Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
W Tell

Talking Turkey

901 posts in this topic

Right... and they're all made of that special composite "Unobtanium-Q24™" which makes them impervious to damage. :rolleyes:

Some of those "protective covers" seem to be nothing more than coloured rubber dust caps on the terminals (second picture) which I highly doubt were designed to protect the terminals from anything much beyond dust.

I’ve never heard of it. I think that the protective covers are plastic or rubber. It messes terribly with the circuit when they get in the way you know. And that was just for one problem. Anyhow, I’m giving benefit of the doubt. We can assume that chaotic aircraft crash damage and random ceiling collapse pries those covers off the batteries and collaborate nicely to provide a solid connection between the positive and negative terminals. Events like that are always possible somewhere in the realm of oddity and coincidence which the official theories rely upon. It doesn’t matter - the battery is still not going to “spew molten metal around” as flyingswan would like to imagine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyhow, I’m giving benefit of the doubt. We can assume that chaotic aircraft crash damage and random ceiling collapse pries those covers off the batteries and collaborate nicely to provide a solid connection between the positive and negative terminals. Events like that are always possible somewhere in the realm of oddity and coincidence which the official theories rely upon. It doesn’t matter - the battery is still not going to “spew molten metal around” as flyingswan would like to imagine.

Egads, pick a position on the meaningfulness of 'coincidence' and stick with it please. When we're talking about an unknown advisor who correctly guesses the collapse time of WTC7 within a 2 hour window, there's no way that's just coincidental; when a molten flow pours out in the middle of a building fire in the spot where both plane wreckage and a room-filled of heavy, lead-filled power supplies just happen to be, so heavy the floor had to be reinforced to safely support it, this is merely a coincidence. Because you personally find the idea that instead, an unspecified, unevidenced, shielded, remote-controlled side-cutting thermite device of unknown size that currently, and I'm seriously not exaggerating or saying this to mock you, exists only in your and other truther's imagination as far as I can tell, to be the explanation with the greater likelihood. You find it entirely feasible that this device when dislodged by the plane impact did not either trigger the activation of the thermite reaction nor damage whatever receiver this unknown device had installed enabling it to be detonated remotely? Here's what you replied with earlier, ha, "it appears the shielding was enough to protect it in this case.". Well then, "it appears that perhaps the required electrical events with the batteries actually did occur and caused the molten flow", that was easy. (Except I would also add, 'or perhaps it was something else')

And you're drawing these detailed conclusions and ruling out possibilities based on a video of a molten flow coming out a window. Am I correct that you believe that to be steel coming out the window? Where is the steel coming from, the outer columns of the WTC? If so, you find it likely that this dislodged thermite charge just happened to end up close enough to one of these and angled the correct way to cut and melt that steel? Wouldn't the charge/cutter need to be mounted to whatever it's cutting to be effective? Don't know if we'll ever know since there is no example of this device to compare it to, which is, bewilderingly and I do say inconsistently, not an issue to you for some reason.

In all I cannot see how the UPS batteries have any hope of creating the effect observed of the WTC2 molten metal flow and neither is it best fit to the features previously described.

I don't really find the 'features' argument that compelling. The coloration is not only consistent with non-steel metals, it would be naive to think that we are getting an accurate color from the video clip. Your lack of flame and dark smoke rely on you being able to see into the building or be able to see it in the video if it was being produced. As far as light smoke, you tell me first how you have ruled out all other explanations for it, which will be tough to do given how little information we have to go on. The location favors a non-demolition explanation, we have both plane debris and batteries there. The timing we've covered, this is only unusual if we first beg the question that this was a demoltion in the first place. I don't know why you find the sporadic nature unusual, welcome to chaotic events. Yes your flow kinda matches a thermite reaction, but we don't know if that resemblance is superficial; how many other possibilities are there and what is your expertise that enables you to even determine and evaluate them? Remember, 'we don't know' does not favor your position.

If you still believe otherwise then please set up a rack of batteries, light and sustain a bonfire under them (as much jet fuel as you like permitted) and throw as much metal debris at it as you like… you will never get a significant/observable quantity of 1,000oC+ molten metal spewing out. I’ll even waive points 1 and 2 - forget throwing metal debris; you can short the batteries deliberately - you still won’t get the effect. I’d do it myself but prefer not to waste my time - apparently flyingswan deduced the same when challenged also.

Gah, this one is just really straining my snarkiness levees. Yes of course, this experiment will exhaust all possibilities as it's a perfect parallel to a fiery, plane damaged room of power supplies. It kinda sounds like you're setting a standard here, let's see you apply it first. You appear to be saying, and are certainly implying throughout, that unless someone can demonstrate the detailed specifics of exactly how this flow occurred, in the face of a large amount of missing detail, you are justified in believing it unfeasible. Well then, demonstrate your device and show me how it can cut a large steel beam laterally, withstand the incredible energies of a plane collision and subsequent explosion, and still have operating electronics for the remote control detonation after being struck with enough force to dislodge it from a steel beam it must have been thoroughly mounted to. And then, once we've cleared that hurdle and actually demonstrated that such a device is feasible, we can get to the minor task of actually seeing if there's any evidence it was actually used and is the cause of this flow. Otherwise I am justified in believing it unfeasible, right? And likewise should have you nowhere near evaluating your position as the 'best' or 'likely' one if you are being consistent. My apologies if this is a strawman, but I have trouble seeing this absurd request in any other light. I've read several proposals now for this flow, and almost all of them seem to realize and acknowledge how little data there is and how much is unknown about what exactly was going on in the building by the flow. But only you seem to be trying to use this fact, invalidly IMO, against all theories except your own.

Thanks to you and swan for the links to the past discussions about the flow, those were interesting reads. There was one point of swan's that I don't know if you really addressed or I may be misunderstanding your point. If you agree that a battery can vaporize from these shorts, including the lead (boiling temperature - 1750 C), what is so unlikely about the possible production of molten metal? What happens to the lead in adjacent batteries when this short occurs, wouldn't they melt being next to that much heat?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Egads, pick a position on the meaningfulness of 'coincidence' and stick with it please. When we're talking about an unknown advisor who correctly guesses the collapse time of WTC7 within a 2 hour window, there's no way that's just coincidental; when a molten flow pours out in the middle of a building fire in the spot where both plane wreckage and a room-filled of heavy, lead-filled power supplies just happen to be, so heavy the floor had to be reinforced to safely support it, this is merely a coincidence.

I think I recall stating this already on the thread but allow me go through the logic again. Obviously coincidences can and do happen - I think that when the answer ‘coincidence’ is relied upon so frequently, only then may it be more accurately described as a pattern and take on meaning. Is one or a few apparent coincidences meaningful? Probably not. Are many apparent coincidences meaningful? Quite possibly. To paraphrase psychiatrist Carl Jung: “When coincidences pile up, one cannot help being impressed - for the greater the number of terms in such a series, the more improbable it becomes.” In this way alone the official story is improbable in the extreme. I hope this explains how I judge the meaningfulness of ‘coincidence’.

Also I don’t think the fact that the molten metal flow came from the vicinity of a UPS (which could not create the observation anyhow) is a noteworthy coincidence in the first place. Before you were even aware of the UPS, or at least mentioned it, you claimed it must be coincidence in my theory that the molten metal flow came from where the plane debris was located. This tells me that you would frame it as coincidence everytime, wherever that flow came from, or however you think it created. Whether there was or was not a UPS in the vicinity doesn’t change anything in your argument – so how important is the coincidence?

Because you personally find the idea that instead, an unspecified, unevidenced, shielded, remote-controlled side-cutting thermite device of unknown size that currently, and I'm seriously not exaggerating or saying this to mock you, exists only in your and other truther's imagination as far as I can tell, to be the explanation with the greater likelihood.

You may not be saying that to mock me, but the list of features you mention, through your perception of their unlikelihood and characterization as ‘imagination’, is intended to discredit the demoltion charge, no? Oh wow... ‘side-cutting’...

[media=]

[/media]

You find it entirely feasible that this device when dislodged by the plane impact did not either trigger the activation of the thermite reaction nor damage whatever receiver this unknown device had installed enabling it to be detonated remotely? Here's what you replied with earlier, ha, "it appears the shielding was enough to protect it in this case.". Well then, "it appears that perhaps the required electrical events with the batteries actually did occur and caused the molten flow", that was easy. (Except I would also add, 'or perhaps it was something else')

Where your argument here fails is that survival of a thermite charge and trigger is quite feasible - it is well known that aircraft ‘black boxes’ can survive a crash, and I can take my argument for the demolition charge unit/casing to that level of survivability if need be. On the other hand, batteries have not been shown to have the desired effect of creating the molten metal flow.

Am I correct that you believe that to be steel coming out the window? Where is the steel coming from, the outer columns of the WTC? If so, you find it likely that this dislodged thermite charge just happened to end up close enough to one of these and angled the correct way to cut and melt that steel? Wouldn't the charge/cutter need to be mounted to whatever it's cutting to be effective? Don't know if we'll ever know since there is no example of this device to compare it to, which is, bewilderingly and I do say inconsistently, not an issue to you for some reason.

