1698 replies to this topic

[Stundie]

skyeagle409, on 13 February 2013 - 06:09 PM, said:

Impossible considering that temperatures were too low to melt steel.

You do not know the temperatures involved because none of the sources give an accurate picture of the temperatures.

40 years...and you are still being schooled......lol

They saw molten steel, so the temperatures must have been hot enough.

Unless you think the girders are aluminium?? lol

[Stundie]

monk 56, on 13 February 2013 - 06:11 PM, said:

I have to support Skyeagle 409 all the way here, there isn't the evidence for this type of conspiracy, my own thoughts are that the United States Government knew that something was going to happen in New York and Washington DC on 9/11, although i don't think they knew it was going to be so awful.  Perhaps they didn't apply security as they should have, being a democracy they had to fire up voters, for the aim was to invade countries like Iraq that in the end was found to have nothing to do with 11th September 2001, politics can be crazy!

Sorry but I thought Skyeagle was just fooling himself, looks like I was wrong...lol

[skyeagle409]

Stundie, on 13 February 2013 - 06:11 PM, said:

I'm sure with hypnotic repeating of spamantra trolling with an overdose of delusions, you think you could convince many people that with your expertise, you could polish a turd into a diamond.
But you are fooling no one..lol

Apparently, you are not getting the message that fire was responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings and that recorded temperatures were high enough to melt aluminum, but too low to melt steel.  

Quote

In the absence of temperatures under the rubble, so there are no laws broken.

Go back and read case histories of other fire incidents around the country where fires continued to smolder for days within the rubbles.

Quote

So either all the people who mentioned molten steel independently at different times at GZ are suffering from mass hallucination, or they actually saw molten steel.

He must have, considering there was no source to raise temperatures needed to melt steel,and remember, thermite alone could not have brought down the WTC buildings and I spelled out the specifics as to why thermite is not widely used by the demolition industry for demolition implosions.

RDX, which is much more effective than thermite, and yet the implosion process using RDX still requires that a building be structurally pre-weakened and the use of explosives to facilitate the implosion process, which takes many months. In the case of a bridge in Corpus Christi, TX, it took about half a year to prepare the bridge for demolition and that was at ground-level.

911 conspiracist got the wrong idea that thermite was capable of demolishing the WTC buildings which is not the case at all. Thermite cannot bring down buildings the size of the WTC towers.

Edited by skyeagle409, 13 February 2013 - 06:26 PM.

[skyeagle409]

Stundie, on 13 February 2013 - 06:12 PM, said:

You do not know the temperatures involved because none of the sources give an accurate picture of the temperatures.

40 years...and you are still being schooled......lol They saw molten steel, so the temperatures must have been hot enough.

They didn't see molten steel.

[skyeagle409]

Stundie, on 13 February 2013 - 06:13 PM, said:

Sorry but I thought Skyeagle was just fooling himself, looks like I was wrong...lol

You are wrong and have been since you began posting. Why were you unaware iron can burn for days and stored iron can start fires? BTW, did you know you can start fires using steel wool?

Edited by skyeagle409, 13 February 2013 - 06:30 PM.

[monk 56]

How many more posts or threads are going to be wasted on this debate, hell conspiratory people move on to stuff that isn't heavily disputed, in truth i do it very well, win the battles that people can't find an answer for, i'm weary of most threads dropping down a rabbit hole on this forum, hell find new information, win something another way.

[skyeagle409]

monk 56, on 13 February 2013 - 06:11 PM, said:

I have to support Skyeagle 409 all the way here, there isn't the evidence for this type of conspiracy, my own thoughts are that the United States Government knew that something was going to happen in New York and Washington DC on 9/11, although i don't think they knew it was going to be so awful.  Perhaps they didn't apply security as they should have, being a democracy they had to fire up voters, for the aim was to invade countries like Iraq that in the end was found to have nothing to do with 11th September 2001, politics can be crazy!

Thank you!

[RaptorBites]

Stundie, on 13 February 2013 - 06:12 PM, said:

You do not know the temperatures involved because none of the sources give an accurate picture of the temperatures.

