1766 replies to this topic

[skyeagle409]

joc, on 17 January 2013 - 11:24 PM, said:

  The entire scenario made sense...not completely...but after living through Vietnam and a lot of other things...I don't trust my government farther than I can throw the Statue of Liberty.

Believe me, I have had my time with the government as well.

[joc]

acidhead, on 18 January 2013 - 07:28 AM, said:

I'm with ya there bro. I didn't live through Vietnam but I hear what your saying.  Most people do but they don't admit it without laughing about it.

I should clarify the Vietnam statement...I was not part of the Vietnam War...it was over in '73 and I graduated High School in '75.  I didn't realize that it sounded like I was saying I was a Vietnam War Veteran...I'm not...but I lived through those times.

[joc]

skyeagle409, on 18 January 2013 - 07:46 AM, said:

Believe me, I have had my time with the government as well.

I'm sure you have.  I was thinking about what you said about the 'sound' of explosives.  I remember a place I used to work and from time to time some joker would fill a plastic back with acetylene gas and light a fuse.  Damn that was loud.  You are right.  There is no way there were any explosions.

[joc]

DONTEATUS, on 18 January 2013 - 04:56 AM, said:

YEah ! another educated soul welcome to the show "joc" Skyeagle has no reason to tell it any other way but the way it happened !
Two Jets brought these master pieces down ! Sad but True ! But in the End we will over come the Terror !

You are more of an optimist than I am on overcoming Terror.  We don't seem to have much resolve to do anything as a Nation anymore except twiddle our Tweet Thumbs like chickens in a thunderstorm.

[Babe Ruth]

Joc

Good posts.  I'm curious if you have seen the video and heard the comments of firemen who reported "secondary explosions" and were very emphatic about it?

Sorry I can't provide a link to it, but it's two firemen sitting on a bench, covered with dust, one screwing with his radio, bloodied, talking to the camera person, and describing with much emphasis "secondary explosions."

Also, have you an opinion about the source, cause, reasons for, the molten steel present in the bowels of the buildings for many weeks?

[joc]

Babe Ruth, on 18 January 2013 - 02:09 PM, said:

Joc

Good posts.  I'm curious if you have seen the video and heard the comments of firemen who reported "secondary explosions" and were very emphatic about it?

Sorry I can't provide a link to it, but it's two firemen sitting on a bench, covered with dust, one screwing with his radio, bloodied, talking to the camera person, and describing with much emphasis "secondary explosions."

Also, have you an opinion about the source, cause, reasons for, the molten steel present in the bowels of the buildings for many weeks?

I think I have seen that actually.  It sounds familiar anyway.  About the intense fire burning for weeks at the bottom of the rubble:
I live in the country and it is not uncommon for people to burn large piles of trash.  I remember a couple of years ago on a property down the block from where I live, there was an old frame house with a brick chimney.  They bulldozed down several trees and bulldozed down the little house and set them on fire.  That thing burned forever!  About three weeks after the fire was 'out' it blazed up suddenly in the middle of the night.  It took a long time for that fire to actually end because all of the coals were so hot at the bottom.  I suppose the intense fire at the bottom of WTC was the same.  Keep in mind that buildings like that are not 'all' concrete...among the concrete debris there were desks and carpet and wood trim and furniture and bodies and plastics of every kind imaginable.

I watched a video shot from inside a house that was intentionally set on fire to show how quickly fires spread.  In this video a chair was set on fire.  Within less than two minutes, the entire house was an inferno.  That is because the fire from the chair ignited the curtains which greatly increased the blaze...as the curtain and the chair became engulfed with flames, they were also releasing toxic and flammable gases which hit the ceiling and then rolled across the ceiling filling the whole room.  After about 45 seconds, those flammable gases literally exploded and the entire house was ablaze.   The point is, that all the contents of the building was reduced to a massive pile of flammable materials, mixed together with concrete, which allowed plenty of room for ventilation.  The fires from the top floors continued to burn and just like a cigarette on a couch, smoldered and smoldered, until the surrounding materials ignited, then the inferno began to blaze.  Once that happened, it was just like coals under a campfire...the wood burns and turns to coals and those coals take a while to die out.  That's my take on the fires at the bottom.

Edited by joc, 18 January 2013 - 03:49 PM.

[Q24]

flyingswan, on 17 January 2013 - 05:43 PM, said:

When did I say it was a detailed study?  I pointed out that there was a follow-up and I quoted the abstract.  The original claim was yours.  You obviously haven't seen the paper either, why did you claim it wasn't?

Flyingswan: “When your claim of "no detailed study" is proved false...”
http://www.unexplain...75#entry4622336

Was it not your implication that there exists a detailed study?

Not that you have seen it, by your own admittance, if it exists  

I can claim that it is not a detailed study and raise the complaints that I did on the basis of the conclusion/excerpts available alone because it is quite apparent that the experiment carried out did not reflect conditions or results of the WTC debris pile, nor that alternative mechanisms were considered.

