Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

It's been fun, but I think it's time we bid you farewell, loser.

I wish I could say the same for you but talking to a post isn't all that fun.

What thread are you off to now, BD, to weave your fanciful tales?

Edited by Je suis Omar
  • Replies 678
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted (edited)

You said "if it wasn't aluminum" but NIST explained how it could be.

And you studiously ignored how AE911 explained, with scientific experimentation illustrating, again, that NIST lied, again.

Here's a replication of that same experiment, without the organics portion. Notice just what a simple experiment it is, Michael. And NIST couldn't mount the effort necessary to do a simple lab experiment to prove such a crucial point. We both know why.

A Description of Molten Aluminum Poured onto Rust Steel

...

The aluminum on the other hand changes very little in appearance when heat is applied. The outside oxide layer changes to a very faint straw color and then as the heat increases the inside of the aluminum will melt first and the outside oxide layer will appear as dirty contamination and will not mix with the more pure molten aluminum. The melted aluminum did not change in color other than take on the appearance of mercury or a clean and pure silvery color. This melting was done near a large window with outdoor exposure during the day, so we had plenty of daylight lighting.

When the aluminum was completely melted we poured the molten aluminum out and it retained the silvery color (like mercury) even though the steel pot was glowing orange-hot. The melted aluminum was poured onto rusty mild-steel (see photographs) and soon after the aluminum made contact with the steel and flowed a bit, the aluminum solidified and looked very much like it did before we put the heat to it.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200703/Molten_Aluminum_Poured_onto_Rusty_Steel_by_Wes_Lifferth.pdf

Edited by Je suis Omar
Posted

NIST explained the colour came from burning debris. It's not even mentioned here.

And despite this obvious misdirection you have now breathlessly accused NIST of 'lies' rather than just errors.

What happened to talking about the science, which is what we were doing? Why 'lies' ?

It's probably because the whole thing was about starting with the idea of a conspiracy then finding facts to back that up. And it has nothing to do with science.

I have been very patient with all of this but it has led nowhere. I hope you can see my point.

Posted (edited)

Michael Hardner:

NIST explained the colour came from burning debris. It's not even mentioned here.

Omar: Yes, I stated that myself, that it did not include NIST's contention on the issue of organics mixed in. I said, "Here's a replication of that same experiment, without the organics portion". How did you miss that? The post was a relatively short one.

What "obvious misdirection" are you referring to? Yours?

In the AE911 page I posted quite some time ago, which you apparently haven't read, there was scientific experimentation done which showed that organics will not mix in with molten aluminum.

Even in this last experiment that I have referred you to, there was a description of how even the aluminium oxides, which were produced by heating the aluminum, would not mix in with the molten aluminum.

How did you miss that? It was a very short two page PDF.

I watched another video which was done, also at BYU, where repeated attempts were made to mix in organics by stirring them in with a screwdriver - no mixing, Michael.

Michael Hardner: And despite this obvious misdirection you have now breathlessly accused NIST of 'lies' rather than just errors.

What happened to talking about the science, which is what we were doing? Why 'lies' ?

Omar: Would you like me to go back and bring forward your rant about the "AE911Truth" website being "propaganda"?

You just wrote, "What happened to talking about the science". You railed against blogs - Do you remember that god awful blog YOU brought in much earlier in this thread, the one wherein I had to show you just how unscientific it was.

The one, that I must remind you, was your find, the one that I must again remind you, specifically refuted a contention of yours, that was current in time to that same discussion, that you had been raising about your hobby horse "that's not science" meme.

It seems that you don't even read your own sources, ones which you bring here, ones which are few and far between. Ones from BLOGS!

You've hardly been the ideal picture of consistency on this issue, Michael. You seem to raise it and then harp on it when you start to feel the heat.

RE: "lies, why not errors?", I'll deal with in a separate post.

Michael Hardner: I have been very patient with all of this but it has led nowhere. I hope you can see my point.

Omar: No, I can't see your point at all. What has you being patient got to do with anything, most of all what has it got to do with science. You complained that you had spent a whole hour on this.

You can't possibly be so naive as to think, to believe that this, SCIENCE, could be solved by Michael Hardner spending an hour on it?!

Especially when you have refused to seriously look at the website that dealt directly with the issue at hand, NIST's contention that the molten metal from WTC 2 was aluminum.

And you have the gall to write,

"It's probably because the whole thing was about starting with the idea of a conspiracy then finding facts to back that up. And it has nothing to do with science."

I never raised anything about "the idea of a conspiracy". I didn't even say/write the word "conspiracy", ???, or at least I don't think I did.

I think this goes some distance towards illustrating why many are and would be afraid to discuss this issue. Folks like you just keep throwing up the conspiracy meme. You accuse me ( and, by implication, others who might be interested in discussing this) of all manner of dishonesty when a, not even pointed close review of the posts, would show the lengths you, BlackDog and OGFT have gone to to stifle the discussion.