No, not steel, it appears to be some form of thermite reaction, commonly iron oxide and aluminium, though other elements can be used in their place.

I don't really find the 'features' argument that compelling.

Usually the single answer which can explain all observation is most compelling.

Yes your flow kinda matches a thermite reaction

When you say ‘kinda’ it implies a vague resemblence. How could the flow appear more of a match to thermite?

Gah, this one is just really straining my snarkiness levees. Yes of course, this experiment will exhaust all possibilities as it's a perfect parallel to a fiery, plane damaged room of power supplies. It kinda sounds like you're setting a standard here, let's see you apply it first. You appear to be saying, and are certainly implying throughout, that unless someone can demonstrate the detailed specifics of exactly how this flow occurred, in the face of a large amount of missing detail, you are justified in believing it unfeasible.

I’m not asking for a recreation, that would be unreasonable. I’d only like an experiment or example or some sort of precedent to reasonably demonstrate it is possible for a battery to “spew molten metal around”, preferably a match to the molten metal flow observed. All we have so far is a handwaving response - “Ah batteries did it” – where I don’t know of any battery to have ever created the effect before. Of course there are many examples of thermite which create the effect.

Well then, demonstrate your device and show me how it can cut a large steel beam laterally, withstand the incredible energies of a plane collision and subsequent explosion, and still have operating electronics for the remote control detonation after being struck with enough force to dislodge it from a steel beam it must have been thoroughly mounted to. And then, once we've cleared that hurdle and actually demonstrated that such a device is feasible, we can get to the minor task of actually seeing if there's any evidence it was actually used and is the cause of this flow. Otherwise I am justified in believing it unfeasible, right?

Not really, because the technology comprising the devices is quite mundane, only pieced together in an unusual way.

Thanks to you and swan for the links to the past discussions about the flow, those were interesting reads. There was one point of swan's that I don't know if you really addressed or I may be misunderstanding your point. If you agree that a battery can vaporize from these shorts, including the lead (boiling temperature - 1750 C), what is so unlikely about the possible production of molten metal? What happens to the lead in adjacent batteries when this short occurs, wouldn't they melt being next to that much heat?

Either the energy rapidly overloads the battery/components and it vaporises with an explosion, or the energy builds gradually and the battery/components melt at a lower temperature. Both result in destruction of the battery, circuit and ability to continue generating energy. To create the near white hot 1,000oC+ temperature observed of the molten metal flow we need the battery to vaporise, rather than melt and cease working at 300-400oC. However, if the battery vaporises then there is no concentration of molten metal. Let’s say that some level of vaporisation occurs and passes heat to adjacent components or batteries – just how efficient will that transfer be in the midst of an explosion? It’s going to cause fire and destruction rather than a large quantity of molten metal at the temperature observed. So in all, it is possible to create molten metal, but I see no possibility of the quantity and temperature observed. And here we are talking about a single battery in the chain initially failing or vaporising (I can’t accept there are no fuses or weak points within the circuit), yet by my estimate we need over 20 such batteries to fully liquefy all of the lead far beyond its melting point to produce the estimated 200kg molten metal flow. I do remember previously labelling this the ‘chain-reaction battery-bomb’ theory and now I remember why – a more convoluted and poor fitting theory is hard to find. I don’t see how it can work to produce the desired effect.

I have looked and found examples of batteries creating rapid external temperatures in excess of 1,000oC without fully liquefying the material and it is always short lived after the melted component disconnects the circuit and the element cools rapidly. This is nothing like we see of the WTC2 flow which maintains a molten state for a long duration, throughout the expulsions... like a thermite charge would be expected to.

Can you more specifically explain the process that you imagine? How exactly might the short be created in the first place (and remember it was not during the impact but 7 minutes prior to the collapse)? Is the heat generated internal or external to the battery? What happens when the first battery or shorting element fail and the circuit ceases to generate further energy? How on Earth do we end up with this large quantity and duration of molten metal which releases sporadically from the building?

Edited by Q24

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh wow... ‘side-cutting’...

As you know well, that demo raises a lot of questions. Is the device actually a sort of shaped charge? How big would the device be if you scaled it up to cut a WTC column? Seeing it appears to work explosively, how loud would it be? Would a column that was supported above as well as below fall like that or just settle and re-weld itself?

I’d only like an experiment or example or some sort of precedent to reasonably demonstrate it is possible for a battery to “spew molten metal around”, preferably a match to the molten metal flow observed. All we have so far is a handwaving response - “Ah batteries did it” – where I don’t know of any battery to have ever created the effect before.

It's happened since, last year in fact:

  • (1) The NAS battery system is made up of 40 battery modules. In one of these modular batteries, which are made up of 384 battery cells, 1 battery cell was faulty. That battery cell had a breach and leaked hot molten material.
  • (2) This molten material flowed over the sand filler portion between blocks inside the battery module, causing a short between battery cells in an adjoining block.
  • (3) Because there was no fuse installed between the battery cells that shorted, the short circuit current flowed continuously and emitted heat, which destroyed a number of other battery cells, which in turn caught on fire. This fire spread to the whole battery module in question.
  • (4)The combustion of the particular battery module released flames and hot molten material that melted battery cell casings inside battery modules installed above and below, causing the fire to spread further.

http://www.ngk.co.jp.../2012/0607.html

Edited by flyingswan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

can anyone find a video/image example of a car battery melting and producing a thermite-lilke flow ?

there have been millions of car crashes/impacts. never heard of a yellow orange molten flow from a battery, let alone one vaporising.

what does it tell you that NIST's lead wtc "investigator" Sunder lied in a radio interview claiming the flow was silver in colour? it tells me he knows the significance of the actual orange-yellow colour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As you know well, that demo raises a lot of questions. Is the device actually a sort of shaped charge? How big would the device be if you scaled it up to cut a WTC column? Seeing it appears to work explosively, how loud would it be? Would a column that was supported above as well as below fall like that or just settle and re-weld itself?
you are well aware of Jon Cole's experiments because I showed them to you years ago when you claimed it was impossible for thermite to cut horizontally. you are asking questions whose answers you know do not support your position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As you know well, that demo raises a lot of questions. Is the device actually a sort of shaped charge? How big would the device be if you scaled it up to cut a WTC column? Seeing it appears to work explosively, how loud would it be? Would a column that was supported above as well as below fall like that or just settle and re-weld itself?[/size]

It’s a thermite charge. It cuts horizontal. It’s an example of how simple it is. Your other questions have been addressed in previous discussion, but as Little Fish said, you keep repeating them even after the answers are provided; maintaining that mundane concepts are impossible in your non-progressive thinking and being proven wrong repeatedly. For all your confusion, the concept of a thermite charge is very simple.

It's happened since, last year in fact:

  • (1) The NAS battery system is made up of 40 battery modules. In one of these modular batteries, which are made up of 384 battery cells, 1 battery cell was faulty. That battery cell had a breach and leaked hot molten material.
  • (2) This molten material flowed over the sand filler portion between blocks inside the battery module, causing a short between battery cells in an adjoining block.
  • (3) Because there was no fuse installed between the battery cells that shorted, the short circuit current flowed continuously and emitted heat, which destroyed a number of other battery cells, which in turn caught on fire. This fire spread to the whole battery module in question.
  • (4)The combustion of the particular battery module released flames and hot molten material that melted battery cell casings inside battery modules installed above and below, causing the fire to spread further.

http://www.ngk.co.jp.../2012/0607.html

A sodium-sulfur battery which operates at 300oC+ maintaing the sodium in a molten state in normal usage anyhow, leaked hot molten material? Wow. Why am I not impressed? I suppose you are going to come back with a lithium battery next? Why not just use a nuclear bomb as an example and declare, ‘ha that’s what lead-acid batteries can do!’ Nice try but given the dissimilarities between your example and the WTC2 case, in battery specification and effect, and giving benefit of the doubt that you didn't try to deceive us on purpose, this is quite embarrassing for you.

:lol:

can anyone find a video/image example of a car battery melting and producing a thermite-lilke flow ?

there have been millions of car crashes/impacts. never heard of a yellow orange molten flow from a battery, let alone one vaporising.

That is a good question. It’s a wonder the vaporisation of whole cars isn’t a regular occurrence what with the frequency of road crashes and vehicles containing the ‘unimaginable thermal effects’ of lead-acid batteries. But no. Apparently requesting precedent like that is too specific a demand for evidence of the theory.

what does it tell you that NIST's lead wtc "investigator" Sunder lied in a radio interview claiming the flow was silver in colour? it tells me he knows the significance of the actual orange-yellow colour.