You however cannot counter-claim that the study is detailed, or make the statement that the experiment “will produced the observed result if left to continue” without reading the paper or ability to answer such outstanding fundamental questions about the level of corrosion as requested in my post #108.

flyingswan, on 17 January 2013 - 05:43 PM, said:

In the original paper, which up to now you have accepted, it says that the steel shows evidence of temperatures "approaching 1000 deg C".  What on earth makes you think that this is in any way consistent with thermite?

I’ve always accepted the original paper and still do – in particular the suggestion that the phenomenon could have begun prior to the collapses is a good one, unusual to see in the official reports, but I guess it was difficult to ignore since engineers at Fresh Kills had already raised the possibility (it's actually in a video somewhere, where they find this thinned steelwork and remark that it could have contributed to the collapses).

Your question is easily answered.  The steel analysed was obviously not the area that had been fully corroded/melted (i.e. impossible since that was where the holes and missing steel existed); it was from the periphery or residual effect of where the thermite contacted the steelwork and did most damage and therefore is found to have experienced lower temperatures.  Had the material from the holes and missing steel been tested (you remember all those reports of molten, specifically steel), it may well have been found to have experienced thermite-like temperatures.

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 18 January 2013 - 04:43 PM, said:

  The steel analysed was obviously not the area that had been fully corroded/melted (i.e. impossible since that was where the holes and missing steel existed); it was from the periphery or residual effect of where the thermite contacted the steelwork...

Disinformation Alert!!
There was no evidence that thermite was involved, much less attached to anything during the WTC attacks. What you are doing is spewing disinformation because no one found evidence that thermite was responsible.

Quote

  Had the material from the holes and missing steel been tested (you remember all those reports of molten, specifically steel), it may well have been found to have experienced thermite-like temperatures.

Thermite does not leave behind molten steel for days. Check it out.

*snip*

Edited by Saru, 18 January 2013 - 09:44 PM.
Video removed due to copyright

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 18 January 2013 - 02:09 PM, said:

Joc

Good posts.  I'm curious if you have seen the video and heard the comments of firemen who reported "secondary explosions" and were very emphatic about it?

People in Hawaii were emphatic about hearing explosions as well, that is, until it was determined the sounds they heard were buildings in the process of breaking up during a storm. I have seen many explosions and I did not see any explosion either, and no explosions were detected on seismic monitors in the local area. In other words, there is no evidence that bombs were used to bring down the WTC buildings, much less nuclear bombs, which you suggested, and never was.

Quote

Sorry I can't provide a link to it, but it's two firemen sitting on a bench, covered with dust, one screwing with his radio, bloodied, talking to the camera person, and describing with much emphasis "secondary explosions."

And, firemen saying that the explosions they heard were crashing elevators.

Quote

Also, have you an opinion about the source, cause, reasons for, the molten steel present in the bowels of the buildings for many weeks?

Thermite does not leave behind molten steel for days, much less weeks.   You need to understand what exothermic reaction of iron is all about because it is very clear that you do not.

Edited by skyeagle409, 18 January 2013 - 06:34 PM.

[skyeagle409]

joc, on 18 January 2013 - 12:31 PM, said:

I'm sure you have.  I was thinking about what you said about the 'sound' of explosives.  I remember a place I used to work and from time to time some joker would fill a plastic back with acetylene gas and light a fuse.  Damn that was loud.  You are right.  There is no way there were any explosions.

Can you imagine the sound and effects of thousands upon thousands of pounds of explosives going off? Check it out.



This is what it takes to prepare a building



It took many months of pre-weakening and preparation just to collapse a bridge in Corpus Christi, TX. for demolition, and that was done at, or near ground level.

[Babe Ruth]

joc, on 18 January 2013 - 03:48 PM, said:

I think I have seen that actually.  It sounds familiar anyway.  About the intense fire burning for weeks at the bottom of the rubble:
I live in the country and it is not uncommon for people to burn large piles of trash.  I remember a couple of years ago on a property down the block from where I live, there was an old frame house with a brick chimney.  They bulldozed down several trees and bulldozed down the little house and set them on fire.  That thing burned forever!  About three weeks after the fire was 'out' it blazed up suddenly in the middle of the night.  It took a long time for that fire to actually end because all of the coals were so hot at the bottom.  I suppose the intense fire at the bottom of WTC was the same.  Keep in mind that buildings like that are not 'all' concrete...among the concrete debris there were desks and carpet and wood trim and furniture and bodies and plastics of every kind imaginable.

I watched a video shot from inside a house that was intentionally set on fire to show how quickly fires spread.  In this video a chair was set on fire.  Within less than two minutes, the entire house was an inferno.  That is because the fire from the chair ignited the curtains which greatly increased the blaze...as the curtain and the chair became engulfed with flames, they were also releasing toxic and flammable gases which hit the ceiling and then rolled across the ceiling filling the whole room.  After about 45 seconds, those flammable gases literally exploded and the entire house was ablaze.   The point is, that all the contents of the building was reduced to a massive pile of flammable materials, mixed together with concrete, which allowed plenty of room for ventilation.  The fires from the top floors continued to burn and just like a cigarette on a couch, smoldered and smoldered, until the surrounding materials ignited, then the inferno began to blaze.  Once that happened, it was just like coals under a campfire...the wood burns and turns to coals and those coals take a while to die out.  That's my take on the fires at the bottom.