40 years...and you are still being schooled......lol

How do you know the temperatures involved because none of the sources give an accurate picture of the temperatures?

Stundie, on 13 February 2013 - 06:12 PM, said:

They saw molten steel, so the temperatures must have been hot enough.

Have you ever stopped to think that all eye witness reports are not infallible?

Molten Steel could be the general description given because it is the most common description used for any molten substance.

Can you identify the make up of the 3 molten substances below?

Edited by RaptorBites, 13 February 2013 - 07:55 PM.

[Stundie]

skyeagle409, on 13 February 2013 - 06:28 PM, said:

They didn't see molten steel.

Yes they did and I'd rather trust the opinions of someone who was actually at GZ, rather than an internet warrior who can't distinguish the difference between reality and his imagination.....lol

[RaptorBites]

Stundie, on 13 February 2013 - 05:53 PM, said:

Neither are you..but you don't have to be a expert in metallurgy to recognise a molten steel girder.......lol

Funny, if a steel girder was to melt into a molten substance it is no longer a steel girder.

So technically, you would need to be an expert in metallurgy to know what the make up of a molten substance is, which does require testing.

Are you going to sit there and convince me that anyonecan look at a molten substance and with 100% accuracy say..."well that there USED to be a steel girder".

That is just too hilarious to even fathom.

Stundie, on 13 February 2013 - 05:53 PM, said:

You've got no counter evidence which shows what they saw anything other than steel, other than your opinions and so called expertise which both count for about 1 lira...lol

you have no evidence to prove the molten substance was steel, other than eye witness reports, which like I stated before, are not infallible.

[RaptorBites]

Stundie, on 13 February 2013 - 07:59 PM, said:

Yes they did and I'd rather trust the opinions of someone who was actually at GZ, rather than an internet warrior who can't distinguish the difference between reality and his imagination.....lol

There we go Stundie....

It is opinion now.....not fact?

[Stundie]

RaptorBites, on 13 February 2013 - 07:54 PM, said:

How do you know the temperatures involved because none of the sources give an accurate picture of the temperatures?

Your buddy thinks that he knows the temperatures, so maybe you should help him out?? If you are going to chime in and help your buddy out, at least address the arguments I have made rather than imaginary strawman arguments that I haven't.

I never claimed I know the temperatures involved, thats is the whole point!! lol

So if me and you both agree that none of the sources give an accurate picture of the temperatures, maybe you can explain it to Skyeagle that we can't state the temperatures were not hot enough to melt steel, when there is evidence from multiple eyewitnesses that there was molten steel.

RaptorBites, on 13 February 2013 - 07:54 PM, said:

Have you ever stopped to think that all eye witness reports are not infallible?

Of course I have...lol

The fact is that these people reported it at different times in different locations at GZ, so either they all hallucinated it or there was molten steel at GZ.

I know which one is more likely, do you?? lol

RaptorBites, on 13 February 2013 - 07:54 PM, said:

Molten Steel could be the general description given because it is the most common description used for any molten substance.

Yes it could be, but it more than likely it was molten steel.

There isn't a single person who claims there was molten aluminium, yet we are suppose except evidence from people who were not at GZ, who think they know better and that everyone else was mistaken.

RaptorBites, on 13 February 2013 - 07:54 PM, said:

Can you identify the make up of the 3 molten substances below?

Not from a photograph, but if I were to guess, the first one is aluminium but could be steel, the rest of them are all steel. If I was actually there, it probably wouldn't be to hard to work out especially as they cooled down.

However, a steel girder is only made from steel, an expert witnessed it. Making your point moot really. lol

[Stundie]

RaptorBites, on 13 February 2013 - 08:01 PM, said:

There we go Stundie....

It is opinion now.....not fact?

Yes, there opinion based on what they witnessed first hand...i.e. fact.

Not sure which part you didn't understand.....lol

[Stundie]

RaptorBites, on 13 February 2013 - 07:59 PM, said:

Funny, if a steel girder was to melt into a molten substance it is no longer a steel girder.

Where did he say it melted into a molten substance??

RaptorBites, on 13 February 2013 - 07:59 PM, said:

So technically, you would need to be an expert in metallurgy to know what the make up of a molten substance is, which does require testing.