Why have you never addressed OGFT's (and others) pointed refusal to actually discuss the science issues?

Edited by Je suis Omar
Posted

And despite this obvious misdirection you have now breathlessly accused NIST of 'lies' rather than just errors.

.

The lies came from John Gross of NIST. I have previously posted a video illustrating his lies.

He stated that he knew of no eye witnesses, that nobody had produced examples of molten steel/iron.

Then numerous eye witnesses were brought forward.

Posted

He may not have known. That's an error, not a lie. Scientists talk about errors.

So now you've fallen back to "may not have known".

But come on, Michael, he was a lead investigator for NIST. Even if what you suggest was true, which it isn't, talk about gross incompetence.

Posted

So now you've fallen back to "may not have known".

But come on, Michael, he was a lead investigator for NIST. Even if what you suggest was true, which it isn't, talk about gross incompetence.

I know you have bought heavily into the AE911 junk, but maybe you should re think that. Here is a little science for ya.

https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-ae911truths-wtc7-explosive-demolition-hypothesis.t1727/

Posted

I know you have bought heavily into the AE911 junk, but maybe you should re think that. Here is a little science for ya.

https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-ae911truths-wtc7-explosive-demolition-hypothesis.t1727/

What on earth would lead you to the preposterous notion that anyone would be the least bit interested in yet another of your outdated sources that you, yourself, don't understand?

Posted

I guess the same preposterous notion you have about AE 911 data.

Hardly, OGFT. You were the one who fled once you were shown that you had an outdated, bogus source. And all you have done since is the peanut gallery.

This isn't a modus operandi you should be so proud of.

Posted

Hardly, OGFT. You were the one who fled once you were shown that you had an outdated, bogus source. And all you have done since is the peanut gallery.

This isn't a modus operandi you should be so proud of.

Oh I have far from fled. I wouldnt miss the nonsense you try and flog as science for the world.

Posted (edited)

Oh I have far from fled.

Already noted - peanut gallery.

You fled, "intellectually", once you found you were unable to continue with your source.

You did the same in the thread on language.

Take your new "source" and discuss these issues in a scientific fashion.

Will pigs fly?

Edited by Je suis Omar
Posted

Already noted - peanut gallery.

You fled, "intellectually", once you found you were unable to continue with your source.

You did the same in the thread on language.

Far from fled, intellectually or otherwise. I cant waste too much time exposing your faux science though, I have had a lot of editing traffic lately.

Posted (edited)

He may not have known. That's an error, not a lie. Scientists talk about errors.

You suggest John Gross may not have known. Do you think he lives in a bubble, totally isolated from the outside world.

He was, I believe, second to the lead investigator, Shyam Sunder. The kind of isolation that one has to envision that would leave Gross this ignorant on these issues would rule him out as an investigator.

John Gross said, when asked about molten steel/iron:

"Lets go back to your basic premise that there was a pool of molten steel. I know of absolutely nobody no eyewitnesses said so, nobodys produced it."

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

No eyewitnesses? Really?

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

II-A. Testimony from Firefighters:

New York Fire Department Captain Philip Ruvolo said: Youd get down below and youd see molten steel, molten steel, running down the channel rails, like youre in a foundry, like lava. [31]

Joe OToole, a Bronx firefighter who worked on the rescue and cleanup efforts, reported that one beam lifted from deep below the surface months later, in February 2002, was dripping from the molten steel. [32]

New York firefighters recalled in the documentary film Collateral Damages, heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel. [33]

II-B. Testimony from Other Professionals:

Leslie Robertson, a member of the engineering firm that designed the World Trade Center, said 21 days after the attack: When we were down at the B1 level, one of the firefighters said, I think youd be interested in this, and they pulled up a big block of concrete and there was a, like a little river of steel, flowing. [34]

Ron Burger, a public health advisor at the National Center for Environmental Health who arrived at Ground Zero September 12, 2001, said: Feeling the heat, seeing the molten steel, the layers upon layers of ash, like lava, it reminded me of Mt. St. Helens and the thousands who fled that disaster. [35]

In late fall 2001, Dr. Alison Geyh of the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health reported: Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel. [36]

Joe Allbaugh, the Director of FEMA, said in an October 2001 interview on CBS: Its just too hot for rescuers to get into [some] areas. So we do not know yet whats in those areas, other than very hot, molten material. [37]

Dr. Keith Eaton reported in Structural Engineer: They showed us many fascinating slides ranging from molten metal which was still red hot weeks after the event, to 4-inch thick steel plates sheared and bent in the disaster.

