own Summa Cum Laude just get done telling us that if something is molten it is a liquid? And how did Greg Fuchek learn this? Was he told this? Did he see the steel beams himself? Has he the training to know if it was steel? And perhaps it was. SO WHAT? You apparently haven't grasped that I'm not arguing that there wasn't molten steel at the WTC site. I'm almost sure there was based on the number of reports of it ... but as far as I can tell none of them actually involved a test to make sure it was steel. Second, if you can't tell me what kept that steel molten for weeks and weeks after the collapse, your theory about thermite bombs collapsing the towers falls apart. Something else had to be producing that heat, and whatever that something else was eliminates the need for thermite bombs as an explanation of molten steel. So tell us, nolu_chan, what was that continuing source of heat?
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
Say, christine, do YOU have any clue what the continuing source of heat was that kept this molten steel you claim was at the WTC site in a molten state for weeks and weeks after the collapse of the towers? Or are you just playing cheerleader?
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
A "chemical like thermite"? Oh. So now you are postulating two different types of thermite related bombs in the WTC towers? One to burn quickly and cause the collapse and one to burn slowly over time and keep things hot. Now why would the folks who placed those bombs feel the need for this second type of thermite bomb, RJ? Or couldn't the chemical reactions Dr Greening discussed be the "chemical like thermite" you now see the need for? And if Dr Greening is right, then tell us why we need thermite to explain the molten steel in the first place?
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
That's false. The steel sample that Jones tested came from a "monument constructed primarily from structural steel from the WTC Towers located at Clarkson University in Potsdam, New York", ACCORDING TO JONES. You can confirm this by going to Jones' own talks on this subject. You like to make up things. Just like that claim of 60 + POOLS of molten steel in the basement of the Towers that you repeated over and over at LP. You made that up, didn't you? You make up the claim about being a Summa Cum Laude too?
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
I thought he was only supposed to have 10 posts. What is he doing with 15? 15 is too many. He will get obnoxious again.
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yex063_Fblk&search=thermite%20liquid%20nitrogen Youtube - Thermite vs. Liquid Nitrogen Thermite defeats liquid nitrogen. http://www.veronicachapman.com/checktheevidence/Thermite.htm side-by-side demo of molten metal falling from WTC-2, and a Thermite Reaction demonstration. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zu0a6eNw98A Yellow smoke emitted at ground level? Anybody have an explanation for this one? http://algoxy.com/psych/images/discussion_in_firehouse.mpg discussion in firehouse http://blog.lege.net/content/20060721_htm7.html 1. Molten Metal: Flowing and in Pools There are several published observations of molten metal in the basements of all three buildings, WTC 1, 2 (“Twin Towers”) and 7. For example, Dr. Keith Eaton toured Ground Zero and stated in The Structural Engineer, The existence of molten metal at Ground Zero was reported by several observers (see first photograph above), including Greg Fuchek: Sarah Atlas was part of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue and was one of the first on the scene at Ground Zero with her canine partner Anna. She reported in Penn Arts and Sciences, summer 2002, Notice that the molten metal (probably not steel alone; see discussion below) was flowing down in the rubble pile early on; so it is not the case that the molten metal pools formed due to subterranean fires after the collapses. A video clip provides further eyewitness evidence regarding this extremely hot metal at ground zero: http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video%20archive/red_hot_ground_zero_low_quality.wmv. The observer notes that the observed surface of this metal is still reddish-orange some six weeks after 9-11. This implies a large quantity of a metal with fairly low heat conductivity and a relatively large heat capacity (e.g., iron is more likely than aluminum) even in an underground location. Like magma in a volcanic cone, such metal might remain hot and molten for a long time -- once the metal is sufficiently hot to melt in large quantities and then kept in a fairly-well insulated underground location. Moreover, as hypothesized below, thermite reactions may well have resulted in substantial quantities (observed in pools) of molten iron at very high temperatures – initially above 2,000 °C (3,632 °F). At these temperatures, various materials entrained in the molten metal pools will continue to undergo exothermic reactions which would tend to keep the pools hot for weeks despite radiative and conductive losses. Any thermite cutter charges which did not ignite during the collapse would also contribute to the prolonged heating. Thus, molten metal was repeatedly observed and formally reported in the rubble piles of the WTC Towers and WTC 7, metal