990 replies to this topic

[Babe Ruth]

Well, no, Raptor, it needs to be disregarded because it contradicts the official story, that's all.

Just as the 911 Commission was "set up to fail", all efforts to discover the actual truth needs to be set up to fail.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 08 October 2012 - 09:05 PM, said:

Well, no, Raptor, it needs to be disregarded because it contradicts the official story, that's all.

Just as the 911 Commission was "set up to fail", all efforts to discover the actual truth needs to be set up to fail.

Considering that claims of 9/11 Truthers have been successfully refuted with facts and evidence, what more is there to say?

[RaptorBites]

Babe Ruth, on 08 October 2012 - 09:05 PM, said:

Well, no, Raptor, it needs to be disregarded because it contradicts the official story, that's all.

Just as the 911 Commission was "set up to fail", all efforts to discover the actual truth needs to be set up to fail.

No it does not.  It needs to be disregarded as it cannot hold to scruitny.

Are you willing to accept "evidence" that is indeed questionable of its authenticity.

Cause thats what it seems like.

[Babe Ruth]

It is YOU sir, who prefers NOT to scrutinize the molten metal, vaporized bodies, immense source of heat & energy, and reported explosions prior to the aircraft strike.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 09 October 2012 - 12:47 PM, said:

It is YOU sir, who prefers NOT to scrutinize the molten metal, vaporized bodies, immense source of heat & energy,....

But, you have been recently claiming that temperatures inside the WTC buildings were too low to weaken steel and now, you are changing course again!! Apparently, you are pushing your disinformation campaign for all to see. Check it out.

Quote

Babe Ruth, on 17 September 2012 - 02:48 PM, said:

Kevin Ryan and others pointed out early on that the temps were too low.  That's why he was fired--exposing the lie early on.  This is common knowledge in some circles, but is denied in other circles.  I'm going with Kevin Ryan and the others who analyzed the fires visible with the appropriate sensors.  Way too low, and way too short of duration to weaken steel.

Quote

...and reported explosions prior to the aircraft strike.

But, Rodriguez didn't initially say anything about explosions,  he said rumbling sounds.

Quote

Testimony of William Rodriguez

"We heard a loud rumble, then all of a sudden we heard another rumble like someone moving a whole lot of furniture," Rogriguez said.]

http://www.911myths...._rodriguez.html

  Let's watch and listen to this video and you will notice that there are no explosions prior to the impact of American 11, which simply means that someone made of the false story of explosions prior to impact.

Edited by skyeagle409, 09 October 2012 - 03:31 PM.

[RaptorBites]

Babe Ruth, on 09 October 2012 - 12:47 PM, said:

It is YOU sir, who prefers NOT to scrutinize the molten metal

You claim it was molten steel, MOLTEN STEEL is the CT's claim that evidence of thermite was used.

Thermite does not burn long enough to keep steel molten FOR DAYS/WEEKS/MONTHS.

Even if there was thermite used to keep that STEEL MOLTEN as you say it did, where is measurement of Aluminum oxide that conincides with the amount of thermite needed to weaken the steel core and also keep MOLTEN STEEL, molten for months?

Where is it?

Molten Steel theory cannot hold up to scruitny yet again.

Babe Ruth, on 09 October 2012 - 12:47 PM, said:

, vaporized bodies

Considering the amount of jet fuel and fires present that day, and the collapse of the twin towers, how else would a HUMAN body, take that amount of force?

Are you suggesting, that the human body is enough to withstand fire and millions of lbs of steel rfalling on it to remain intact?

Common sense told you that?

Babe Ruth, on 09 October 2012 - 12:47 PM, said:

immense source of heat & energy,

Yes, fires and a building collapsing outputs enough energy to cause extreme heat.

Didn't you learn that in physics class?

Friction can cause extreme heat in the right conditions.  Maybe you want to refresh your physics knowledge.

Babe Ruth, on 09 October 2012 - 12:47 PM, said:

and reported explosions prior to the aircraft strike.

We have already gone over this with your ross and furlong paper.

It did not hold up to scruitny.

Simple research on how FAA radar and crash time identification would have helped you in that instance BR.

[Q24]

RaptorBites, on 09 October 2012 - 06:35 PM, said:

You claim it was molten steel, MOLTEN STEEL is the CT's claim that evidence of thermite was used.