Yes that one was weird – like Gross denying any evidence of molten steel, or Bush/Cheney claiming they never linked Iraq to 9/11. All demonstratable falsehoods intended to reshape and avoid the clear facts.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

can anyone find a video/image example of a car battery melting and producing a thermite-lilke flow ?

there have been millions of car crashes/impacts. never heard of a yellow orange molten flow from a battery, let alone one vaporising.

what does it tell you that NIST's lead wtc "investigator" Sunder lied in a radio interview claiming the flow was silver in colour? it tells me he knows the significance of the actual orange-yellow colour.

It certainly cools to silver as it falls, a similar colour to the aluminium cladding of the tower.

capture7.jpg

you are well aware of Jon Cole's experiments because I showed them to you years ago when you claimed it was impossible for thermite to cut horizontally. you are asking questions whose answers you know do not support your position.

And the same questions apply to his demos as well. How big, how loud, would it work on an element that was part of a structure?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s a thermite charge. It cuts horizontal. It’s an example of how simple it is. Your other questions have been addressed in previous discussion, but as Little Fish said, you keep repeating them even after the answers are provided; maintaining that mundane concepts are impossible in your non-progressive thinking and being proven wrong repeatedly. For all your confusion, the concept of a thermite charge is very simple.

If you think any of my questions were answered, dream on.

A sodium-sulfur battery which operates at 300oC+ maintaing the sodium in a molten state in normal usage anyhow, leaked hot molten material? Wow. Why am I not impressed? I suppose you are going to come back with a lithium battery next? Why not just use a nuclear bomb as an example and declare, ‘ha that’s what lead-acid batteries can do!’ Nice try but given the dissimilarities between your example and the WTC2 case, in battery specification and effect, and giving benefit of the doubt that you didn't try to deceive us on purpose, this is quite embarrassing for you.

You didn't specify the type of battery, in your words "any battery" - yet another goal-post shift. The incident certainly shows your claims about the damage not spreading through a battery bank are incorrect. All three types of battery are known to pose risks when shorted, and car batteries are no exception.

"I have seen molten lead fly out of exploding batteries"

http://www.upcraft.it/archives/528

And other examples:

http://www.thechargi...taxi-crash.html

http://www.sfltimes....8623&Itemid=185

http://www.ehow.com/...es-explode.html

Yes that one was weird – like Gross denying any evidence of molten steel.

What evidence of molten steel? Plenty of molten metal, no indication that any of it was steel.

You just love making these claims, but you never back them up.

Edited by flyingswan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s a thermite charge

No evidence of thermite was found in the rubble of the WTC buildings. :no: Is it of any surprise why colleagues of Steven Jones have distanced themselves from him after his false thermite claim was made?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you think any of my questions were answered, dream on.

The questions have been addressed to the degree that we know there is no barrier to the use of thermite charges in the WTC demolitions. If you wanted a copy of the specifications for the actual thermite charges then you should have supported an investigation.

You didn't specify the type of battery, in your words "any battery" - yet another goal-post shift. The incident certainly shows your claims about the damage not spreading through a battery bank are incorrect. All three types of battery are known to pose risks when shorted, and car batteries are no exception.

You are the one widening the goalposts to include unrelated examples. The three types of battery are very different. I merely reset the focus to relevant examples, which I would have thought it obvious to provide without me needing to say. Also I have not claimed that damage will not spread through a battery bank – I said in post #654 that it’s going to “cause fire and destruction” to adjacent cells. What is it with your constant strawman arguments? A sure indicator of a weak position.

The first link vaguely supports your claim that lead-acid batteries can “spew molten metal around”, so well done, though it does not meet my challenge of providing a match to the WTC2 molten metal flow. The other three links provide nothing new, only reaffirm that batteries can explode and/or catch fire which we already knew.

What evidence of molten steel? Plenty of molten metal, no indication that any of it was steel.

You just love making these claims, but you never back them up.

The evidence for molten steel has been provided time and time again: -

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

The eyewitnesses specifically describe “molten steel”, in a number of cases sourced directly from steel structural elements of the buildings. There is photographic evidence showing large portions of the steelwork melted and corroded. There is further physical evidence and observations of studies which cite the presence of molten steel. That you suddenly take on a peculiar bias of what constitutes ‘evidence’ and reasonable ‘indication’ is your own mental issue, not one of reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No evidence of thermite was found in the rubble of the WTC buildings. Is it of any surprise why colleagues of Steven Jones have distanced themselves from him after his false thermite claim was made?

As they say, absence of evidence [in the debris pile] is not evidence of absence – especially in this case where the debris pile was not fully investigated and evidence of thermite never sought. This issue was covered in a peer-reviewed civil engineering journal paper authored by an independent physicist, chemist and mechanical engineer: -

14. Search for Explosive or Thermite Residues

From a NIST FAQ: [Question: ]
“Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."
[Answer: ]
NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel”
.

We agree; there is no evidence that NIST tested for residues of thermite or explosives. This is another remarkable admission. Probing for residues from pyrotechnic materials including thermite in particular, is specified in fire and explosion investigations by the NFPA 921 code:

“Unusual residues might remain from the initial fuel. Those residues could arise from thermite, magnesium, or other pyrotechnic materials.”

Traces of thermite in residues (solidified slag, dust, etc) would tell us a great deal about the crime and the cause of thousands of injuries and deaths. This is standard procedure for fire and explosion investigations. Perhaps NIST will explain why they have not looked for these residues? The code specifies that fire-scene investigators must be prepared to justify an exclusion.

NIST has been asked about this important issue recently, by investigative reporter Jennifer Abel:

Abel:
"..what about that letter where NIST said it didn't look for evidence of explosives?”
Neuman [spokesperson at NIST, listed on the WTC report]:
"Right, because there was no evidence of that."
Abel:
"But how can you know there's no evidence if you don't look for it first?"
Neuman:
"If you're looking for something that isn't there, you're wasting your time... and the taxpayers’ money."

The evident evasiveness of this answer might be humorous if not for the fact that NIST’s approach here affects the lives of so many innocent people. We do not think that looking for thermite or other residues specified in the NFPA 921 code is “wasting your time."

In addition, this type of investigation supported by NIST’s own former Chief of the Fire Science Division: -

"There are good people there [at NIST] and they can do a good job. But what I also thought they would do is to enlist the service of the ATF [bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives], which has an investigation force and a laboratory of their own for fire. And I thought they would put people out on the street and get gumshoe-type information. What prevented all of this? I think it’s the legal structure that cloaks the Commerce Department and therefore NIST. And so, instead of lawyers as if they were acting on a civil case trying to get depositions and information subpoenaed, those lawyers did the opposite and blocked everything.
"

Whilst the official investigation did not attempt to seek evidence of thermite, there is other wider evidence and indication of its presence such as in the WTC2 molten metal flow and molten metal in the debris pile, both discussed.

So you see skyeagle, it’s a flawed and weak appeal that you are making – keep up the ‘good work’.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The questions have been addressed to the degree that we know there is no barrier to the use of thermite charges in the WTC demolitions. If you wanted a copy of the specifications for the actual thermite charges then you should have supported an investigation.

As I expected, no answer to my questions.

You are the one widening the goalposts to include unrelated examples. The three types of battery are very different. I merely reset the focus to relevant examples, which I would have thought it obvious to provide without me needing to say. Also I have not claimed that damage will not spread through a battery bank – I said in post #654 that it’s going to “cause fire and destruction” to adjacent cells. What is it with your constant strawman arguments? A sure indicator of a weak position.

So when you said " I do remember previously labelling this the ‘chain-reaction battery-bomb’ theory and now I remember why – a more convoluted and poor fitting theory is hard to find. I don’t see how it can work to produce the desired effect" you were not actually meaning that? The Japanese case was unquestionably a chain reaction in a battery bank.

The first link vaguely supports your claim that lead-acid batteries can “spew molten metal around”, so well done, though it does not meet my challenge of providing a match to the WTC2 molten metal flow. The other three links provide nothing new, only reaffirm that batteries can explode and/or catch fire which we already knew.

So you are now admitting that batteries are dangerous and can produce molten lead? You are just quibbling about how dangerous they might be in the unknown conditions of the fire in WTC2?

The evidence for molten steel has been provided time and time again: -

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

The eyewitnesses specifically describe “molten steel”, in a number of cases sourced directly from steel structural elements of the buildings. There is photographic evidence showing large portions of the steelwork melted and corroded. There is further physical evidence and observations of studies which cite the presence of molten steel. That you suddenly take on a peculiar bias of what constitutes ‘evidence’ and reasonable ‘indication’ is your own mental issue, not one of reality.

Just read down from the post you linked for my previous dismissal of those claims:

You bring up these eyewitness reports, but there is no way an eyewitness or a photograph can determine if dripping molten metal is steel or something else. There are no temperature measurements that confirm molten steel. Just because there is molten metal dripping off a steel beam, it doesn't mean the metal is steel. Pull a steel beam out of a pool of molten aluminium and it will drip molten aluminium. You drip water after you get out of the bath, doesn't mean you are made of ice.