that looked like molten steel or perhaps iron. Scientific analysis would be needed to conclusively ascertain the composition of the molten metal in detail. I maintain that these observations are consistent with the use of high-temperature cutter-charges such as thermite, HMX or RDX or some combination thereof, routinely used to melt/cut/demolish steel. Thermite is a mixture of iron oxide and aluminum powder. The end products of the thermite reaction are aluminum oxide and molten iron. So the thermite reaction generates molten iron directly, and is hot enough to melt and even evaporate steel which it contacts while reacting. Here is the thermite-reaction equation for a typical mixture of aluminum powder iron oxide powder: 2Al + Fe2O3 = Al2O3 + 2Fe (molten iron), DH = - 853.5 kJ/mole. Thermite contains its own supply of oxygen and so the reaction cannot be smothered, even with water. Use of sulfur in conjunction with the thermite, for example in thermate, will accelerate the destructive effect on steel, and sulfidation of structural steel was indeed observed in some of the few recovered members from the WTC rubble, as reported in Appendix C of the FEMA report. (FEMA, 2002; see also, http://www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/index.html.) On the other hand, falling buildings (absent incendiaries such as thermite) have insufficient directed energy to result in melting of large quantities of metal; any particles of molten metal somehow formed during collapse will not coalesce into molten pools of metal! The government reports admit that the building fires were insufficient to melt steel beams -- then where did the molten metal pools come from? Metals expert Dr. Frank Gayle (working with NIST) stated: None of the official reports tackles this mystery. Yet this is evidently a significant clue to what caused the Towers and WTC 7 to collapse. So an analysis of the composition of the previously-molten metal is required by a qualified scientific panel. This could well become an experiment crucis. Prof. Thomas Eagar explained in 2001 that the WTC fires would NOT melt steel: In combustion science, there are three basic types of flames, namely, a jet burner, a pre-mixed flame, and a diffuse flame.... In a diffuse flame, the fuel and the oxidant are not mixed before ignition, but flow together in an uncontrolled manner and combust when the fuel/oxidant ratios reach values within the flammable range. A fireplace is a diffuse flame burning in air, as was the WTC fire. Diffuse flames generate the lowest heat intensities of the three flame types... The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1000 °C -- hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1500 °C." "But it is very difficult to reach [even] this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the best ratio... This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500 °C to 650 °C range [Cote, 1992]. It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke.... It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425 °C and loses about half of its strength at 650 °C [Cote, 1992]. This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse... The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable... Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650 °C fire." (Eagar and Musso, 2001; emphasis added.) ... Who can deny that liquid, molten metal existed at the WTC disaster? The yellow color implies a molten-metal temperature of approximately 1000 °C, evidently above that which the dark-smoke hydrocarbon fires in the Towers could produce. If aluminum (e.g., from the plane) had melted, it would melt and flow away from the heat source at its melting point of about 650 °C and thus would not reach the yellow color observed for this molten metal. Thus, molten aluminum is already ruled out with high probability. But molten iron with the characteristics seen in this video is in fact consistent with a thermite-reaction attacking the steel columns in the Tower, thus weakening the building just prior to its collapse, since thermite produces molten iron at yellow-to-white hot temperatures. (As some of the molten metal hits the side of the building in the video clip above, the white-hot interior is evidently exposed as the metal "splashes".) Also, the fact that the liquid metal retains an orange hue as it nears the ground (right photograph) further rules out aluminum, and suggests a mid-flight thermite reaction (typical of thermite). ... We also noted that while a steel pan holding the aluminum glowed red and then yellow hot, the molten aluminum inside retained its silvery-gray color, adding significantly to the evidence that the yellow-white molten metal dripping from the South Tower shortly before its collapse was NOT molten aluminum. (Recall also that the yellow color of the molten metal (video clip above) implies a temperature of approximately 1100 °C -- too high for the dark-smoke hydrocarbon fires burning in the building.) This is point worth emphasizing: aluminum has low emissivity and high reflectivity, so that in daylight conditions molten aluminum will appear silvery-gray, while molten iron (with its characteristic high emissivity) will appear yellow-white (at ~1100 °C) as observed in the molten metal dripping from the South Tower just before its