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 5
joc

WTC 911 EyeWitness~Hoboken

3,684 posts in this topic

Actually, not. The fact that barium nitrate was not found within the rubble of the WTC buidings should have convinced the conspiracist to throw out their thermite theory.
I know lets do some more panto debunking by brining up barium nitrate.

Even though there is no evidence of anyone ever looking or testing for barium nitrate, is enough to convince me that you are building a grand strawman character in this new panto debunking production of the Wizard of Oz.

Do I play the part of the Wicked Witch and so I can set fire to the scarecrow you've built? lol Are you Dorothy, who chucks a bucket of water over your scarecrow, which splashes me and I melt away....arrrgghh!!! lol

Sorry but this panto sucks! lol

I am glad that you agree that the firefighters were not metallurgist, because it proves my point they were not in a position to differentiate between molten steel and molten aluminum, hence they were in error when they said that they saw molten steel when in fact, they saw no such thing.
Why are you glad I agree that firefighters were not metallurigsts when I have never said or implied it, when it is obvious to anyone that fire fighters fight fires and metallurgiusts examine metals, proving that you are having this argument not with me, but the voices in your head which you are projecting onto me.

Just because they are not metallugists doesn't prove that there not in a position to differentiate between molten steel and molten aluminum, when they were in the best position available, actually at GZ and as you keep forgetting that you do not need to be a metallugist to identifhy molten steel/beams/girders.

Hence there is no error when they said they saw molten steel when in fact they saw molten steel, because you have no evidence they were wrong. Nothing, not a single quote from anyone at GZ going.... "oh wait a minute, its not steel, thats aluminium!" lol

On the contrary, they are not experts nor in a position to identify molten aluminum drippings on steel columns as such and remember, temperatures were high enough to melt aluminum, but not steel.
You do not need to be an expert to identift molten steel and the temperatures ust have been hot enough cause they saw molten steel/beams/girders, not one, but multiple witnesses.
The molten flow from WTC2 proved beyond a doubt the molten flow was NOT steel, and the cooled silvery droplets underlines that point.
Only in your head...lol
So once again, waiting for evidence that supports your case.
What case is that? That there was molten steel at GZ. The eyewitnesses are my evidence and you have nothing to counter it other than they are not experts, even you don't have to be if you see molten steel/beams/girders.

And even though one of them is a professor who was obviously the best person to examine some of the steel at GZ, who states that he saw molten girders isn't expert enough? Only and only a metallugist is capable and even though you are not one, you know that it's molten aluminium.

Your argument is about as strong as girder 79 in WTC7.......lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know lets do some more panto debunking by brining up barium nitrate.

That doesn't work for you! The lack of barium nitrate at ground zero has trashed the conspiracist claim that thermite was used.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Better take another look.

leopard_606_600x450.jpg

Panto debunking on a youtube video??...lol

Youtube videos denying pools of molten steel/beams/girders does not counter the statements and eyewitness accounts of multiple people and professions stating on record there was molten steel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Panto debunking on a youtube video??...lol

Youtube videos denying pools of molten steel/beams/girders does not counter the statements and eyewitness accounts of multiple people and professions stating on record there was molten steel.

On the contrary, without temperatures needed to melt steel at ground zero, what they saw were pools of molten aluminum because temperatures reached the melting point of aluminum. With abundance of aluminum present in the WTC buildings and used in the construction of the B-767s, all it takes is common sense to understand why they saw molten aluminum and not molten steel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That doesn't work for you! The lack of barium nitrate at ground zero has trashed the conspiracist claim that thermite was used.

Panto debunking doesn't work for me, cause I don't do panto...lol Who said thermite was used? Is this like the time you claimed I said that fire fighters were metallugists but then the reality was your head got confused and you deluded yourself that I had said or implied it, when nothing could have been further from the truth?

I think this is where your misunderstandings are? You can't differentiate between "thermite was used" with "thermite was possibly used"....lol

And I do not see any evidence of barium nitrates ever being looked for it to be found and are firefighers experts in detecting barium nitrates?

So in honour of your pitchs of panto debunking, let me show you my panto debunking....

Firefighters are chemists and therefore are not qualified to detect or could easily confuse barium nitrate with baking soda, salt, dust, cocaine, crush paracetomol and lemon sherbert. Therefore the firefighters who never said they saw barium nitrate actually saw it, but they mistook it for baking soda. I'm sure if I found some picture of barium nitrates and tons of other white powdery substance, you couldn't tell cause you are not an expert chemist like me with 2000 years of experience.

Therefore you are wrong....I'll await the "Oh no I'm not response!" to my panto....lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Panto debunking doesn't work for me, cause I don't do panto...lol Who said thermite was used?

911 conspiracist!

I said that fire fighters were metallugists...

Now, you say that say that firefighters are metallugist. Hmmmm. Fact of the matter is, they are not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the contrary, without temperatures needed to melt steel at ground zero, what they saw were pools of molten aluminum because temperatures reached the melting point of aluminum. With abundance of aluminum present in the WTC buildings and used in the construction of the B-767s, all it takes is common sense to understand why they saw molten aluminum and not molten steel.

You have no evidence of the temperatures under the rubble, invalidating you and your argument from the first few keystrokes, that they were not hot enough which is disproven by the fact the witnesses at GZ said they saw molten steel, not aluminium.

You were not at GZ, you have no idea of the temperatures in the rubble and no evidence to support your molten aluminium theory, its pure crazies!! lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

911 conspiracist!

And am I a 9/11 conspiracists?
Now, you say that say that firefighters are metallugist. Hmmmm. Fact of the matter is, they are not.