It is hardly unreasonable of me to expect you to produce some evidence that is specific to molten steel rather than some other material, neither is it unreasonable of me to expect you to stop deliberately confusing melting and corrosion.

Edited by flyingswan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As they say, absence of evidence [in the debris pile] is not evidence of absence – especially in this case where the debris pile was not fully investigated and evidence of thermite never sought. This issue was covered in a peer-reviewed civil engineering journal paper authored by an independent physicist, chemist and mechanical engineer: -

14. Search for Explosive or Thermite Residues

From a NIST FAQ: [Question: ]
“Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."
[Answer: ]
NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel”
.

We agree; there is no evidence that NIST tested for residues of thermite or explosives. This is another remarkable admission. Probing for residues from pyrotechnic materials including thermite in particular, is specified in fire and explosion investigations by the NFPA 921 code:

“Unusual residues might remain from the initial fuel. Those residues could arise from thermite, magnesium, or other pyrotechnic materials.”

Traces of thermite in residues (solidified slag, dust, etc) would tell us a great deal about the crime and the cause of thousands of injuries and deaths. This is standard procedure for fire and explosion investigations. Perhaps NIST will explain why they have not looked for these residues? The code specifies that fire-scene investigators must be prepared to justify an exclusion.

NIST has been asked about this important issue recently, by investigative reporter Jennifer Abel:

Abel:
"..what about that letter where NIST said it didn't look for evidence of explosives?”
Neuman [spokesperson at NIST, listed on the WTC report]:
"Right, because there was no evidence of that."
Abel:
"But how can you know there's no evidence if you don't look for it first?"
Neuman:
"If you're looking for something that isn't there, you're wasting your time... and the taxpayers’ money."

The evident evasiveness of this answer might be humorous if not for the fact that NIST’s approach here affects the lives of so many innocent people. We do not think that looking for thermite or other residues specified in the NFPA 921 code is “wasting your time."

In addition, this type of investigation supported by NIST’s own former Chief of the Fire Science Division: -

"There are good people there [at NIST] and they can do a good job. But what I also thought they would do is to enlist the service of the ATF [bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives], which has an investigation force and a laboratory of their own for fire. And I thought they would put people out on the street and get gumshoe-type information. What prevented all of this? I think it’s the legal structure that cloaks the Commerce Department and therefore NIST. And so, instead of lawyers as if they were acting on a civil case trying to get depositions and information subpoenaed, those lawyers did the opposite and blocked everything.
"

Whilst the official investigation did not attempt to seek evidence of thermite, there is other wider evidence and indication of its presence such as in the WTC2 molten metal flow and molten metal in the debris pile, both discussed.

So you see skyeagle, it’s a flawed and weak appeal that you are making – keep up the ‘good work’.

No, it wasn't flawed in that respect and they saw no need to look for explosives. After all, there was no explosions seen in the videos nor on audio and once again, seismic monitors did not detect explosions, so why waste time, money, and effort to look for explosives when there was no explosive evidence in the first place?

Why would anyone use thermite to demolish a building the size of the WTC towers when RDX is more effective than thermite? In fact, why do you think demolition companies use RDX in conjunction with other explosives such as dynamite and structual pre-weakening rather than thermite?

In addition:

NIST found that the condition of the steel in the wreckage of the towers does not provide conclusive information on the condition of the building before the collapse and concluded that the material coming from the South Tower was moltenaluminum from the plane, which would have melted at lower temperatures than steel. NIST also pointed out that cutting through the vertical columns would require planting an enormous amount of explosives inconspicuously in highly secured buildings, then igniting it remotely while keeping it in contact with the columns.

A test performed by the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center showed that conventional thermite was unable to melt a column much smaller than those used in the World Trade Center

My link

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

The structural engineering community rejects the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory. Its consensus is that the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings was a fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse, an explanation that does not involve the use of explosives

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%290733-9399%282007%29133%3A3%28308%29

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

Thomas Eagar, a professor of materials science and engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, also dismissed the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory. Eagar remarked, "These people (in the 9/11 truth movement) use the 'reverse scientific method.' They determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion

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

And now, this.

Regarding Jones' theory that nanothermite was used to bring down the towers, and the assertion that thermite and nanothermite composites were found in the dust and debris were found following the collapse of the three buildings, which was concluded to be proof that explosives brought down the buildings, Brent Blanchard, author of "A History of Explosive Demolition in America", states that questions about the viability of Jones' theories remain unanswered, such as the fact that no demolition personnel noticed any telltale signs of thermite during the eight months of debris removal following the towers' collapse.

Blanchard also stated that a verifiable chain of possession needs to be established for the tested beams, which did not occur with the beams Jones tested, raising questions of whether the metal pieces tested could have been cut away from the debris pile with acetylene torches, shears, or other potentially contaminated equipment while on site, or exposed to trace amounts of thermite or other compounds while being handled, while in storage, or while being transferred from Ground Zero to memorial sites.

http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf

Dave Thomas of Skeptical Inquirer magazine, noting that the residue in question was claimed to be thermitic because of its iron oxide and aluminum composition, pointed out that these substances are found in many items common to the towers. Thomas stated that in order to cut through a vertical steel beam, special high-temperature containment must be added to prevent the molten iron from dropping down, and that the thermite reaction is too slow for it to be practically used in building demolition. Thomas pointed out that when Jesse Ventura hired New Mexico Tech to conduct a demonstration showing nanothermite slicing through a large steel beam, the nanothermite produced copious flame and smoke but no damage to the beam, even though it was in a horizontal, and therefore optimal position.

Preparing a building for a controlled demolition takes considerable time and effort. The tower walls would have had to be opened on dozens of floors. Thousands of pounds of explosives, fuses and ignition mechanisms would need to be sneaked past security and placed in the towers without the tens of thousands of people working in the World Trade Center noticing. Referring to a conversation with Stuart Vyse, a professor of psychology, an article in the Hartford Advocate asks, "How many hundreds of people would you need to acquire the explosives, plant them in the buildings, arrange for the airplanes to crash [...] and, perhaps most implausibly of all, never breathe a single word of this conspiracy?"

World Trade Center developer Larry Silverstein said, "Hopefully this thorough report puts to rest the various 9/11 conspiracy theories, which dishonor the men and women who lost their lives on that terrible day."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Q

Thanks for the quote from Jung. That observation and dynamic is SO relevant here. :tu:

Certainly the OCT requires an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The evidence for molten steel has been provided time and time again: -

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

These are the photos you have posted as evidence of molten steel, but reality is, the following photos do not depict molten steel. :no: Do you know why?

626_molten_metal.jpg

johngross2.jpg

The eyewitnesses specifically describe “molten steel”, in a number of cases sourced directly from steel structural elements of the buildings. There is photographic evidence showing large portions of the steelwork melted and corroded.

Apparently, you didn't read what has been presented here.

Molten Metal

NIST concluded that the source of the molten material was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475 degrees Celsius and 640 degrees Celsius (depending on the particular alloy), well below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 degrees Celsius) in the vicinity of the fires. Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures and there is no visual indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning.

http://www.debunking...moltensteel.htm

And, the molten metal flowing from the WTC buildings was not molten steel at all, which the photo evidence proved beyond any doubt.

Moltenal.jpg

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As they say, absence of evidence [in the debris pile] is not evidence of absence – especially in this case where the debris pile was not fully investigated and evidence of thermite never sought. This issue was covered in a peer-reviewed civil engineering journal paper authored by an independent physicist, chemist and mechanical engineer: -

So you see skyeagle, it’s a flawed and weak appeal that you are making – keep up the ‘good work’.

Let's take a look at the civil engineering report. Apparently, you missed this before.

img_bannerlogo.jpg

Towers Weakened by Planes; Brought Down by Fire

WASHINGTON, D.C., MAY 1, 2002

Analysis by a team of 25 of the nation's leading structural and fire protection engineers suggests that the World Trade Center Towers could have remained standing indefinitely if fire had not overwhelmed the weakened structures, according to a report presented today at a hearing of the House Science Committee. That finding is significant, said W. Gene Corley, Ph.D., team lead for the ASCE/FEMA Building Performance Study Team, because extreme events of this type, resulting in such substantial damage, are generally not considered in building design, and the fact that these structures were able to successfully withstand such damage is noteworthy.

Only a handful of architects and engineers question the NIST Report, but they have never come up with an alternative. Although at first blush it may seem impressive that these people don't believe the NIST Report, remember that there are 123,000 members of ASCE(American Society of Civil Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 80,000 members of AIA(American Institute of Architects) who do not question the NIST Report.

http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/

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

ARCHITECT Magazine

The Magzine of the American Institute of Architects

The boardroom at the Washington, D.C., headquarters of the American Institute of Architects is an impressive place: Beautiful concentric wooden desks, with microphones in front of every seat, encircle a small central dais, offering the impression that important discussions are had here. “It feels like the United Nations,” a guest recently commented.