collapse. ... THERMITE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite Types Black or blue iron oxide (Fe3O4), produced by oxidizing iron in an oxygen-rich environment under high heat, is the most commonly used thermite oxidizing agent because it is inexpensive and easily produced. Red iron(III) oxide (Fe2O3, commonly known as rust) can also be used to make thermite and yields a significantly more energetic reaction. Other oxides are occasionally used, such as in manganese thermite and chromium thermite, but only for highly specialized purposes. Both examples use aluminium as the reactive metal. In principle, any reactive metal could be used instead of aluminum. This is rarely done, however, because the properties of aluminium are ideal for this reaction. It is by far the cheapest of the highly reactive metals; it also forms a passivation layer making it safer to handle than many other reactive metals. The melting and boiling points of aluminum also make it ideal for thermite reactions. Its relatively low melting point (660°C, 1221°F) means that it is easy to melt the metal, so that the reaction can occur mainly in the liquid phase[1] and thus proceeds fairly quickly. At the same time, its high boiling point (2519°C, 4566°F) enables the reaction to reach very high temperatures, since several processes tend to limit the maximum temperature to just below the boiling point.[2] Such a high boiling point is common among transition metals (e.g. iron and copper boil at 2887 °C and 2582 °C respectively), but is especially unusual among the highly reactive metals (cf. magnesium and sodium which boil at 1090 °C and 883 °C respectively). Although the reactants are stable at room temperature, they burn with an extremely intense exothermic reaction when they are heated to ignition temperature. The products emerge as liquids due to the high temperatures reached (up to 2500 °C (4500 °F) with iron(III) oxide)—although the actual temperature reached depends on how quickly heat can escape to the surrounding environment. Thermite contains its own supply of oxygen and does not require any external source of air. Consequently, it cannot be smothered and may ignite in any environment, given sufficient initial heat. It will burn well while wet and cannot be extinguished with water. Small amounts of water will boil before reaching the reaction. If thermite is ignited underwater, the molten iron produced will extract oxygen from water and generate hydrogen gas in a single-replacement reaction. This gas may, in turn, burn by combining with oxygen in the air. Ignition Conventional thermite reactions require very high temperatures for initiation. These cannot be reached with conventional black-powder fuses, nitrocellulose rods, detonators, or other common igniting substances. Even when the thermite is hot enough to glow bright red, it will not ignite as it must be at or near white-hot to initiate the reaction. It is possible to start the reaction using a propane torch if done correctly, but this should never be attempted for safety reasons. The torch can preheat the entire pile of thermite which will make it explode instead of burning slowly when it finally reaches ignition temperature. Often, strips of magnesium metal are used as fuses. Magnesium burns at approximately the temperature at which thermite reacts, around 2500 K (4000 °F or 2204.44 °C). However, this method is notoriously unreliable: Magnesium itself is difficult to ignite, and in windy or wet conditions the strip may be extinguished. Also, magnesium strips do not contain their own source of oxygen so combustion cannot occur unless the magnesium strips are exposed to air. A significant danger of magnesium ignition is the fact that the metal is an excellent conductor of heat; heating one end of the ribbon may cause the other end to transfer enough heat to the thermite to cause premature ignition. Despite these issues, magnesium ignition remains popular amongst amateur thermite users, mainly because of its abundance and the fact that it can be easily obtained. The reaction between potassium permanganate and glycerine is used as an alternative to the magnesium method. When these two substances mix, a spontaneous reaction will begin, slowly increasing the temperature of the mixture until flames are produced. The heat released by the oxidation of glycerine is sufficient to initiate a thermite reaction. However, this method can also be unreliable and the delay between mixing and ignition can vary greatly due to factors such as particle size and ambient temperature. Apart from magnesium ignition, some amateurs also choose to use sparklers to ignite the thermite mixture. These reach the necessary temperatures and provide a sufficient amount of time before the burning point reaches the sample. However, not all sparklers work. Sparklers used for the ignition of thermite must contain a mixture of aluminium and an iron oxide themselves. This ensures that the reaction from the sparkler produces enough heat to ignite the thermite mixture. A stoichiometric mixture of finely powdered Fe(III) oxide and aluminum may be ignited using ordinary red-tipped book matches by partially embedding one match head in the mixture, and igniting that match head with another match, preferably held with tongs in gloves to prevent flash burns.
