Je suis Omar Posted April 2, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 2, 2015 The Waterloo lecturer talked about other chemicals too. That sounds very important, very impressive, but what is the point, Michael? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted April 2, 2015 Report Share Posted April 2, 2015 No I didnt advance it. Structural engineers did. You know, guys who actually know about how buildings are constructed, ad destructed. The term and what it refers is standard knowledge. No, no, you don't understand, these conspiracy nuts are all educated on the important details far more than structural engineers. It's like Chomsky said, these people spend an hour reading a web site on the internet and suddenly they're physicists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted April 2, 2015 Report Share Posted April 2, 2015 No, not aluminum, Michael. Yes, aluminum, you know, from the planes. You flat out ignore all the people, the USGS, FEMA , Rudy G, ... who described molten steel. There are pictures of molten steel, you saw them, if you watched the videos presented. Hey, here's an idea. You drop some steel girders a thousand feet, drop a billion tons of stuff on them, and let them burn for some days under all that debris. Might be a little melting there along the way... The laws of physics, Newton's laws are not science fiction. Oh come on. You know you don't care about the laws of science. You're like those radical crazies who read a complicated work like the bible, but only take from it those parts which reinforce what you want to see. You act like you're the skeptic, disbelieving the government and the mainstream media, but it's actually you who are the true believer trying to convince us skeptics that you're not nuts. And failing, btw. You've taken isolated bits and pieces of a massively complicated thing, strung them together with odd going on crazy interpretations of the science, and proclaimed yourselves geniuses and the rest of us sheep. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted April 3, 2015 Report Share Posted April 3, 2015 Michael: NIST addressed Thermite in their report: No, they didn't. They dismissed it out of hand. Everyone who knows anything about thermite dismissed it out of hand. Which is why the 911 nuts have invented a new type of thermite which doesn't actually exist, but which they suggest COULD exist, and if it DID then it would be responsible! Yet the very idea of using thermite was itself an invention to cover why nobody heard the tremendous multiple explosions which would have had to occur if these buildings were blown down by controlled demolition! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted April 3, 2015 Report Share Posted April 3, 2015 Look at all the slanderous comments that are regularly levelled at those who disagree with the official theory. Conspiracy theorists, whackos, nutty ... , ... . They're not slanderous if they're true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted April 3, 2015 Report Share Posted April 3, 2015 (edited) My favorite is one called 'Eye Witness 9/11'. This was done from the Jersey side in Hoboken I believe. It is an hour and 40 minutes, but he does capture explosion sounds before the collapse of the buildings. Visually you can see smoke rising from the base of the towers after the loud explosion sounds. By far this was the most compelling for explosives being used. But, make up your own mind. I remember seeing an interview with a guy who does controlled demolitions. When the interviewer said people heard explosions his answer was something like "What does an explosion sound like? To people not involved in ordnance, any loud bang sounds like an explosion." Did you see the documentary where the cameraman went into WTC2 with one of the first fire crews? Bodies hitting the ground sounded like explosions. In some cases elevators were blown down to the lobby and halfway across it. Then there's air pressure, blowing dust and debris out in all directions. There were hundreds of firefighters and cops there, along with thousands of civilians. They weren't across the river in Jersey, and they didn't hear or see these explosions. So I'm sorry if I discount what some amateur wackos playing around with cell phone recordings from New Jersey have concluded. Edited April 3, 2015 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Je suis Omar Posted April 3, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 3, 2015 Argus: Hey, here's an idea. You drop some steel girders a thousand feet, drop a billion tons of stuff on them, and let them burn for some days under all that debris. Might be a little melting there along the way... ----------- Correct me if I'm wrong, Argus, but I believe you said at the beginning of this discussion that this stuff was beyond you. How did you get yourself up to speed so quickly? Where did you get your little idea? Is it your own or is it from an outside source? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Je suis Omar Posted April 3, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 3, 2015 (edited) Argus: Everyone who knows anything about thermite dismissed it out of hand. Which is why the 911 nuts have invented a new type of thermite which doesn't actually exist, but which they suggest COULD exist, and if it DID then it would be responsible! ---------- Dismissing something out of hand doesn't sound very scientific. Do you think such an approach is scientific? Could you tell me the name of this new type of thermite that doesn't actually exist? Edited April 3, 2015 by Je suis Omar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted April 3, 2015 Report Share Posted April 3, 2015 The molten metal can be clearly seen flowing out of voids in the sides of the buildings has been clearly ided as aluminum. Its the wrong color to be anything else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted April 3, 2015 Report Share Posted April 3, 2015 No, no, you don't understand, these conspiracy nuts are all educated on the important details far more than structural engineers. It's like Chomsky said, these people spend an hour reading a web site on the internet and suddenly they're physicists. And when the first set of physics fails, there is always another website with new ones. Although I believe that source has cratered as far as anything new so they have to dig deep these days. A bit of a waste of time, but it keeps some folks occupied. