Originally posted by: Sclamoz
Originally posted by: kylebisme
Rather, your brains are so broke that you couldn't even comprehend the intent of that comment, let alone construct a rational argument against it, so instead you just had to pick it out of context to mock me in your denial of physical reality.Originally posted by: jonks
are you happy? are you satisfied now? you broke his brainOriginally posted by: ElFenix
wow. just... wow.Originally posted by: kylebisme
There are steel buildings all over the place which have caught on fire but didn't fall, let alone free fall, for the same reason a steel grill doesn't fall when you make a fire in it. You can find some more examples of skyscraper fires here.
I'm just going to say what everyone else is thinking but is to scared to say. You are.....100% correct.
Thank you sir, for opening my eyes and allowing me to see the truth with these youtube videos.
Come on everyone, just admit it! You know he's right, you're just in denial.
JUST ADMIT HE'S RIGHT.
Originally posted by: BeauJangles
Lunarray said: BeauJangles,
Assume that the statements of anyone are evidence. I think to say one can't tell molten steel from molten iron assumes facts not in evidence. You'd have to show that he was not able to make the claim with any authority. Not as an expert cuz lab tests are the best expert on that issue. AND, exactly what someone who'd seek to debunk should use. So... if I were a juror and you could not or did not disprove by testing the nature of the molten stuff and told me I should reject his statement cuz he may not know... I'd say I'll accept it cuz you didn't test it... the proof is in the best evidence and you didn't provide it to debunk his testimony. [not you but the folks who could have settled the issue]
What really is a problem as I see it is the absence of testing for Thermite/Thermate. That is the very first thing protocol indicates you test for in a crime scene fire investigation. But it was not tested for here? Not in anything I've read thus far, anyhow.
Like someone else said, we should have also tested the ground for the presence of Gremlins who could have chewed through the beams. There was and still remains no evidence of thermite being responsible for the fall of the WTC. As others have said, the byproducts of a thermite reaction at ground zero wouldn't be surprising and to that end, the USGS did a survey of the site and found the following elements:
Silicon, Calcium, Magnesium, Sulfur, Iron, Aluminum, Carbon (organic and carbonate), Sodium, Potassium, Titanium, Manganese, and Phosphorus. Four of these are flagged by Professor Jones as possible indicators for thermate (Sulfur, Potassium, Titanium, Manganese), yet the authors of this study don?t seem to require any special explanations for them at all.
According to the same study, these were found in levels consistent with their presence within the materials that made up the building.
As for your previous point, it IS evidence, but considering there is plenty of evidence to the contrary and that there is no way a fire fighter can tell the difference between a molten steel and another metallic substance, it is highly improbable that he is correct. He can't make the claim with any authority because firefighters aren't taught to identify molten substances. What you're doing is letting an eye-witness (who are notoriously inaccurate in even recounting the details of what happened to events that unfolded in front of their eyes) color your judgement.
He says one thing. Great. There is zero evidence to support it. So what do we do? Do we throw out all the science, the expert analysis, and the science involved and simply believe that firefighter Joe Blow, in the heat of the moment observed melted steel? No, we realize that, like his comment about lava, he saw something (metallic melted substance) and ASSUMED it was steel. It wasn't. It's a mistake anyone could make, but it doesn't prove anything and is pretty worthless as a piece of "evidence" that the official story is not correct.
Not only was it patently absurd of NIST to make such ridiculous assumptions, it flagrantly violates official protocol, NFPA 921 18.3.2 specifically, as explained here.Originally posted by: LunarRay
I chuckle at the notion that no explosive device was used [per NIST] cuz we'd have heard it or there would be broken windows..
Rather, a reasonable grasp of physics allows anyone to recognise molten steel by the intensity of the glow, even if one has never seen it before. Furthermore, a reasonable grasp of physics allows one to recognise a formation cooled motel steel based on its observable composition, with pieces of steel protruding from it. But you obviously posses little reasonable grasp of anything and hence are left to argue nonsense.Originally posted by: BeauJangles
I'm sorry, a reasonable grasp of physics now makes you an expert on determining the composition of molten substances?
Please check here.Originally posted by: BeauJangles
Please provide any evidence for molten steel beyond youtube videos and this guy.