Yes, you have a habit of concentrating on the irrelevant and making believe you are asserting some relevant point rather than BeAChihuahua poop. As is typical of your DISHONEST crap, you stopped quoting just before the quote destroyed the non-point you wished to make. In BeAChihuahua #42, You very selectively quoted as follows: Let us examine a more complete quote of what I posted at #33: Although reports of molten steel are consistent with the persistent heat at Ground Zero in the months following the attack, we find the American Free Press report suspect for two reasons. First, Tully Construction was one of four companies awarded contracts by New York City's Department of Design and Construction to dispose of the rubble at Ground Zero, and CDI was subcontracted by Tully and was instrumental in devising a plan to recycle the steel. The involvement of Steve Tully and Mark Loizeaux in the destruction of the evidence of the unprecedented collapses would seem to disqualify them as objective reporters of evidence. Interestingly, CDI was also hired to bury the rubble of the Murrah Building in the wake of the Oklahoma City Bombing. That Loizeaux stood trial on charges of illegal campaign contributions casts further doubt on his credibility. A second reason to doubt this molten steel report is the fact that it has been used by Bollyn and others to support the dubious theory that the collapses were caused by bombs in the Towers' basements. While those that I quoted noted what Christopher Bollyn had reported, those that I quoted, had you continued to the sentence after where you deliberately stopped quoting, rendered their opinion that the American Free Press report of Christopher Bollyn was suspect for two reasons, and then they provided those reasons. You may address Christopher Bollyn all you want. I did not quote Christopher Bollyn, and those I did quote rendered their opinion that the Bollyn report was suspect and used a source of doubtful credibility. Of course, the fact that those I quoted do NOT rely on Christopher Bollyn, reduces your nonsense to the usual BAC poop.
Comments (72 - 157) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#32. To: Red Jones (#31)
(Edited)
#33. To: BeAChooser, robin, RickyJ (#12)
All the jet fuel did is start a very large fire that then burned very hot due to the type of material available to burn. Melting steel is not what caused the collapse of the towers.
http://www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/moltensteel.html
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 [3]
When I was there, of course, the remnants of the towers were still standing. It looked like an enormous junkyard. A scrap metal yard, very similar to that. Except this was still burning. There was still fire. On the cold days, even in January, there was a noticeable difference between the temperature in the middle of the site than there was when you walked two blocks over on Broadway. You could actually feel the heat.
Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel. [6]
Feeling the heat, seeing the molten steel, the layers upon layers of ash, like lava, it reminded me of Mt. St. Helen’s and the thousands who fled that disaster. [7]
As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running. [8]
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. [9]
... 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. [10]
* Most of the press reports compiled here were gathered by other researchers, including Matthew Everett, the author of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and 9/11: A Scandal Beyond What Has Been Seen Before; David Ray Griffin; and the author of posts such as this on georgewashington.blogspot.com.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. D-Day: NY Sanitation Workers' Challenge of a Lifetime, WasteAge.com, 4/1/02 [cached]
3. Handheld app eased recovery tasks, GCN.com, 9/11/02 [cached]
4. Recovery worker reflects on months spent at Ground Zero, Messenger-Inquirer.com, 6/29/02 [cached]
5. The Chaplain's Tale, RecordOnline.com , [cached]
6. Mobilizing Public Health, Johns Hopkins Public Health Magazine , [cached]
7. The scene at Ground Zero, NEHA.org , [cached]
8. WTC a Structural Success, SEAU News, , page 3
9. Ground Zero, 12/01 [cached]
10. American Ground, , page 32
11. Unflinching Look Among the Ruins, NYPost.com, 3/3/04
#34. To: Paul Revere (#14)
I'm referring to the poll taken by
#35. To: Destro (#34)
Well Jesus H. Christ - I am talking about this article and it's first claim.
