Providing proof/evidence that supports the US 911 Conspiracy Theory

[Rue]

All my comments for the following come from

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-09-11/  but showing Hotty’s melted steel articles are a joke is not hard. One only need read up on the properties of steel to immediately realize he and the articles he quotes haven’t a damn clue about steel and thus for example we get comments from Hotty like steel is steel, or there is such a thing as eutectic steel.

The “melted steel” (what Hotty likes to call “eutectic steel” }the  9/11 conspiracy theorists claim was at Ground Zero  were based on informal observations by untrained laypersons and not laboratory results. For Hotty and the sites he reads, there is simply the assumption made that  the grayish metal  that was reported was steel. Its kind of ironic since he comes on this forum claiming he relies on science but in fact quotes articles that rely on unproven assumptions. There is no proof the substances Hotty thinks his articles assumed were steel were on fact aluminum. How is it Hotty the scientist leaps to the conclusion the substance in question is steel, without analytical laboratory results using atomic absorption (AA) or another suitable test?

The entire premises of the melted steel theory Hotty thinks he understands and tries to refer to suggests steel would have needed to melt in order for the structure to collapse at the speed of a free-fall.

Unlike Hotty who has no proof for what the temperature was we do know there are  varying assessments of the temperature of the fire at WTC, reaching 1,000° Fahrenheit and possibly higher than 1,800° F.  but far les than he  2800° F eutectic point needed to melt steel.

At 1000 degrees F however that would be sufficient to severely reduce the structural integrity of the metal because engineering estimates have illustrated steel loses 50% of its strength at 650° F, and can lose as much as 90% of its strength at temperatures of 1,800° F.

So instead of just leaping to the assumption the steel melted its possible severe structural compromise occurred sufficient enough to result in the eventual collapse.

The unproven assumptions that Hotty tries to pass of as science will not acknowledge that the  unique structure of the WTC towers  subject to compromised steel could have collapsed without needing to melt.

The towers had a lightweight “perimeter tube” design consisting of 244 exterior columns of 36 cm square steel box section on 100 cm centers, with 95% of the structure’s interior consisting of nothing but air .

Within this perimeter tube design there was a 27m by 40m core, designed to provide additional support to the tower.

Steel trusses, or joists, connected the outer beams to the core at each story, and provided much of the overall support to the weight of each floor.

So the impact and explosion of the airplane crashes of course could hav  knocked off most of the insulating material intended to fireproof the steel beams, considerably increasing their vulnerability to flames.

The heat of the flames of course would have reduced the steel to a fraction of its initial strength, while also causing the steel trusses to expand at each end until they no longer supported the weight of the building’s floors, triggering the collapse.

The expansion and warping of the steel would have been particularly significant due to temperature differences within the burning structure.

 Thus, the trusses would have gone  limp much like a slackened laundry line, providing little or no resistance to the weight of the floors overhead.

 

 

[Rue]

3 hours ago, hot enough said:

 

One of thee top US physicists peer reviewed the paper and he has come out as a reviewer. He also won the national debate on 911 science by default because no US scientist will debate for the USGOCT.

You, of all people, should not be calling others crackpots. You are the guy who always flees after taking a few potshots. You can't even name any of these scientists, architects, engineers, physicists who you are calling crackpots. 

You are one of the guys who NEVER brings forth anything from any scientist for the USGOCT because no scientist will try to defend such arrant wackiness.

provide the name, provide the peer review.

Edited July 6, 2017 by Rue

[hot enough]

59 minutes ago, Omni said:

The logic here should be quite obvious. 

Logic is not any of you folks long suit. Still no evidence from Omni for the USGOCT.

Quote

And of course the question has never been responded to as far as I have seen (by HE), as to how the myriad of people that would have had to have been involved in this great conspiracy could have been kept silent all these years. 