This room recently served as a peculiar venue for the 23rd stop on the 30-city “world premiere tour” of AIA member Richard Gage’s new film 9/11: Explosive Evidence—Experts Speak Out: Final Edition. Since 2006, Gage has been traveling all over the world under the banner of his organization, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth—an organization that has no affiliation with the AIA, express or otherwise—to preach the theory that the Twin Towers and 7 World Trade Center were actually brought down by explosives on September 11, 2001, and not the impact of two hijacked jetliners and the resulting fires and debris.

“I had to be dragged kicking and screaming into believing that our government and the Israeli government, the Israeli Mossad, could be responsible for the Twin Towers demolition,” one member of the DC chapter of 911truth.org declared from the AIA-emblazoned podium.

The accusations of Gage’s organization are the typical hodgepodge of pseudo-scientific claims. Along with other esoteric and debunked technical arguments, he says that melted steel was visible at the Ground Zero site proving that the fires burned too hot to have been caused by jet fuel; that because the buildings collapsed at “near free fall speed” there must have been a controlled demolition; and that traces of athermitereaction found in the World Trade Center debris proves that explosives were used.

All of Gage’s so-called evidence has been rebutted in peer-reviewed papers, by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, by the National Institute for Standards and Technology, by the American Society of Civil Engineers, by the 9/11 Commission Report, and, perhaps most memorably, by the 110-year-old engineering journal Popular Mechanics.

And, let's take another look here.

Why did NIST not consider a "controlled demolition"

NIST conducted an extremely thorough three-year investigation into what caused the WTC towers to collapse, as explained in NIST's dedicated Web site, http://wtc.nist.gov. This included consideration of a number of hypotheses for the collapses of the towers.

Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.

Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.

NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel. The responses to questions number 2, 4, 5 and 11 demonstrate why NIST concluded that there were no explosives or controlled demolition involved in the collapses of the WTC towers.

Separate from the WTC towers investigation, NIST researchers estimated that at least 0.13 pounds of thermite would be required to heat each pound of a steel section to approximately 700 degrees Celsius (the temperature at which steel weakens substantially). Therefore, while a thermite reaction can cut through large steel columns, many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been placed inconspicuously ahead of time, remotely ignited, and somehow held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building. This makes it an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled demolition.

Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC towers, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard that was prevalent in the interior partitions.

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

Did experts on the scene think WTC 7 was a controlled demolition?

Whom should we ask to find out if WTC 7’s collapse resembled an explosive demolition? How about asking the explosive demolition experts who were on the scene on 9/11? Brent Blanchard of Protec:

"Several demolition teams had reached Ground Zero by 3:00 pm on 9/11, and these individuals witnessed the collapse of WTC 7 from within a few hundred feet of the event.

We have spoken with several who possess extensive experience in explosive demolition, and all reported seeing or hearing nothing to indicate an explosive detonation precipitating the collapse.

As one eyewitness told us, "We were all standing around helpless...we knew full well it was going to collapse. Everyone there knew. You gotta remember there was a lot of confusion and we didn't know if another plane was coming...but I never heard explosions like demo charges.

We knew with the damage to the building and how hot the fire was, that building was gonna go, so we just waited, and a little later it went."

http://www.implosion... of 9-8-06 .pdf

https://sites.google...wtc7resembledac

Controlled Demolition Inc

D.H. Griffin Companies

Mazzocchi Wrecking

Gateway Demolition

Yannuzzi Demolition & Disposal

It was no secret that experts and even colleagues of Steven Jones have distanced themselves and it was clear that Steven Jones was unaware that such compounds were present in construction materials used in the WTC buildings.

To sum it up, no evidence was found that thermite was used. :no:

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I recall stating this already on the thread but allow me go through the logic again. Obviously coincidences can and do happen - I think that when the answer ‘coincidence’ is relied upon so frequently, only then may it be more accurately described as a pattern and take on meaning. Is one or a few apparent coincidences meaningful? Probably not. Are many apparent coincidences meaningful? Quite possibly. To paraphrase psychiatrist Carl Jung: “When coincidences pile up, one cannot help being impressed - for the greater the number of terms in such a series, the more improbable it becomes.” In this way alone the official story is improbable in the extreme. I hope this explains how I judge the meaningfulness of ‘coincidence’.

Q, I'm going to pull some points of yours from your last few posts. The main objection I have to your invocation of the 'coincidence' argument is that I don't think you are accounting for the sheer number of events and people from which you are drawing and trying to connect these coincidences; with that many disparate people and events that you have brought up of course there are going to be coincidences, it'd be unusual if they were not. But I think we have the same problem with 'coincidence' that we have with 'Occam', it's pretty much all subjective. There's no way that I know of to attach any kind of probability to these coincidences and say that their all occuring is likely or unlikely. Similar issue with Occam, it all comes down to what is deemed 'necessity'; I'm of the opinion so far, at least on the demolition, that there is no need for an explanation for what occurred beyond the possiblities provided by fire and damage alone. With that in mind, let me jump to this earlier comment:

Yes I do agree about the responsibilities of proving a case based on circumstantial evidence, with the qualifier that ‘ruling out’ and also ‘building up’ a case can be subjective. With this type of evidence there comes a point where we must use our own judgement to determine what is reasonable. I think that when we have many data points of circumstantial evidence explained in a single answer, i.e. a case of corroborating evidence, then it becomes a realistic theory. When that corroborating evidence also outweighs any alternative, fits ideally with ever wider bodies of corroborating evidence and makes perfect logical sense, then we are looking at a leading theory that to any rationale mind is all but proven.

I think what you would like to do is write-off circumstantial evidence altogether and thus largely discard the case for the 9/11 false flag. The only problem with applying that rule is that it also removes the official story, itself based on much circumstantial evidence. This leaves us nowhere other than asking, ‘what the heck happened on 9/11?’ whilst the unquestioning follow our leaders to war on a pretext. So for me, wanting answers rather than standing idly by, the best thing is to allow all evidence and build and compare each case ‘official story vs. false flag’… and there is only one clear winner.

With the above in mind, perhaps the way for err... non-believers... to take my argument for the false flag (what with circumstantial evidence being subjective - you and I clearly having different interpretations) is not as a standalone case but rather in a head-to-head with the official story or any other alternative version of events. Let’s see which theory has the most or strongest data points in its favour and which requires least disparate and coincidental conclusions.

Taking the subjectivity in mind, I don't know that a head-to-head battle is really the way to go, it's about as wide-open a standard as you can get and involves even more subjectivity, and as I've stated I'm probably not the best person to attempt to defend 'the offiicial story'. The normal requirements for 'circumstantial evidence' I think are a better and more consistent standard, and I think a tougher standard for you to meet actually which you should welcome I'd think: it is your requirement in order to make your case for a demolition based on circumstantial evidence to rule out all other reasonable explanations. Yes, tons of subjectivity in 'rule out' as we've already talked about, but it allows us to evaluate individual points largely on their own and doesn't require taking a huge mass of data and trying to apply likelihoods based on our personal intuitions. I do not think that this is at all an unfair standard either even though I think it's going to be a tough one for your case to meet; if we had more good evidence or a solid scientific case for the demolition we wouldn't need to resort to a circumstantial evidence standard at all, and that standard is obviously lower than a scientific one anyway. I'm not insisting that this is how we proceed, but the 'ruling out of other explanations' is a standard that I've been applying to your case throughout anyway although i don't recall if I've come right out and stated it so plainly, so if nothing else maybe it provides some insight into my objections. It's not that I'd like to write off circumstantial evidence, I'm not sure where 'like' is coming into anything, it's more that I'd like you to recognize the implications that your case is largely circumstantial and how that should be affecting your conclusions; all it would have taken was for some of this hypothesized, dislodged thermite device to instead get blown out the window and picked up on the ground and we're having an entirely different conversation. I also think that the 'what the heck happened' position cannot be ignored, we can't just presume that the amount of evidence that is available is enough to 'prove' any specific case.

Also I don’t think the fact that the molten metal flow came from the vicinity of a UPS (which could not create the observation anyhow) is a noteworthy coincidence in the first place. Before you were even aware of the UPS, or at least mentioned it, you claimed it must be coincidence in my theory that the molten metal flow came from where the plane debris was located. This tells me that you would frame it as coincidence everytime, wherever that flow came from, or however you think it created. Whether there was or was not a UPS in the vicinity doesn’t change anything in your argument – so how important is the coincidence?

How do you know that the combination of factors (UPS, fire, plane crash, aluminum debris) could not create the observation? You have personally evaluated and weighed all possibilities, based on unknown expertise, and concluded it is simply not possible? I realize it hasn't been demonstrated to your satisfaction, but that's a different question, and presumes that you have enough expertise to evaluate it in the first place let alone assess what the possibilities actually are given what we know. A large quantity of molten metal coming out of a window right where there is a very large quantity of metal is really not a noteworthy coincidence? "This tells me that you would frame it as a coincidence everytime" is not a supported conclusion here (and I don't really think I use the word 'must' very much either). And you must be misunderstanding me, hell yes the presence of a UPS changes my argument, it strengthens it, I now have not just aluminum debris but a very large quantity of lead also and a device that experts in the relevant disciplines assure us can cause 'unimaginable thermal effects'. I mean, yes, in a very basic way it doesn't change my overall argument that you have not really come very close to ruling out non-demolition possibilities, but I don't think you're talking about that. I would have a lot more difficult of a time framing it as a coincidence if there was actually some evidence of thermite devices being in the building, but there really isn't. We do know that there was plane wreckage, fire and a UPS system there though, and I have no reason to think at this point that isn't all that was necessary a la Occam.