#36. To: Paul Revere (#35)
#37. To: Destro (#36)
Do you accept as false Rense's claim that the govt said the steel beams melted? Then we can go from there - this survey was never mentioned by me and your attempt to introduce is is an attempt top skirt the issue.
#38. To: Paul Revere (#32)
Didn't BAC say he was only "experimenting" for a few years? ;)
#39. To: Trace21231 (#38)
(Edited)
#40. To: Trace21231, Paul Revere, BeAChooser (#38)
#41. To: Red Jones, ALL (#31)
Well the molten steel is reality.
#42. To: nolu_chan, Red Jones, ALL (#33)
Whether molten steel caused the collapse or not, what caused molten steel?
http://www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/moltensteel.html
Molten Metal
Workers Reported Molten Metal in Ground Zero Rubble
The most widely publicized report is one by American Free Press reporter Christopher Bollyn citing principals of two of the companies contracted to clean up Ground Zero. The president of Tully Construction of Flushing, NY, said he saw pools of "literally molten steel" at Ground Zero. Bollyn also cites Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition Inc. (CDI) of Phoenix, MD, as having seen molten steel in the bottoms of elevator shafts "three, four, and five weeks" after the attack.
#43. To: BeAChooser (#41)
Did any of those claiming they saw molten steel actually test it to be sure?
#44. To: Red Jones, All (#43)
#45. To: beachooser, nolu_chan, Robin, Minerva, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#41)
What continuing source of heat kept this supposed *steel* in a molten state for weeks and weeks after 9/11?
#46. To: beachooser, nolu_chan, Robin, Minerva, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#42)
#47. To: BeAChooser (#42)
Was it steel? According to the above, the workers reported molten METAL.
#48. To: BeAChooser (#42)
According to the above, the workers reported molten METAL. Were any actual tests done to determine what the molten material was? To confirm it was steel?
#49. To: SKYDRIFTER, BeAChooser (#44)
They deserve each other.
#50. To: Red Jones (#48)
#51. To: ... (#47)
It's not an animal, it's a dog!!
#52. To: christine (#51)
#53. To: BeAChooser, Red Jones, SKYDRIFTER, Trace21231, ..., christine (#42)
Corroborating Reports
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 [3]
When I was there, of course, the remnants of the towers were still standing. It looked like an enormous junkyard. A scrap metal yard, very similar to that. Except this was still burning. There was still fire. On the cold days, even in January, there was a noticeable difference between the temperature in the middle of the site than there was when you walked two blocks over on Broadway. You could actually feel the heat.
Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding . [6]
Feeling the heat, seeing the , the layers upon layers of ash, like lava, it reminded me of Mt. St. Helen’s and the thousands who fled that disaster. [7]
As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and was still running. [8]
Smoke constantly poured from the peaks. One fireman told us that there was still 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. [9]
... 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. [10]
#54. To: Red Jones (#49)
I hope for BAC's sake that he is not going back to LP. Goldi is horrible. Stay away from her BAC!!! Even a TREASONOUS QUEER! deserves better than to associate with her.
#55. To: nolu_chan (#53)
#56. To: christine (#55)
#57. To: Ferret Mike (#52)
#58. To: Red Jones, ALL (#43)
did they have it tested? you are an idiot. You don't have to test such a thing. You just have to look at 2 things - the color and the state of plasticity or liquidity. If it is orange or red, then it is near molten and far hotter than any jet fuel can get it. and if it is liquid it is actually molten which is an amazing thing.