Another lie from the folks who do this regularly. I have addressed it. There are many many US false flags that were hidden for many many years, much longer than 911. It's hardly silent. People have known for years that the NIST reports were a farce, the science was overwhelming that there were three controlled demolitions. 

Odd isn't it, how Omni and the rest of the crew haven't leaped to address the seismic record, the one that shows the waves recorded at LDEO were from powerful subterranean explosions that coincide perfectly with the reports of those explosions from eyewitnesses. 

But the seismic data does not support the USGOCT. 

You folks are so desperate to avoid the nanothermite, the molten steel, the vaporized steel, the molten molybdenum and you lie each time you post by not addressing these realities, the ones that there are pictures for, myriad scientific papers on, yet almost none since the initial flush. 

[Rue]

3 hours ago, hot enough said:

Oooooooooo, "that one thing"! Ominous, Michael, really ominous. 

You are so blatantly dishonest. There have been myriad things that you and others would/will never discuss. You, a moderator, provided cover for so many of these folks who do all the drive-by snipings, never addressing the issues as described by MLW guidelines.

Your continuous accusations that people who disagree with you, are liars is childish, Provide the alleged peer reviews and peer review they did. You won't. They don't exist. Sorry to tell you but Jones admitted he was never peer reviewed after he got caught lying so you really need to know when to give it a rest. Or please be my guest provide those peer reviewers and their report.

Next, shmemmerisms or whatever term you use in your response  simply reduces you again to a child when you answer people.

You have a repeat tendency to call anyone who disagrees or questions you a liar.

That;s kind of sad as well as funny. You sound very lonely. Now me I am back at work on a real issue, I'd send you a picture of the corpse but at this point you will mistake it as thermites. You do serve as  a late night distraction but the body needs to be tagged. Such is llfe and in this world no thermites exist just disturbed people. Peekaboo I no longer see you.

 

[hot enough]

17 minutes ago, Rue said:

All my comments for the following come from

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-09-11/

Which illustrate why you know nothing about the events or the science of 911. 

[Omni]

1 minute ago, hot enough said:

You folks are so desperate to avoid the nanothermite, the molten steel, the vaporized steel, the molten molybdenum

We have already explained numerous times: paint chips, glowing hot steel, melted aluminum. But you seem to keep going back into the conspiracy theory swamp. Must be scary down there.

[hot enough]

9 minutes ago, Rue said:

Your continuous accusations that people who disagree with you, are liars is childish, Provide the alleged peer reviews and peer review they did. You won't. They don't exist. Sorry to tell you but Jones admitted he was never peer reviewed after he got caught lying so you really need to know when to give it a rest. Or please be my guest provide those peer reviewers and their report.

 

Still no science from Rue, just a garbled rant. Rue lies with no sources to back his lies. That's hardly a surprise.

Provide sources, Rue. People can see you are a joke.

[Rue]

3 minutes ago, hot enough said:

Which illustrate why you know nothing about the events or the science of 911. 

no it only illustrates you think you can avoid the points it raised by acting like a child in your response and refusing to discuss them and instead stick your tongue out, The act has worn thin. Grow up. If you can't debate stop hiding behind name calling. Nyah nyah and hari Krishna to you. I;m off. That tag needs placing.

[hot enough]

8 minutes ago, Omni said:

We have already explained numerous times: paint chips, glowing hot steel, melted aluminum. But you seem to keep going back into the conspiracy theory swamp. Must be scary down there.

No science, no sources, no nothing from Omni.

MLW Guidelines: If you are not bringing anything new to the argument, then do not say anything at all.
Some messages are not so much offensive as simply nuisance value. An example would be a person who persistently creates conflict without contributing anything useful. 

 

[Rue]

7 minutes ago, hot enough said:

Still no science from Rue, just a garbled rant. Rue lies with no sources to back his lies. That's hardly a surprise.

Provide sources, Rue. People can see you are a joke.