Don Carson, a hazardous materials expert from the National Operating Engineers Union, said six weeks after 9/11: There are pieces of steel being pulled out from as far as six stories underground that are still cherry red. [38]

II-C. Testimony from Other Credible Witnesses:

Greg Fuchek, vice president of a company that supplied computer equipment used to identify human remains, reported that sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel. [39]

Sarah Atlas, of New Jerseys Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue, arrived at Ground Zero on September 11 and reported that fires burned and molten steel flowed in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet. [40]

Tom Arterburn, writing in Waste Age, reported that the New York Department of Sanitation removed everything from molten steel beams to human remains. [41]

http://www.consensus911.org/point-tt-6/

Edited by Je suis Omar
Posted (edited)

I already said, Omar, it's no longer about science. Trying to establish if somebody knew there were "eyewitnesses", whatever that means... and calling people liars. It's a farce, it's a courtroom drama piece, not science. Sorry.

What you are advancing, Michael, is a farce. Eyewitnesses are often used to obtain convictions in multiple court cases. Eyewitnesses are used in the USA to obtain convictions where people are then executed.

And if it was only eyewitnesses, you might have a point, an exceedingly weak one but a point.

You have taken this position because the presence of molten steel and iron refutes, completely, the official USA government conspiracy theory.

A theory which you are, inexplicably, emotionally invested in furthering and protecting.

Why leaps to mind?

It was, and still is completely impossible for molten steel/iron to have existed at the WTC site on and post 911.

Edited by Je suis Omar
Posted

Agreed.

And exist it, molten steel/iron, did. The only explanation, unless you can come up with something, is that explosives that are capable of producing the molten steel/iron also existed at the WTC site.

Posted (edited)

Rebuttal of Official Claims: Summary

1. The claim that no evidence of any molten steel or iron was found in any of the WTC buildings is strongly refuted by three scientific reports, one from a government agency (USGS).

2. John Grosss claim that no eyewitnesses said that there was molten steel (or iron) was strongly and repeatedly contradicted.

3. The claim that molten steel or iron would be irrelevant because it could have been produced in the combustion pile: This would mean claiming, with no scientific evidence and no plausibility, that combustion in an oxygen-starved pile of rubbish could have heated steel to at least 1500°C (2800° F).

4. With regard to the NIST claim that molten steel or iron is irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse because it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers [including WTC 7] were standing: Given the fact that the molten steel or iron in the debris could not have been produced without incendiaries or explosives, the presence of either of them indicates that some of the steel was melted before, or during, the final moments of the collapses.

5. With regard to NISTs statement in its post-report publication that there was no evidence for the melting of steel in a jet-fuel ignited fire in the towers: This is a statement that is truly irrelevant. The whole point is that the presence of melted steel and/or iron is an indication that the buildings must have been brought down by something other than fire.

Conclusion

None of the official claims about the non-existence of molten iron or steel in the destroyed WTC buildings withstand scrutiny. The fact that the rubble contained steel or iron that had been melted shows that the buildings were destroyed by something other than fire and airplane impact. Especially dramatic evidence of various types was provided by several facts: that the original RJ Lee report showed that there was almost 1,500 times more iron in the dust than normal; that the rubble contained steel with gaping holes, manifesting a Swiss cheese appearance that shocked the three fire-wise professors from Worcester Polytechnic Institute; that lead had been vaporized; that molybdenum had been melted; and that the metal pools contained iron that had been heated, as shown by the orange color, above 2,000°C (3,632°F).

When all of this physical evidence is combined with the testimony about explosions from many types of professionals, the claim that the Twin Towers were brought down by nothing other than the airplane impacts and resulting fires is simply not credible.

http://www.consensus911.org/point-tt-6/

Edited by Je suis Omar
Posted

MOVED FROM

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/24008-shots-fired-on-parliament-hill/page-70#entry1056672

TO COMPLY WITH FORUM RULES AGAINST CROSS POSTING

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

Michael Hardner, on 24 May 2015 - 12:22 PM, said:

The point here is that you're posting things about undisputed proof, when there are many that dispute it.

So you're trying to convince by pointing out that there are many folks who deny reality, Michael.

"There is always what are called 'tinfoil hat types', whom I don' trust to be honest in their enquiries. But I think a reasonable dialogue will answer the questions of most citizens."

- Michael Hardner

1. All agree: no possible legitimate way for there to be molten steel and molten iron at the WTC site. No possible way for the fires that existed on 911 to have melted steel, to have created molten iron.

2. Numerous examples of molten steel, molten iron at WTC 1, 2 & 7 sites post 911.

3. John Gross, a lead investigator for NIST, lies about the molten steel, molten iron at WTC site, denying its very existence. After he requests information about the same and says he will look at it, he refuses to provide his contact information.

4. Conclusions ????

Edited by Je suis Omar, Today, 07:02 PM.

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.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,928
    • Most Online
      1,554

    Newest Member
    BTDT
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...