You ask 'what continuing source of heat kept this steel in molten state for weeks'. I have been telling you for 4 years that the only possible thing that could've done that is thermite or thermate or some other chemical related bomb.
You are an idiot BAC.
#59. To: SKYDRIFTER (#45)
What continuing source of heat kept this supposed *steel* in a molten state for weeks and weeks after 9/11?
#60. To: BeAChooser (#58)
#61. To: Red Jones, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#59)
#62. To: BeAChooser, SkyDrifter, Diana (#58)
#63. To: christine (#55)
#64. To: Red Jones, ALL (#48)
Stephen Jones formerly of BYU did tests. and he found that the steel had thermite on it.
I have been telling you for 4 years now that the only possible cause of this molten steel was thermite or some similar chemical.
And you are now saying that there was no molten steel
#65. To: nolu_chan, ALL (#53)
According to BAC, in my #33 "the workers reported molten METAL" and not steel. I will quote from it to see what it actually says
There are reports of molten steel beyond those cited by American Free Press.
A report by Waste Age describes New York Sanitation Department workers moving "everything from molten steel beams to human remains."
A report on the Government Computer News website quotes Greg Fuchek, vice president of sales for LinksPoint Inc. as stating: 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
#66. To: christine, nolu_chan, Red Jones, ALL (#55)
he'll still come back and deny everything you've posted. i've never seen the likes of it. your effort may be wasted on him, but it's very appreciated by me and probably everyone else reading the thread.
#67. To: Red Jones, ALL (#59)
"What continuing source of heat kept this supposed *steel* in a molten state for weeks and weeks after 9/11? "
The TREASONOUS QUEER! is a complete idiot to ask that question. Because I was pointing that out to him 4 years ago. that the only POSSIBLE solution to this problem was that a chemical like thermite was continually interacting with the steel to keep it in a molten state.
#68. To: Red Jones, ALL (#60)
the steel sample that Stephen Jones tested was a sample that was smuggled off the job-site by a worker.
#69. To: Christine (#66)
(Edited)
Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
#70. To: BeAChooser, Christine, Red Jones (#65)
'They showed us many fascinating slides’ [Eaton] continued, '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’. (Structural Engineer, September 3, 2002, p. 6; emphasis added.)
For six months after Sept. 11, the ground temperature varied between 600 degrees Fahrenheit and 1,500 degrees, sometimes higher. “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,” Fuchek said. (Walsh, 2002)
'Nobody's going to be alive.' Fires burned and molten steel flowed in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet. (Penn, 2002; emphasis added.)
Your gut reaction would be the jet fuel is what made the fire so very intense, a lot of people figured that's what melted the steel. Indeed it did not, the steel did not melt. (Field, 2005; emphasis added.)
"The fire is the most misunderstood part of the WTC collapse. Even today, the media report (and many scientists believe) that the steel melted. It is argued that the jet fuel burns very hot, especially with so much fuel present. This is not true.... The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel.
#71. To: BeAChooser (#65)
I've already addressed Christopher Bollyn's claims and shown that much of what he claims simply isn't established fact.
The most widely publicized report is one by American Free Press reporter Christopher Bollyn citing principals of two of the companies contracted to clean up Ground Zero. The president of Tully Construction of Flushing, NY, said he saw pools of "literally molten steel" at Ground Zero. Bollyn also cites Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition Inc. (CDI) of Phoenix, MD, as having seen molten steel in the bottoms of elevator shafts "three, four, and five weeks" after the attack.
Reports of molten metal in the foundations of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers are frequently noted in literature of proponents of theories that the buildings were destroyed through controlled demolition. The most widely publicized report is one by American Free Press reporter Christopher Bollyn citing principals of two of the companies contracted to clean up Ground Zero. The president of Tully Construction of Flushing, NY, said he saw pools of "literally molten steel" at Ground Zero. Bollyn also cites Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition Inc. (CDI) of Phoenix, MD, as having seen molten steel in the bottoms of elevator shafts "three, four, and five weeks" after the attack.
.
.
.