There is certainly strong corroborating eyewitness, photographic and scientific evidence of molten steel: -

http://www.unexplain...20#entry4415870

RaptorBites, on 09 October 2012 - 06:35 PM, said:

Thermite does not burn long enough to keep steel molten FOR DAYS/WEEKS/MONTHS.

Two options: -

• The melted steel was insulated by the debris pile and fires.
  
• Unreacted thermite ignited during the clean up operation.

RaptorBites, on 09 October 2012 - 06:35 PM, said:

Even if there was thermite used to keep that STEEL MOLTEN as you say it did, where is measurement of Aluminum oxide that conincides with the amount of thermite needed to weaken the steel core and also keep MOLTEN STEEL, molten for months?

As above, there did not need to be a constant thermite reaction for months to produce the observed molten steel.  Therefore, why should significant measurement of aluminium oxide exist?  There is certainly visual evidence of aluminium oxide – the white smoke (much lighter than the fires around it) produced by the WTC2 molten metal flow that began shortly prior to the collapse initiation.

RaptorBites, on 09 October 2012 - 06:35 PM, said:

Molten Steel theory cannot hold up to scruitny yet again.

Of course it can, and does – it is the leading answer, based on the evidence.

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 10 October 2012 - 08:55 PM, said:

There is certainly strong corroborating eyewitness, photographic and scientific evidence of molten steel: -

http://www.unexplain...20#entry4415870

Thermite doesn't leave behind molten steel days later.

Quote

Two options: -

• The melted steel was insulated by the debris pile and fires.
  
• Unreacted thermite ignited during the clean up operation

Nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. Ever wondered by thermite is not widely used by demolition companies?

Quote

Rethinking Thermite

Rethinking Thermite

http://www.debunking...om/thermite.htm

Quote

As above, there did not need to be a constant thermite reaction for months to produce the observed molten steel.

What molten steel? You mean the flashlight reflection which 9/11 conspiracist confused as molten steel?



And, take a look  here.

Edited by skyeagle409, 10 October 2012 - 09:53 PM.

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 10 October 2012 - 08:55 PM, said:

There is certainly strong corroborating eyewitness, photographic and scientific evidence of molten steel:..

.As above, there did not need to be a constant thermite reaction for months to produce the observed molten steel. -

Not by any means at all.

http://www.youtube.c...&v=OWpC_1WP8do#!

Quote

  Therefore, why should significant measurement of aluminium oxide exist?  There is certainly visual evidence of aluminium oxide – the white smoke (much lighter than the fires around it) produced by the WTC2 molten metal flow that began shortly prior to the collapse initiation.

Look at the photo and tell use why the molten material is not molten steel. What are the indicators that the material is not steel at all? A hint; The fascade of the WTC buildings is mostly of aluminum as was the case with the airframe of United 175. Look at those droplets at the bottom of the next photo.



The next photo is of an aluminum droplet taken from the fire of a C-141, which I witnessed that day.



Now, look at the next photo and tell us what you see.

[Q24]

skyeagle409, on 10 October 2012 - 09:14 PM, said:

Thermite doesn't leave behind molten steel days later.

Your unsupported opinion is worthless - you need to address each of the two options I gave (numbered 1. and 2. skyeagle).

skyeagle409, on 10 October 2012 - 09:14 PM, said:

Ever wondered by thermite is not widely used by demolition companies?

Thermite is not widely used (though has been used before and also been demonstrated to cut steel columns in isolated experiments) by commercial companies, because it is not the most efficient method of overt demolition.  Do you have a point here or are you wasting everyone’s time?

skyeagle409, on 10 October 2012 - 09:14 PM, said:

What molten steel? You mean the flashlight reflection which 9/11 conspiracist confused as molten steel?

No.

If I meant “the flashlight reflection” then I’d use those pictures.

I did not use those pictures.

I linked to a post of evidence for the existence of molten steel.

Please stop spamming the thread with irrelevance.

skyeagle409, on 10 October 2012 - 10:48 PM, said:

Not by any means at all.  

Why are you responding twice to the same post?  Why don’t you take the time to actually think about what you are saying and get it all down in one post?

skyeagle409, on 10 October 2012 - 10:48 PM, said:

Look at the photo and tell use why the molten material is not molten steel.

I’ve never said that the WTC2 molten metal flow is steel, so the whole rest of your post is a waste of space.

It actually has every appearance of a thermite reaction.