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Je suis Omar Posted April 3, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 3, 2015 The molten metal can be clearly seen flowing out of voids in the sides of the buildings has been clearly ided as aluminum. Its the wrong color to be anything else. Can you provide your source for this contention? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted April 3, 2015 Report Share Posted April 3, 2015 Can you provide your source for this contention? Here is one, there are many others. http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Je suis Omar Posted April 3, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 3, 2015 (edited) Here is one, there are many others. http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm Your source says, "Yet, there is enough evidence to point to the glow being aluminum. (Anyone saying they KNOW what the substance is would be lying. I won't pretend to KNOW it's aluminum because I don't. The NIST doesn't say they KNOW either. They only conclude it's aluminum because it's the most likely, given the evidence.)" Are assumptions science? Edited April 3, 2015 by Je suis Omar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Je suis Omar Posted April 3, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 3, 2015 And when the first set of physics fails, there is always another ... That is a perfect description of NIST's approach, OGFT. They kept tweaking their computer programs to meet a predetermined notion. Even then their results didn't begin to approach reality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted April 3, 2015 Report Share Posted April 3, 2015 Your source says, "Yet, there is enough evidence to point to the glow being aluminum. (Anyone saying they KNOW what the substance is would be lying. I won't pretend to KNOW it's aluminum because I don't. The NIST doesn't say they KNOW either. They only conclude it's aluminum because it's the most likely, given the evidence.)" Are assumptions science? Give you a hint,,, what are airplanes made of...what is the melting point...what is the temp of burning jet fuel. Perhaps you didnt read the post, or aybe oly to the point that debunked your theory, not unlike most of those types. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Je suis Omar Posted April 3, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 3, 2015 Give you a hint,,, what are airplanes made of...what is the melting point...what is the temp of burning jet fuel. Perhaps you didnt read the post, or aybe oly to the point that debunked your theory, not unlike most of those types. They said they can't say for sure it's aluminum and they also state that NIST can't either. I'm guessing that your contention is that two assumptions constitute science and that then becomes your proof allowing you to state categorically that it's molten aluminum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted April 3, 2015 Report Share Posted April 3, 2015 They said they can't say for sure it's aluminum and they also state that NIST can't either. I'm guessing that your contention is that two assumptions constitute science and that then becomes your proof allowing you to state categorically that it's molten aluminum. I guess you didnt get the part about steel fails well below its melting point. But come on, dig up some more of that pseudo science junk. I havent seen the stuff for years. Most of the truthers gave up long ago, for obvious reasons, but soldier on if you wish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Je suis Omar Posted April 3, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 3, 2015 I guess you didnt get the part about steel fails well below its melting point. But come on, dig up some more of that pseudo science junk. I havent seen the stuff for years. Most of the truthers gave up long ago, for obvious reasons, but soldier on if you wish. This isn't at all what we were discussing. You provided a site that stated that there was no way to determine the flow was molten aluminum. Yet you and some others feel you have the qualifications to state categorically you know what it is. Is that science to your mind? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted April 3, 2015 Report Share Posted April 3, 2015 This isn't at all what we were discussing. You provided a site that stated that there was no way to determine the flow was molten aluminum. Yet you and some others feel you have the qualifications to state categorically you know what it is. Is that science to your mind? It doesnt state that at all. It provides some actual science to show its not steel, but aluminum, with some additives it picked up as it flowed across the office floors after impact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Je suis Omar Posted April 3, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 3, 2015 It doesnt state that at all. It provides some actual science to show its not steel, but aluminum, with some additives it picked up as it flowed across the office floors after impact. Why are you so reluctant to share that "actual science"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted April 3, 2015 Report Share Posted April 3, 2015 Why are you so reluctant to share that "actual science"? Its in the link. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Je suis Omar Posted April 3, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 3, 2015 Its in the link. Do you know how to copy and paste? Or write the first few words of the appropriate section? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted April 3, 2015 Report Share Posted April 3, 2015 Do you know how to copy and paste? Or write the first few words of the appropriate section? 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. Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Je suis Omar Posted April 3, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 3, 2015 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. Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface." Thank you very much, OGFT. Could you explain why NIST didn't do tests to confirm their hypothesis? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted April 3, 2015 Report Share Posted April 3, 2015 Thank you very much, OGFT. Could you explain why NIST didn't do tests to confirm their hypothesis? Probably because the melting points of metals was already well known. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.