Right, I understand what you're saying.

However, in the case of WTC, about 2 weeks after the event, a device was brought in to sample the air and fumes and smoke coming from those hot fires.  College professors involved.  What they revealed was micro particles of metals, and they only way those particles can be released into the air is if the metals involved are at their boiling point.  Yes, boiling point.

So that means that the metals down below were boiling, for about 6 weeks.

In your opinion, do you think wood trim and furniture and plastics could generate such heat?

Do you realize that the medical examiner is on record stating that many of the human bodies he found, the remains, had been essentially vaporized, as though they had been cremated?  Do you know the temperature necessary to cremate the human body?

I don't remember the number, but it's very high.

Jetfuel, wood trim, office furnishings and the like CANNOT generate such temperatures.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 18 January 2013 - 09:17 PM, said:

However, in the case of WTC, about 2 weeks after the event, a device was brought in to sample the air and fumes and smoke coming from those hot fires.  College professors involved.  What they revealed was micro particles of metals, and they only way those particles can be released into the air is if the metals involved are at their boiling point.  Yes, boiling point.

You have to remember that thermite does not leave behind molten metal for days. Look up exothermic reactions of iron.

Quote

So that means that the metals down below were boiling, for about 6 weeks.

So, what does that have to do with thermite? Check this out.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Iron Burns

"Sometimes a big load of iron in a ship can get hot. The heat can even set other materials on fire. That’s because the iron is rusting, which means it is burning very, very slowly. Iron rusts in a chemical reaction called oxidation. That means the iron reacts with oxygen gas from the air. Oxidation is the chemical reaction that occurs when anything burns in air. Like most oxidations, rusting gives off heat."

http://www.debunking...m/ironburns.htm

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your post is another prime example of how 911 conspiracist spew disinformation and false claims in contrary to facts and evidence, and remember, there was no way that nuclear bombs brought down the WTC buildings as you've suggested.

Edited by skyeagle409, 18 January 2013 - 09:44 PM.

[joc]

Babe Ruth, on 18 January 2013 - 09:17 PM, said:

Right, I understand what you're saying.

However, in the case of WTC, about 2 weeks after the event, a device was brought in to sample the air and fumes and smoke coming from those hot fires.  College professors involved.  What they revealed was micro particles of metals, and they only way those particles can be released into the air is if the metals involved are at their boiling point.  Yes, boiling point.

So that means that the metals down below were boiling, for about 6 weeks.

In your opinion, do you think wood trim and furniture and plastics could generate such heat?

Do you realize that the medical examiner is on record stating that many of the human bodies he found, the remains, had been essentially vaporized, as though they had been cremated?  Do you know the temperature necessary to cremate the human body?

I don't remember the number, but it's very high.

Jetfuel, wood trim, office furnishings and the like CANNOT generate such temperatures.

Oh, I certainly think they can.  Fires burning for a long time like that don't have a constant temperature...the more stuff catches fire the hotter the fire gets, the hotter the fire gets, the more stuff catches on fire, heats up the metal, heats up the metal...we are talking incredible temperatures which of course could melt steel...and please...bodies cremated...how about spontaneous combustion where all is left of the body is a small pile of ashes?

[joc]

Babe Ruth, on 18 January 2013 - 09:17 PM, said:

Right, I understand what you're saying.

However, in the case of WTC, about 2 weeks after the event, a device was brought in to sample the air and fumes and smoke coming from those hot fires.  College professors involved.  What they revealed was micro particles of metals, and they only way those particles can be released into the air is if the metals involved are at their boiling point.  Yes, boiling point.

So that means that the metals down below were boiling, for about 6 weeks.

In your opinion, do you think wood trim and furniture and plastics could generate such heat?

Do you realize that the medical examiner is on record stating that many of the human bodies he found, the remains, had been essentially vaporized, as though they had been cremated?  Do you know the temperature necessary to cremate the human body?

I don't remember the number, but it's very high.

Jetfuel, wood trim, office furnishings and the like CANNOT generate such temperatures.

[coldboiled]

I've been reading up on this 9/11 thing and just following what's going on. I think I should step in with the fire thing. Here's an example. Take a 44 gallon drum. Cut a hole in the bottom. Put a grate a third of the way up. Throw in wood or any fuel and light. Watch the drum glow red. Now cut smaller holes thus increasing the speed of the air flow like a gas torch or a furnace and watch the drum melt. Can it not be said the same principles apply to the fire in the rubble? Correct me if I'm wrong that's just my two cents worth. In saying that it does seem to me some involvement wether it be the knowledge of the pending attacks or anything of the sort would warrant further investigations in honor of those lost.   Hope my post makes sense I suck at spell check.