[Tesla II]

Guys you should drop this 11 years passed by and noone has ever came up with good conclusion about the events, maybe it was terorrists, maybe US military, maybe gov. but one thing is for sure every theory had mssing evidence or inconclusive information.

So there will ALWAYS be believers or sceptics on this topic no matter what...a neverending story..

[Babe Ruth]

RaptorBites, on 09 October 2012 - 06:35 PM, said:

You claim it was molten steel, MOLTEN STEEL is the CT's claim that evidence of thermite was used.

Thermite does not burn long enough to keep steel molten FOR DAYS/WEEKS/MONTHS.

Even if there was thermite used to keep that STEEL MOLTEN as you say it did, where is measurement of Aluminum oxide that conincides with the amount of thermite needed to weaken the steel core and also keep MOLTEN STEEL, molten for months?

Where is it?

Molten Steel theory cannot hold up to scruitny yet again.



Considering the amount of jet fuel and fires present that day, and the collapse of the twin towers, how else would a HUMAN body, take that amount of force?

Are you suggesting, that the human body is enough to withstand fire and millions of lbs of steel rfalling on it to remain intact?

Common sense told you that?



Yes, fires and a building collapsing outputs enough energy to cause extreme heat.

Didn't you learn that in physics class?

Friction can cause extreme heat in the right conditions.  Maybe you want to refresh your physics knowledge.



We have already gone over this with your ross and furlong paper.

It did not hold up to scruitny.

Simple research on how FAA radar and crash time identification would have helped you in that instance BR.

Bodies crushed by metal are simply torn apart Raptor, not vaporized.  Common Sense tells you that, AND science. The NYC coroner, or whatever his proper title, referred to the bodies as being vaporized.  I am merely citing his description.  Bodies burned by jetfuel do not vaporize sir.  Cremation ovens are much higher than the temps brought by jetfuel.

You're grasping at straws Raptor, and we both know it.  We both know how radar works, and I have already acknowledged and agreed with your point on that.  Desperation is not pretty.  You're grasping at straws.

I learned it 6 years ago or more--ain't no fun at all having to defend the government story, unless you're at one of Sky's christmas parties.

Unless you are really deep into denial, your posts indicate you have not scrutinized any of the evidence.  You grab a few worn out talking points and run them into the ground.  That is NOT rational public dialogue, it is a display of being in denial somehow or other.

You're grasping at straws, and we both know it.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 12 October 2012 - 06:40 PM, said:

Bodies crushed by metal are simply torn apart Raptor, not vaporized.  Common Sense tells you that, AND science. The NYC coroner, or whatever his proper title, referred to the bodies as being vaporized.

But wait, you have been saying that temperatures were too low to weaken steel and now look what you are posting.You  tend to trip over your own deception routines.

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 12 October 2012 - 12:21 PM, said:

Your unsupported opinion is worthless - you need to address each of the two options I gave (numbered 1. and 2. skyeagle).

Thermite is not widely used (though has been used before and also been demonstrated to cut steel columns in isolated experiments) by commercial companies, because it is not the most efficient method of overt demolition.  Do you have a point here or are you wasting everyone’s time?

Thermite can be used to take down towers and dismantle military weaponry, but thermite could not have taken down the WTC buildings. Do you know why? Do a bit of research and find out for yourself because I have used statements from demolition professionals who have dismissed 9/11 conspiracist claims with facts and evidence and you have failed to understand what they have said.

Quote

I’ve never said that the WTC2 molten metal flow is steel, so the whole rest of your post is a waste of space.

Convey your message to 9/11 conspiracist who have said the molten metal was steel.

Quote

It actually has every appearance of a thermite reaction.

That is not a thermite reaction. Do you know why that is not a thermite reaction?

[Babe Ruth]

Sky

Yes, the fires WERE insufficient to weaken steel.  That's rather the point sir.  Not hot enough to weaken steel.

And yet, one of the medical guys makes a public statement that many of the bodies were vaporized.  Not burnt, but VAPORIZED.

Obviously the problem has escaped your fine powers of perception, but that is nothing new really.

It is because of this little inconsistency that so many folks suspect some sort of special weapons were used.  Perhaps DEW, perhaps tactical nukes, but SOMETHING that can vaporize human bodies and generate enough heat to keep metal molten for weeks.

I don't know what it was Sky, but at least I am able to perceive the problem.  You?  Not so much.