Rather, the building to collapsed due to another force acting along with that of exerted by gravity, It's isn't an either/or thing, and that is just how it is. That said, I'll happily move on to discussing more once you help me get others here to come to terms with this fact.Originally posted by: ElFenix
you have yet to post anything other than "something must have been forcing the building to collapse other than the force of gravity!
My understanding of physics extends well beyond what we are discussing here, throughout my formal education and through my own interest in the science as well. My comment about when I was first taught the Newtonian physics involved here, was simply to point out the fact that even some 5th graders can understand the physics of the matter better than you falsers do.Originally posted by: ElFenix
...and as we've all pointed out again and again, your admittedly 5th grade physics...
Originally posted by: Number1
You keep professing your belief in some kind of conspiracy you can't even articulate, explain or understand.
Isn't that what true faith is all about?
. . . 4) If the government is going to blow up a building, why do they concoct a complicated plan that involves hijacking a plane and slamming it into the building? There is WAAAY too much that could go wrong. What if the hijackers fail to take control of the plane? What if the plane misses the building? Why would they not make the cover story easier -- terrorists snuck truckloads of explosives into the building and blew it up? I mean, we already had an attack on the WTC which was exactly that, why not replicate it? PLUS, if you're going to go to the trouble of hijacking planes and slamming them into the building, why bother planting explosives? Why not load the planes with explosives? Why are there two high-risk operations being conducted simultaneously? This makes zero sense. . . .
Originally posted by: jonks
Ok, fine. He's right. We're wrong. He's smart, we're stupid. He can see where we are blind. He's very handsome, we are not very good looking.
But what can he expect, this is what we get for drinking the flouride in our water supply put there by commies to brainwash us into sheeple.
Originally posted by: kylebisme
Rather, the building to collapsed due to another force acting along with that of exerted by gravity, It's isn't an either/or thing, and that is just how it is. That said, I'll happily move on to discussing more once you help me get others here to come to terms with this fact.Originally posted by: ElFenix
you have yet to post anything other than "something must have been forcing the building to collapse other than the force of gravity!
Originally posted by: kylebisme
Please check here.Originally posted by: BeauJangles
Please provide any evidence for molten steel beyond youtube videos and this guy.
I drink the tap watter too, so that is obviously no excuse.Originally posted by: jonks
But what can he expect, this is what we get for drinking the flouride in our water supply put there by commies to brainwash us into sheeple.
There is no reason to examine that, as steel is iron mixed with other minerals, which leaves it melting at around the same temperatures or less.Originally posted by: LunarRay
Ok.. this is how I'd examine this molten steel vs iron.
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: jonks
Ok, fine. He's right. We're wrong. He's smart, we're stupid. He can see where we are blind. He's very handsome, we are not very good looking.
But what can he expect, this is what we get for drinking the flouride in our water supply put there by commies to brainwash us into sheeple.
NO... NO... No.... that is not the case at all.
It is not right v wrong. It is more like this v that. Each scenario could produce the same result.. Which is more likely? That is the right/wrong of all this. Which motive goes with which scenario.
You may end up with a stalemate... no one is right or wrong and there is no reason to play further.
We ain't there yet cuz we've not examined the how and why of it all yet?
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: jonks
Ok, fine. He's right. We're wrong. He's smart, we're stupid. He can see where we are blind. He's very handsome, we are not very good looking.
But what can he expect, this is what we get for drinking the flouride in our water supply put there by commies to brainwash us into sheeple.
NO... NO... No.... that is not the case at all.
It is not right v wrong. It is more like this v that. Each scenario could produce the same result.. Which is more likely? That is the right/wrong of all this. Which motive goes with which scenario.
You may end up with a stalemate... no one is right or wrong and there is no reason to play further.
We ain't there yet cuz we've not examined the how and why of it all yet?
Rather, you expect me to be a sheep and accept your claim of 1000's of structural engineers having thoroughly looked into the matter and support your faith in the official story, but I have no reason to put any faith in your claims.Originally posted by: Cogman
It's funny because we are supposed to be the sheep for accepting the opinions of 1000's and not getting our panties in a bunch because some firefighter said molten steel. while kylebisme is the truly rational one that believes NIST is lying to us because some 5th grade chemistry teacher decided he knows more about engineering then 1000's of structural engineers do.