You may not be saying that to mock me, but the list of features you mention, through your perception of their unlikelihood and characterization as ‘imagination’, is intended to discredit the demoltion charge, no? Oh wow... ‘side-cutting’...

Okay, just to be abundantly clear, I do think it is also important if your argument is to have much validity that you apply the same standards across the board, do you? I'm not going to do it, but I have a pretty good idea were I to search for what your responses are to pictures of other steel structures collapsing due to just fire, not even including damage, I would find that you have responded to those with disdain by noting that they are not a good match to WTC. So keeping that evidentiary and argumentation standard in mind, you now provide a video of this steel bar that is so far removed from a WTC column that it's kinda laughable. If you are just trying to show that it can side cut with the video, when you know that what I mean by side-cutting is the ability to side-cut a steel WTC column, then why not apply the same objections you have toward steel structures collapsing from fire towards this video, i.e., that this example is not representative?

Where your argument here fails is that survival of a thermite charge and trigger is quite feasible - it is well known that aircraft ‘black boxes’ can survive a crash, and I can take my argument for the demolition charge unit/casing to that level of survivability if need be. On the other hand, batteries have not been shown to have the desired effect of creating the molten metal flow.

The production of molten metal from aircraft debris sitting in a fire is feasible. The production of molten metal from damaged UPS systems is probably even more feasible than that. But just contrast your two sentences above. Your theory is free to choose on a whim from the realm of all possibility in assembling your case and your demolition device. Do you know why? Because we have no evidence of any thermite devices at all on which to rule it out, which also means that we have almost no evidence that your thermite devices actually existed or were present here. Somehow out of this, thermite devices are still the best explanation. But then, 'on the other hand', we get to the counter theory and it is now required that it be shown to your satisfaction that batteries can cause the molten metal flow. The case against you must provide tons of detail and a step-by-step sequence, let alone, jeez, experiments, of how this flow occurred apparently. You wanted to know earlier how the metal could pool, as if it's possible to analyze or even determine the layout of that floor post collision. What does it mean to you if I'm unable to tell you exactly how the metal pooled, or exactly the sequence of events that the batteries underwent to possibly cause the flow? Do you think that's a requirement, or that if that this cannot be done (it cannot be, we don't know what it was like in the building, there's not enough data), or else you are justified in thinking it unfeasible? If so, then why is the standard for your case no where near that mark? How far do opposing cases get to expand into the realm of possibilities 'if need be'? None from what I've seen, you don't hesitate to point out when there is no specific evidence for 'feasible' possibilities counter to your theory and wave them away.

sually the single answer which can explain all observation is most compelling.

An argument you offer very selectively; see 'Bigfoot'. Yes, I know, you find the Sasquatch evidence lacking for some reason having to do with 'corroboration', a subjective measure again which makes it difficult for us to make any headway on this point.

When you say ‘kinda’ it implies a vague resemblence. How could the flow appear more of a match to thermite?

I say 'kinda' because I'm not a demolition expert nor a metallurgist nor a materials engineer and I try to qualify my statements accordingly; I recognize that I'm applying all the scientific rigor implicit in comparing youtube videos. It looks to me like some molten metal coming out of the window, where a bunch of metal is located. How could the flow 'appear' more of a match to any possible combination of the non-thermite-charge metals likely to be present there? I think you would (or should) say that the flow alone does appear to be a match to many possible combinations of the metal present there, but you object because no one has demonstrated with an experiment how this occurs so you don't know how these metals got to their molten state, provided an explanation stating how the metal pooled, and a lot of other things that we can't possibly show because the evidence isn't available. Swan has already linked to thermal events with batteries, so are you really looking for a step-by-step explanation of what did actually happen here? I don't see you as being very accepting of what 'could have' happened, which is all we can ultimately say anyway. If you are looking for it step-by-step, do you honestly think you hold your case for this to even close to the same standard?

I’m not asking for a recreation, that would be unreasonable. I’d only like an experiment or example or some sort of precedent to reasonably demonstrate it is possible for a battery to “spew molten metal around”, preferably a match to the molten metal flow observed. All we have so far is a handwaving response - “Ah batteries did it” – where I don’t know of any battery to have ever created the effect before. Of course there are many examples of thermite which create the effect.

I think swan has already refuted part of this. 'Handwaving' applies perfectly well to 'Ah thermite did it' and especially the attributes like black-box shielding that you think are justified in assuming 'if need be'. I thought earlier that these charges could be the size of a toolbox so that no one would question them. Ramping up the size of the side-cutting thermite charge in that video proportionally by the difference in size between that pitiful steel bar and a steel column is stretching the industrial toolbox size, and I thought that it was estimated that a quite large quantity of molten metal came from that window. But you are entirely unconstrained, any objection can be addressed by altering the qualities of your thermite demolition charge, there's no evidence available to dispute it so you can choose from all possibility. But you don't seem to offer counterpoints that leeway, quite the contrary. I'm sorry to keep harping about these inconsistencies, but it's about the most objective point I have to go on concerning your argument structure; I don't know if we'll ever reach any semi-conclusions concerning our philosophies on coincidences and Occam.

Not really, because the technology comprising the devices is quite mundane, only pieced together in an unusual way.

I don't see anything very mundane about electronic remote-controlled detonation devices that can withstand an airplane impact, and in this case, suffer enough force and damage to dislodge from whatever it was supposedly attached to but simultaneously keep these electronics functional.

To create the near white hot 1,000oC+ temperature observed of the molten metal flow we need the battery to vaporise, rather than melt and cease working at 300-400oC. However, if the battery vaporises then there is no concentration of molten metal. Let’s say that some level of vaporisation occurs and passes heat to adjacent components or batteries – just how efficient will that transfer be in the midst of an explosion? It’s going to cause fire and destruction rather than a large quantity of molten metal at the temperature observed.

You say this based on what exactly? Good question, how have you determined how efficient the heat transfer will be? More importantly, how do you know what 'it's going to cause'? How can you possibly know when we don't even know where these batteries were positioned and what damage they suffered in the collision? Look at Cz's pictures, depending on the configuration you have anywhere from 5-17 immediately adjacent batteries to a potentially vaporizing one, in just its precollision configuration. It takes a lot more heat to vaporize than it does to turn it molten. I don't see what the issue is here and why you don't see this as a reasonable explanation based on the data we do have.

So in all, it is possible to create molten metal, but I see no possibility of the quantity and temperature observed. And here we are talking about a single battery in the chain initially failing or vaporising (I can’t accept there are no fuses or weak points within the circuit), yet by my estimate we need over 20 such batteries to fully liquefy all of the lead far beyond its melting point to produce the estimated 200kg molten metal flow. I do remember previously labelling this the ‘chain-reaction battery-bomb’ theory and now I remember why – a more convoluted and poor fitting theory is hard to find. I don’t see how it can work to produce the desired effect.

And you are an expert on electricity, batteries, and thermal engineering so that your 'not seeing how it can work' carries some significance, correct? That's not a snark, that's what is necessary for 'I don't see how it can work' to be relevant, for anyone on any subject. I don't see an issue with 20 batteries liquefying, that might be achievable with only one or two batteries vaporizing given how closely packed the batteries are.

I have looked and found examples of batteries creating rapid external temperatures in excess of 1,000oC without fully liquefying the material and it is always short lived after the melted component disconnects the circuit and the element cools rapidly. This is nothing like we see of the WTC2 flow which maintains a molten state for a long duration, throughout the expulsions... like a thermite charge would be expected to.

I may be butchering physics again here but I don't think so, but don't things cool at differing rates based on the differences in temperature. Did you look and find examples of batteries in the middle of a building fire and account for this before talking about how rapidly it cooled?

Can you more specifically explain the process that you imagine? How exactly might the short be created in the first place (and remember it was not during the impact but 7 minutes prior to the collapse)? Is the heat generated internal or external to the battery? What happens when the first battery or shorting element fail and the circuit ceases to generate further energy? How on Earth do we end up with this large quantity and duration of molten metal which releases sporadically from the building?