WOW! Now you are resorting to even lower debunking that panto debunking, you've hit new street mime lows by taking a quote out of context from my last post....lol

Here is what I said..."Is this like the time you claimed I said that fire fighters were metallugists but then the reality was your head got confused and you deluded yourself that I had said or implied it, when nothing could have been further from the truth?

You have serious problems with reading comprehensions and context skills, or you are just pretending to be this dumb to keep up the debunking street mime facade?? lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have no evidence of the temperatures under the rubble, ...

Evidence and data has already been submitted, but I guess you missed that too! :yes:

You were not at GZ, you have no idea of the temperatures in the rubble and no evidence to support your molten aluminium theory, its pure crazies!! lol

The claim of molten steel without evidence of such high temperatures nor the mechanism to produce such high temperatures needed to melt steel is pure crazies. :yes: Once again, what would molten steel be doing at ground zero anyway?

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And am I a 9/11 conspiracists?

Yes!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes!!

And are all claims that 9/11 conspiracts claim equal, they all agree on every single aspect on every single point of 9/11, all unified with no disagreement whatsoever?? Or are they individuals?? Like me say? lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evidence and data has already been submitted, but I guess you missed that too! :yes:

No, what you presented doesn't support what you claim and therefore doesn't disprove the evidence from those at GZ.

You fail from the first press of a key...but you knew that...lol

The claim of molten steel without evidence of such high temperatures nor the mechanism to produce such high temperatures needed to melt steel is pure crazies. :yes: Once again, what would molten steel be doing at ground zero anyway?

So those who said they witnessed molten steel are pure crazies?? And not the person sitting behind his keyboard, thinking they are wrong and that he's knows better cause he's performed in lots of pantos isn't pure crazies? lol

WOW That is pure crazies....lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And are all claims that 9/11 conspiracts claim equal, they all agree on every single aspect on every single point of 9/11, all unified with no disagreement whatsoever?? Or are they individuals?? Like me say? lol

Fact of the matter is, whose side does the evidence support? Definitely not yours. :no:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, what you presented doesn't support what you claim and therefore doesn't disprove the evidence from those at GZ.

Tell you what. Why don't you go back and present the data collections on ground zero temperature readings I have posted and post them again for all to see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fact of the matter is, whose side does the evidence support? Definitely not yours. :no:

Well when you consider that evidence from multiple eyewitnesses who were in a position at GZ to see molten steel/beam/girders,I think you'll find its me.

However if evidence is sitting behind a keyboard like some brand new debunking poobah, spamming the forum with pictures and videos and links which don't support your case, then yes, the evidence supports your side...lol Fact!! lol

Edited by Stundie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well when you consider that evidence from multiple eyewitnesses who were in a position at GZ to see molten steel/beam/girders,I think you'll find its me.

Considering they are not experts to idenitfy molten metal, what they saw was molten aluminum on the steel beams. There was no mechanism for producing molten steel and temperature readings did not record temperatures high enough to melt steel, but they did record temperatures high enough to melt aluminum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tell you what. Why don't you go back and present the data collections on ground zero temperature readings I have posted and post them again for all to see.

We already know that they only show the surface temperatures which doesn't prove that the temperatures were not hot enough under the rubble.

Booo!! We've seen this panto before...lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering they are not experts to idenitfy molten metal, what they saw was molten aluminum on the steel beams.

Considering that one was an expert, a professor who studied the steel and is quite capable of identifying molten steel, they did not see aluminium. lol
There was no mechanism for producing molten steel and temperature readings did not record temperatures high enough to melt steel, but they did record temperatures high enough to melt aluminum.
Even if you think there was no mechanism, there was molten steel and the fact you can't believe it is not evidence....lol

Its not even an argument, which makes me wonder why I bother with this pap called debunking....lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We already know that they only show the surface temperatures which doesn't prove that the temperatures were not hot enough under the rubble.

That doesn't work for you. Go back and present for us, the official temperature and data collections that I have posted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That doesn't work for you. Go back and present for us, the official temperature and data collections that I have posted.

We already know that they only show the surface temperatures and it still doesn't prove that the temperatures were not hot enough under the rubble.

Hence you have no argument, no matter how many times you post the figures, they don't prove your claim which is the fires under the rubble were not hot enough to melt steel...lol

Your logic is bonkers!! lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We already know that they only show the surface temperatures

Doesn't work for you.

The "hot spots", where intensely burning debris generated temperatures in excess of 1300 degrees Fahrenheit, posed a significant danger to relief workers. NASA had an instrument that could provide information that would be useful to emergency responders. NASA's Airborne Visible infrared Imaging Spectrometer (AVIRIS) science instrument was capable of providing data that could be used to filter smoke and locate extreme hot spots.

NASA SE-2002-02-00007-SSC 2002-02-13 - NASA Involvement in National Priority Support for Disasters (link)

At what temperature does steel melt?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't work for you.

At what temperature does steel melt?

Doesn't work for you, they are surface temperatures, not temperatures under the rubble.

Meaning your claim that the temperature under the rubble was not hot enough to melt steel FAILS!! hahahahaha!!! lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't work for you, they are surface temperatures, not temperatures under the rubble.

That is moot by the fact that temperatures and data were accurate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is moot by the fact that temperatures and data were accurate.

Yeah of the surface temperatures and not the temperatures under the rubble......Which we have been over time and time again.

So how do surface temperatures prove the temperatures under the rubble were not hot enough to melt steel, genuis metal worker with 40 years experience?? lol

Unless I build a strawman and suggest that you have fooled yourself into believing that the surface temps acurately record the temps under the rubble....:blink:....lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah of the surface temperatures and not the temperatures under the rubble.....

Apparently, you are no tuned in to temperature gathering technology. At no time did temperature readings reached the melting point of steel, either above nor beneath the rubble.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.