On the contrary, I'm interested in establishing a proper investigation to look into those questions, while you love to fight against the possibility of anything of the sort.Originally posted by: Cogman
I would love to see his answer for this
...
Originally posted by: kylebisme
Rather, you expect me to be a sheep and accept your claim of 1000's of structural engineers having thoroughly looked into the matter and support your faith in the official story, but I have no reason to put any faith in your claims.Originally posted by: Cogman
It's funny because we are supposed to be the sheep for accepting the opinions of 1000's and not getting our panties in a bunch because some firefighter said molten steel. while kylebisme is the truly rational one that believes NIST is lying to us because some 5th grade chemistry teacher decided he knows more about engineering then 1000's of structural engineers do.
On the contrary, I'm interested in establishing a proper investigation to look into those questions, while you love to fight against the possibility of anything of the sort.Originally posted by: Cogman
I would love to see his answer for this
...
Originally posted by: kylebisme
On the contrary, I'm interested in establishing a proper investigation to look into those questions, while you love to fight against the possibility of anything of the sort.Originally posted by: Cogman
I would love to see his answer for this
...
Rather, the official story can't produce the observable result, and pointing that out is simply calling wrong for what it is. This is the same as having the evidence to prove the Earth is more than 6000 old, even though one might not have the evidence to rightly establish how old it is.Originally posted by: LunarRay
It is not right v wrong. It is more like this v that. Each scenario could produce the same result..
There most certainly are, and I even provided video examples of another method in the Op. I hope you might take the opportunity to consider the information I presented there at some point.Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Could there have been any other explanation of your "outside forces" other than explosives?
You can find a video going into far more detail on the specifics of WTC7 here.Originally posted by: Sclamoz
NO. We are right. There is no way the official version could be true. It goes against the laws of physics. Open your mind the truth
Originally posted by: kylebisme
It is the best explantion for the molten steel I've seen so far.Originally posted by: Moonbeam
All this nonsense about iron and aluminum and stuff is just nonsense.
Here is an example of fire's effect on a steel building, and a shot of the aftermath. As for examples of fire bringing down any such structure with a period of free fall acceleration; you won't find any, and you won't find anyone to make one, as it is physically impossible.Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Termites leave a carbon residue and don't effect steel buildings.
Ah yes, the biggest truther lie told, that they are only looking for a "proper investigation."Originally posted by: kylebisme
On the contrary, I'm interested in establishing a proper investigation to look into those questions, while you love to fight against the possibility of anything of the sort.
If you can provide me with any evidence to substantiate you call for an investigation into such matters, then I'd be happy to back you. Absent that, you sound like every other nutcase I've heard ratting about such nonsense before you.Originally posted by: jonks
I too want a proper investigation into the moon landing that wasn't, flouride that brainwashes, obama's birth in kenya, and how Bush got into an ivy league school. These mysteries deserve serious treatment. Anyone who says otherwise is a sheep.
Originally posted by: kylebisme
Rather, you expect me to be a sheep and accept your claim of 1000's of structural engineers having thoroughly looked into the matter and support your faith in the official story, but I have no reason to put any faith in your claims.Originally posted by: Cogman
It's funny because we are supposed to be the sheep for accepting the opinions of 1000's and not getting our panties in a bunch because some firefighter said molten steel. while kylebisme is the truly rational one that believes NIST is lying to us because some 5th grade chemistry teacher decided he knows more about engineering then 1000's of structural engineers do.
On the contrary, I'm interested in establishing a proper investigation to look into those questions, while you love to fight against the possibility of anything of the sort.Originally posted by: Cogman
I would love to see his answer for this
...
Originally posted by: kylebisme
Rather, the official story can't produce the observable result, and pointing that out is simply calling wrong for what it is. This is the same as having the evidence to prove the Earth is more than 6000 old, even though one might not have the evidence to rightly establish how old it is.Originally posted by: LunarRay
It is not right v wrong. It is more like this v that. Each scenario could produce the same result..
There most certainly are, and I even provided video examples of another method in the Op. I hope you might take the opportunity to consider the information I presented there at some point.Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Could there have been any other explanation of your "outside forces" other than explosives?