No, that is panto debunking because numerous people at GZ said they saw molten steel including firefighters who would have cooled it down and been able to work out what they had just cooled down.

Its ain;t rocket science or mettallurgy, its common sense...lol

RaptorBites, on 13 February 2013 - 07:59 PM, said:

Are you going to sit there and convince me that anyonecan look at a molten substance and with 100% accuracy say..."well that there USED to be a steel girder".

Who said "that there used to be a girder."...lol

Its hilarious that you panto debunkers invent points or arguments which don't exist.......lol

RaptorBites, on 13 February 2013 - 07:59 PM, said:

That is just too hilarious to even fathom.

Not as hilarious as trying to fathom out how numerous witnesses who said they sat steel, actually saw aluminium......lol

RaptorBites, on 13 February 2013 - 07:59 PM, said:

you have no evidence to prove the molten substance was steel, other than eye witness reports, which like I stated before, are not infallible.

And you have EVEN LESS, that it was aluminium.....hahahahaha!!

Nothing at all other than some ridiculous internet warrior who claims he knows better..lol

[RaptorBites]

Stundie, on 13 February 2013 - 08:10 PM, said:

Your buddy thinks that he knows the temperatures, so maybe you should help him out?? If you are going to chime in and help your buddy out, at least address the arguments I have made rather than imaginary strawman arguments that I haven't.

I never claimed I know the temperatures involved, thats is the whole point!! lol

So exactly how are you so sure the temperatures were enough to melt steel?  

Stundie, on 13 February 2013 - 08:10 PM, said:

So if me and you both agree that none of the sources give an accurate picture of the temperatures, maybe you can explain it to Skyeagle that we can't state the temperatures were not hot enough to melt steel, when there is evidence from multiple eyewitnesses that there was molten steel.
Of course I have...lol

Can you answer my question Stundie.

Are eye witness accounts infallible....yes or no?

Stundie, on 13 February 2013 - 08:10 PM, said:

The fact is that these people reported it at different times in different locations at GZ, so either they all hallucinated it or there was molten steel at GZ.

So it goes from one extreme to another?  Hallucinations to Molten Steel?

Like I stated before, eye witness reports are not infallible, so if you prefer to take them at face value without any supporting evidence, be my guest. Seems like you are pretty damn well good at that.

Stundie, on 13 February 2013 - 08:10 PM, said:

I know which one is more likely, do you?? lol
Yes it could be, but it more than likely it was molten steel.

There isn't a single person who claims there was molten aluminium, yet we are suppose except evidence from people who were not at GZ, who think they know better and that everyone else was mistaken.

Of course Stundie.  Nobody claimed molten aluminium, so obviously that makes it molten steel.  Right.

Walk around with a picture of molten aluminium (2nd photograph I posted) and ask 10 random people what it is a picture of.  I can guaruntee you that more than 70% will say molten steel.

I have already done this at work, not 1 person stated molten aluminium....do you know why Stundie?  

Stundie, on 13 February 2013 - 08:10 PM, said:

Not from a photograph, but if I were to guess, the first one is aluminium but could be steel, the rest of them are all steel. If I was actually there, it probably wouldn't be to hard to work out especially as they cooled down.

So now you move goal posts Stundie?  Cooled down?  

What those people at GZ claimed they saw was a molten substance, which by all means is not cooled down.

Since you were not able to discern the differences of all 3 photographs. I will answer that for you.

1. Molten Glass
2. Molten Aluminium
3. Molten Steel

So apperantly occular identification of molten substances is not accurate, is that fair enough?  So yes, even with an expert, tests would be needed to figure out the make up of a molten substance.

A non-expert's opinion on what that molten substance is based on visual identification is not infallible.

Stundie, on 13 February 2013 - 08:10 PM, said:

However, a steel girder is only made from steel, an expert witnessed it. Making your point moot really. lol

So if an expert were to look at a molten substance is he/she able to discern that it's previous form prior to melting was a girder?

I doubt that Stundie.

Unless of course, your claim is the expert saw a steel girder melt in front of his/her eyes.  
Which at that point, I would love for you to cite your evidence.