I think swan has done a good job of this, better than I can do. This is my non-expert opinion, but I don't see an obstacle to the vaporization of a quantity of metal causing adjacent quantities of the same metal to liquefy. I don't have any information on how the short was created, and I don't see why when it happened to be relevant without more data which might provide some idea of when or if we might expect a short to occur; just like your thermite charge is 'feasible', I don't see any of your objections overcoming what might happen here in principle. I'm not sure what you mean by 'internal or external to the battery', heat radiates, I thought one idea is that a battery shorts and vaporizes and that heat liquifies the lead in other nearby batteries. Maybe it causes the aluminum from the plane to melt also, and as an aside for you or swan or anyone, I'm not sure why this recent discussion has touched so infrequently on the fact that all of this is happening in the middle of a building fire. I thought I had seen a reference to an NIST experiment showing that a building fire can achieve the temperatures needed to turn aluminum mixed with other floor contents molten. I've seen reference also to the possibility that this is a natural thermite reaction because of what may have occurred with the aluminum present. Most importantly, under the rules of circumstantial evidence, this isn't my job to explain, it is yours to say why these are not reasonable counter-demolition explanations. I think that is going to be very difficult for you to do, given all the data that is missing, with a consistent evidentiary standard where you require the same level of specificity and the same demands of your own theory as you do these other potential reasonable explanations.

As an aside, I do have some skepticism about, as I think you've argued, whether it really is required to go through almost every point until the supposed weight of it all somehow comes together to form something compelling. I'm sure you and I don't need to do that for astrology or Sasquatchism and I don't think you think it's necessary in those cases. Regardless as an aside you've made a few comments concerning my not being objective or being biased or faith-based or whatever. I don't mind that from a tone standpoint at all, I don't think you've responded to me with any more snarkiness or exasperation than I've shown to you. However, my reaction to your points really shouldn't come as a surprise to you; if your case is made by some 'preponderance' of the evidence then you should not be surprised at all at how I react to these individual points, you've admitted early on that there is no one single piece of killer evidence. I believe you think I should then withhold any judgment on these specific points until I've heard the 'entire case' but since I don't at all need to do that for things like astrology, I don't know that my reaction to these points is that out of line. Not an argument here, just a clarification and something that occurred to me.

Anyway don't let me railroad you into a standard you don't agree with or aren't interested in pursuing, you obviously have just as much say in what you'd like to talk about here, you probably should have more given that you've likely provided more info than I have. I guess I just see a pattern in our conversation that repeats itself to some extent on most points we've gone through where we keep ultimately butting in to subjective areas like the assessment of coincidences, just looking to change it up in some way. I do think you'd like to move on to the more general 'false flag' conversation which is cool. I have done some reading on the 'hijackers were assisted' stuff but I'm only as far as looking a little into the evidence that people in the Saudi government may have been giving assistance to the hijackers, along with the failures of the investigation to fully look into those. I'm not to the point where any of that ties in to any specific evidence of involvement in a conspiracy on the part of the US government, but it does appear to me that there is more of a story there than what is commonly known.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These are the photos you have posted as evidence of molten steel, but reality is, the following photos do not depict molten steel. :no: Do you know why?

626_molten_metal.jpg

johngross2.jpg

[/background][/size]

Apparently, you didn't read what has been presented here.

And, the molten metal flowing from the WTC buildings was not molten steel at all, which the photo evidence proved beyond any doubt.

Moltenal.jpg[/background]

Now this is part of the discussion that's debateable.

What is it Sky?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now this is part of the discussion that's debateable.

What is it Sky?

Let's begin with the top photo. How difficult would it be to grab a blob of honey off the ground with that type of machinery? In that regard, the glowing metal is not in a molten state.

In the second photo, it is very obvious the metal was never in a molten state after its manufacture, but was annealed at temperatures below the melting point of steel.

Annealing

Annealing, in metallurgy and materials science, is a heat treatment wherein a material is altered, causing changes in its properties such as hardness and ductility. It is a process that produces conditions by heating to above the critical temperature, maintaining a suitable temperature, and then cooling. Annealing is used to induce ductility, soften material, relieve internal stresses, refine the structure by making it homogeneous and improve cold working properties.

http://www.efunda.co...g/annealing.cfm

And, if you believe that temperatures well below the melting point of steel cannot buckle or weaken steel, let's take a look here.

Rail_buckle.jpg

In regards to the last photo, visit this website.

http://www.debunking...moltensteel.htm

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Q, I'm going to pull some points of yours from your last few posts. The main objection I have to your invocation of the 'coincidence' argument is that I don't think you are accounting for the sheer number of events and people from which you are drawing and trying to connect these coincidences; with that many disparate people and events that you have brought up of course there are going to be coincidences, it'd be unusual if they were not. But I think we have the same problem with 'coincidence' that we have with 'Occam', it's pretty much all subjective. There's no way that I know of to attach any kind of probability to these coincidences and say that their all occuring is likely or unlikely.

The objection I have to your objection is that its not like I’m having to go far afield or dig much to find these coincidences such is their frequency. I agree that it is difficult to attach probability to many of the events, though it is possible in some cases. Consider the results of the NIST study that we have discussed, showing each twin tower collapse to be unlikely, i.e. 49% or less. Yet it happened twice: <49% x <49% = <24%. We can add that NIST described their own theory of the WTC7 collapse to be “extraordinary”. Even if we are generous and say that extraordinary events will randomly occur up to 10% of the time, then that is <24% x <10% = <2%. Already we are into small probability of the three buildings collapsing as told by the official theory. The sheer number of further coincidences means that we don’t need exact figures to realise that the end result based on the official theory is going to be of infintitesimal probability. Of course, the probability of the buildings collapsing within the theory of a false flag operation is 100%.

I'm of the opinion so far, at least on the demolition, that there is no need for an explanation for what occurred beyond the possiblities provided by fire and damage alone.

You are welcome to that but to me it is an empty belief considering that no explanation based on damage and fire has been demonstrated within the bounds of reality – we have been over some of the many failures and false assumptions of NIST and Bazant – yet there is no need for this to be the case were truth in their favour.

Taking the subjectivity in mind, I don't know that a head-to-head battle is really the way to go, it's about as wide-open a standard as you can get and involves even more subjectivity, and as I've stated I'm probably not the best person to attempt to defend 'the offiicial story'.

The problem is that we know the circumstantial evidence cannot absolutely prove a case to anyone predisposed not to believe it. That’s why I think it perhaps necessary to ask what the official theory proposes as an alternative and how likely it is in comparison. If that draws anyone to a conclusion of, “I don’t know for sure what happened”, I’ll take that as a victory because the most pertinent question that follows is why the official story sold their version of events as an absolute and fired the Western public into a war frenzy.

Yes, tons of subjectivity in 'rule out' as we've already talked about, but it allows us to evaluate individual points largely on their own and doesn't require taking a huge mass of data and trying to apply likelihoods based on our personal intuitions.

I don’t like the idea of testing points in isolation because this precludes corroboration of the evidence.

And I don’t think it really matters whose intuition we use in the end; the official story ends up astronomical anyhow. Put your own probability on this for me: a government exercise that morning involving a civilian aircraft departing from the same airport as Flight 77 and simulating a crash into a government building just 30 miles West of the Pentagon at the precise time and location that the real Flight 77 passed overhead, with a government spokesperson describing the reflection of real world events as “bizarre”. There are logical reasons, accepting a false flag background, which make the probability of that occurrence very high. In the official theory, that event is treated as non-evidence or just a quirk to be ignored – so what are reasonable odds of this ‘coincidence’? If we can agree that the occurrence is somewhat peculiar/unlikely, then I have much more to add, which taken together show the official theory beyond belief.

It's not that I'd like to write off circumstantial evidence, I'm not sure where 'like' is coming into anything, it's more that I'd like you to recognize the implications that your case is largely circumstantial and how that should be affecting your conclusions; all it would have taken was for some of this hypothesized, dislodged thermite device to instead get blown out the window and picked up on the ground and we're having an entirely different conversation.

Perhaps different discussion, but I’m sure the same argument.

“That’s a thermite device.”

“No, it could be anything.”

“But it matches a thermite device.”

“Yes, but it could be somthing else.”

“What?”

“Batteries, crushed metal, aircraft debris, paint chips, rust, a natural thermite reaction.”

“How does that match?”

“I don’t have a step by step explanation.”

Official story adherents will make any case to avoid an unfavourable probable answer.

Okay, just to be abundantly clear, I do think it is also important if your argument is to have much validity that you apply the same standards across the board, do you? I'm not going to do it, but I have a pretty good idea were I to search for what your responses are to pictures of other steel structures collapsing due to just fire, not even including damage, I would find that you have responded to those with disdain by noting that they are not a good match to WTC. So keeping that evidentiary and argumentation standard in mind, you now provide a video of this steel bar that is so far removed from a WTC column that it's kinda laughable. If you are just trying to show that it can side cut with the video, when you know that what I mean by side-cutting is the ability to side-cut a steel WTC column, then why not apply the same objections you have toward steel structures collapsing from fire towards this video, i.e., that this example is not representative?

There are no examples of fire causing whole skyscrapers to collapse. The best that has been provided are third-world, sub-standard, non-fireproofed, thin steel structures. You are correct that I treat such examples with disdain by noting the lack of match to the WTC structures. Further reinforced by the fact that the many examples of truly equivalent structures and fire have never exhibited a collapse. So it’s not only that every equivalent example has failed to reproduce the WTC collapses, but that they have demonstrated the opposite should occur.