You can find a video going into far more detail on the specifics of WTC7 here.Originally posted by: Sclamoz
NO. We are right. There is no way the official version could be true. It goes against the laws of physics. Open your mind the truth
Originally posted by: kylebisme
If you can provide me with any evidence to substantiate you call for an investigation into such matters, then I'd be happy to back you. Absent that, you sound like every other nutcase I've heard ratting about such nonsense before you.Originally posted by: jonks
I too want a proper investigation into the moon landing that wasn't, flouride that brainwashes, obama's birth in kenya, and how Bush got into an ivy league school. These mysteries deserve serious treatment. Anyone who says otherwise is a sheep.
20% of Americans have doubts that we went to the Moon.
The Apollo footage [from the surface of the Moon] is strikingly similar to the scenes in ``Capricorn 1''.
There is a lack of stars in the pictures taken by the Apollo astronauts from the surface of the Moon. Without air, the sky is black, so where are the stars?
In the pictures taken of the lunar lander by the astronauts there is no blast crater. A rocket capable of landing on the Moon should have burned out a huge crater on the surface, yet there is nothing there.
As the lander descended, we clearly see dust getting blown away by the rocket. The exhaust should have blown all the dust away, yet we can clearly see the astronauts' footprints in the dust mere meters from the lander. Obviously, when NASA faked this they messed it up.
In all the pictures taken by the astronauts, the shadows are not black. Objects in shadow can be seen, sometimes fairly clearly, including a plaque on the side of the lander that can be read easily. If the Sun is the only source of light on the Moon, the HBs say, and there is no air to scatter that light, shadows should be utterly black.
Several photos from the Moon are shown where objects on the lunar landscape have long shadows. If the Sun were the only light source the shadows should be parallel. The shadows are not parallel, and therefore the images are fake.
I've said:Originally posted by: Cogman
So, you're saying that 1000 structural engineers who's sole task it was to determine that cause of the fall, were incapable of considering an explosion inside the building? Or that they were all so incompetent as to not see such glaring contradictions?
Originally posted by: kylebisme
... the investigations seem to have been compartmentalised and directed from the top down, so most of the people working on it, scientists and otherwise, were given tasks that separated the evidence into parts which would confirm the official story rather than expose them to anything that would lead them to question it. And of course anyone who does come forward against the official story gets shouted down or worse, so I'm sure many are dissuaded from ever really looking into the matter simply by that.
Who has been bought into covering things up, blackmailed into covering things up, or just simply confused into covering things up, is something I doubt more than some few people know, and certainly not anything I am in any position to speculate on. However, if we ever get a real investigation set up, I'd wager we find it is some mix of all of the above.
They are 912 architectural and engineering professionals at the moment, but it's hard to expect others to even try to look into the matter, let alone come forward on it, with all you falsers standing poised to shout them down with inane arguments while refusing to address the facts.Originally posted by: kylebisme
Why, pre-tell isn't there a small army of structural engineers that are troothers?
Originally posted by: Cogman
I would love to see his answer for this
. . . 4) If the government is going to blow up a building, why do they concoct a complicated plan that involves hijacking a plane and slamming it into the building? There is WAAAY too much that could go wrong. What if the hijackers fail to take control of the plane? What if the plane misses the building? Why would they not make the cover story easier -- terrorists snuck truckloads of explosives into the building and blew it up? I mean, we already had an attack on the WTC which was exactly that, why not replicate it? PLUS, if you're going to go to the trouble of hijacking planes and slamming them into the building, why bother planting explosives? Why not load the planes with explosives? Why are there two high-risk operations being conducted simultaneously? This makes zero sense. . . .
Why on earth would an group go through all the showman ship of getting a plane to crash into the building, and then detonate it? Why not just detonate? Would it really be THAT hard to say that "Oh, terrorist drove have loaded the building with explosives and blown it up."
One other question I would have, if the government is in charge of this, why did they fly a jet into the pentagon? Why not the statue of liberty, or the Washington monument, or some building that no government official works at.
And if you do find a reason for that, why didn't they use explosives on the pentagon as well? If you are going to take a building down, why not blow it up?
Sorry, but every video I've ever seen, I see planes fly into the buildings, I've never seen an explosion go off (other then the explosion of 1000's of gallons of jet fuel igniting)