In contrast, there is no such precedent that thermite charges should not induce collapse. The logic of the following questions actually demonstrates it likely to succeed. Can thermite be ejected sidewards? Clearly, yes. What thickness do you think the steel bar in the video is? Perhaps an inch (though ok, it's difficult to judge with no size reference). And what thickness was the steel halfway up the tower? Two inches. How much excess energy did the linear thermite cutter posses? Certainly more than necessary to cut the steel bar (pause the video and see how far the jet extends). Would not a number of even those small devices, or a scaled-up device, severely weaken a WTC column? Of course.

In the end you described the side-cutting attribute of the thermite device like it was something unbelievable, when in fact it is quite mundane and I have even shown a working example. Do you really expect me to turn around and say ‘Yeah, you’re right, side-cutting is unbelievable’ after that? Come on.

I don't see anything very mundane about electronic remote-controlled detonation devices that can withstand an airplane impact, and in this case, suffer enough force and damage to dislodge from whatever it was supposedly attached to but simultaneously keep these electronics functional.

Are you now claiming that ‘remote-controlled’ is unbelievable? Despite there being all manner of remote-controlled devices. Or is it more that you find the functioning of the electronics after a plane crash unbelievable? Despite the electronics within aircraft black boxes surviving after a plane crash. These are really not good arguments you are making.

About the WTC2 molten metal flow, thank you for your further input. I think we can summarise the leading theory you have come up with: -

  1. Airliner debris crashes through the UPS room, avoiding destroying the battery circuit but conspiring to create a short circuit in the system.
  2. The increase in temperature is so rapid that before either the battery or shorting connection fail, the battery lead vaporises.
  3. The heat and shockwave from the explosion/vaporisation melts all of the surrounding batteries to 1,000oC+.
  4. The fire insulates this molten metal until the floor sporadically fails, releasing the material in bursts.

All points are highly unlikely though 3. In particular is impossible. Even if a whole battery were vaporised to10,000oC, and given a perfectly efficient energy transfer (which is ridiculous – it’s a random explosion, not a shaped charge), it is still not enough to heat lead of the 20 or so surrounding batteries required to 1,000oC+. Further, there is no example you can provide of this phenomenon ever having occurred before or since. The reason is that batteries, short-circuits and explosions or not, simply cannot produce the effect – you cannot go from having a rack of batteries to having a large mass of molten lead in a second.

I have done some reading on the 'hijackers were assisted' stuff but I'm only as far as looking a little into the evidence that people in the Saudi government may have been giving assistance to the hijackers, along with the failures of the investigation to fully look into those. I'm not to the point where any of that ties in to any specific evidence of involvement in a conspiracy on the part of the US government, but it does appear to me that there is more of a story there than what is commonly known.

Ah, to see the U.S. tie-in we need to understand just how interested the CIA were in those hijackers before their supposedly coincidental meeting with the Saudi government agent and eventual residence with a U.S. intelligence informant... we know the CIA did not lose interest, and those occurrences did not happen by accident. Not to mention the CIA’s prevention of the FBI to act against the terrorists. Through these areas we see the tie-in to elements of U.S. intelligence. There is certainly more to the story than known. As U.S. Senator Bob Graham said: “It will become public at some point when it's turned over to the archives, but that's 20 or 30 years from now. And, we need to have this information now because it's relevant to the threat that the people of the United States are facing today.” I think we know this would not be kept secret if those who assisted the hijackers were enemies of the U.S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The objection I have to your objection is that its not like I’m having to go far afield or dig much to find these coincidences such is their frequency. I agree that it is difficult to attach probability to many of the events, though it is possible in some cases. Consider the results of the NIST study that we have discussed, showing each twin tower collapse to be unlikely, i.e. 49% or less. Yet it happened twice: <49% x <49% = <24%. We can add that NIST described their own theory of the WTC7 collapse to be “extraordinary”. Even if we are generous and say that extraordinary events will randomly occur up to 10% of the time, then that is <24% x <10% = <2%. Already we are into small probability of the three buildings collapsing as told by the official theory. The sheer number of further coincidences means that we don’t need exact figures to realise that the end result based on the official theory is going to be of infintitesimal probability. Of course, the probability of the buildings collapsing within the theory of a false flag operation is 100%.

I'll respond to the rest of your post later Q but real quick, I'm no mathematician, but I'm pretty sure there are some issues with your probability calculation here and/or the meaning you are deriving from it. Using your math, there was simultaneously only a 23% chance of all 3 buildings standing (51% x 51% x 90%). So we then can conclude the chances were excellent that at least one of the buildings would fall, right? And if chances were good that at least one building would fall, well there's the precedent you've been looking for, and even more compelling it's tailored specifically to the WTC. What more do you need to show that a fire and damage collapse is well within the 'bounds of reality'? Except I don't think we can conclude any of that as I suspect we are butchering probability theory here.

And if I look in more detail at the NIST report, am I going to see something along the lines of 'this study has fairly conclusively shown that there was at best a 49% chance of the buildings collapsing and we are confident we have enough data to determine that', or something close?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll respond to the rest of your post later Q but real quick, I'm no mathematician, but I'm pretty sure there are some issues with your probability calculation here and/or the meaning you are deriving from it. Using your math, there was simultaneously only a 23% chance of all 3 buildings standing (51% x 51% x 90%). So we then can conclude the chances were excellent that at least one of the buildings would fall, right? And if chances were good that at least one building would fall, well there's the precedent you've been looking for, and even more compelling it's tailored specifically to the WTC. What more do you need to show that a fire and damage collapse is well within the 'bounds of reality'? Except I don't think we can conclude any of that as I suspect we are butchering probability theory here.

Don’t worry, we aren’t butchering anything. The 23% chance that you calculated would also be correct based upon the figures I gave. Though I’d never accept that probability because I was actually being very generous to the official collapse theory. It didn’t matter to demonstrating that we end up with a miniscule probability of the official theory being true. The <49% collapse probability means that it could be anywhere from 0-49% and this is supported by NIST’s results. The >51% probability of the tower survival could be anywhere from 51-100%. NIST never determined where the cross-over point from non-collapse to collapse came so we cannot know the exact percentages, other than to say that the mid-point base case did not produce a collapse.

And if I look in more detail at the NIST report, am I going to see something along the lines of 'this study has fairly conclusively shown that there was at best a 49% chance of the buildings collapsing and we are confident we have enough data to determine that', or something close?

No, you would see what we discussed previously – that the base case simulation (which was 50/50 between the margin of error) based on best estimate of the building specification, airliner crashes and fires did not produce collapse in the model. This means that more than half of the possible range (from the less severe case to the base case), i.e. 51%, did not produce collapse. That is where I am drawing the <49% collapse figure from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don’t worry, we aren’t butchering anything. The 23% chance that you calculated would also be correct based upon the figures I gave. Though I’d never accept that probability because I was actually being very generous to the official collapse theory. It didn’t matter to demonstrating that we end up with a miniscule probability of the official theory being true. The <49% collapse probability means that it could be anywhere from 0-49% and this is supported by NIST’s results. The >51% probability of the tower survival could be anywhere from 51-100%. NIST never determined where the cross-over point from non-collapse to collapse came so we cannot know the exact percentages, other than to say that the mid-point base case did not produce a collapse.

So there may well be a 75% chance of one of the building collapsing given your system here, which I don't really buy anyway. Despite saying there is no explanation for a fire and damage based collapse that has been demonstrated within the bounds of reality. Even if I'm kind and cut it in half to 25% probability of collapse and we leave WTC7 out of it, that means, using your math, chances are 57% (75%x75%) in favor of neither building collapsing. On what planet is 43% in favor of at least one collapse outside of the bounds of reality? We can put it in your favor at 90% leaving a 19% chance of at least one collapse and I don't consider that outside of the bounds of reality either. I think this is all a game anyway as we and NIST also cannot know the exact percentages because it was simply not possible as they do not have the data necessary to accurately determine these probabilities to the granularity that is required for the argument you are attempting to make. Thus saying 'the mid-point base case did not produce a collapse' doesn't really say so much; the significance of the mid-point case is reliant in large part on being able to accurately determine these probabilities. I suspect that NIST recognized this also.

No, you would see what we discussed previously – that the base case simulation (which was 50/50 between the margin of error) based on best estimate of the building specification, airliner crashes and fires did not produce collapse in the model. This means that more than half of the possible range (from the less severe case to the base case), i.e. 51%, did not produce collapse. That is where I am drawing the <49% collapse figure from.

It's not what we would call a scientific conclusion then, correct? NIST nor most any scientist would say, 'this study has demonstrated that the probability of a collapse occurring is definitely less than 50%, we are confident we have enough data to determine that', you agree? But you don't agree with why they wouldn't say that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.