Sorry one last thing, now that you refuse to provide the peer reviewers you claim exist you've shown the only one lying is you and when caught lying you think if you call out some more childish names it will detract from your falsehoods- that son is sad.  Now I am off.

Edited July 6, 2017 by Rue

[hot enough]

8 minutes ago, Rue said:

no it only illustrates you

Still no science, no sources, no nothing from Rue. How many PhDs are there at your "source", Rue?

[hot enough]

7 minutes ago, Rue said:

Sorry one last thing, now that you refuse to provide the peer reviewers you claim exist you've shown the only lying is you and that son is sad.  Now I am off.

You made the false claim. It's up to you, Rue. Dig deep in your skeptic's website.

 

[Omni]

1 minute ago, hot enough said:

No science, no sources, no nothing from Omni.

MLW Guidelines: If you are not bringing anything new to the argument, then do not say anything at all.
Some messages are not so much offensive as simply nuisance value. An example would be a person who persistently creates conflict without contributing anything useful. 

 

Maybe go back and actually read and absorb the links that I, and others have provided that show your conspiracy theory to be just that. Otherwise your incessant repetition of failed scientists comments such as from Steven Jones just gets more and more redundant, and silly.

[hot enough]

9 minutes ago, Omni said:

Maybe go back and actually read and absorb the links that I,

Try discussing something, anything from your "links" that you think is pertinent. You are too scared to do so because you will illustrate quickly that you know nothing, which has been evident all along. Try discussing Rue's "science" on how the towers fell. It's hilarious.

[Rue]

7 minutes ago, hot enough said:

You made the false claim. It's up to you, Rue.

 

 

No the claim came from you and you cant back it up. Here are your words Hot. Go to bed you have been caught red handed unable to back up your claim. No amount of name calling will detract from that. Lok this time I mean good night:

"One of thee top US physicists peer reviewed the paper and he has come out as a reviewer. He also won the national debate on 911 science by default because no US scientist will debate for the USGOCT.

You, of all people, should not be calling others crackpots. You are the guy who always flees after taking a few potshots. You can't even name any of these scientists, architects, engineers, physicists who you are calling crackpots. "

 

Put up or shut up.

You are one of the guys who NEVER brings forth anything from any scientist for the USGOCT because no scientist will try to defend such arrant wackiness.

[hot enough]

12 minutes ago, Omni said:

of failed scientists comments such as from Steven Jones

Steven Jones and the other six scientists have never been refuted by any peer reviewed scientists. All the USGOCT supporting scientists are long gone. 

[Omni]

1 minute ago, hot enough said:

Try discussing something, anything from your "links" that you think is pertinent. You are too scared to do so because you will illustrate quickly that you know nothing, which has been evident all along. Try discussing Rue's "science" on how the towers fell. It's hilarious.

I could discuss with you how fast planes are allowed to fly in controlled airspace under 10k, and I could discuss how gravity works. But that information has already been presented, but all you want is deny science which destroys your conspiracy theory, so it's probably not worth the time.

[hot enough]

9 minutes ago, Rue said:

No the claim came from you

And you, Rue, the know-it-all for the USGOCT can't come up with any names of USGOCT scientists who have been published in peer reviewed journals?

Why did you go to a wacky skeptics website? Why didn't you quote some of these USGOCT supporting scientists?

[hot enough]

10 minutes ago, Omni said:

I could discuss with you how fast planes are allowed to fly in controlled airspace under 10k,

BFD! That has nothing at all to do with the CD of the three towers.

Quote

and I could discuss how gravity works.

Now that is funny! Give it a whirl, Omni. Knock yourself out! Break a leg!

[Omni]

5 minutes ago, hot enough said:

BFD! That has nothing at all to do with the CD of the three towers.

Sure, how could a fuel laden 767 flying into a building at nearly 600 mph ever cause any serious damage? 

[hot enough]

14 minutes ago, Omni said:

I could discuss with you how fast planes are allowed to fly in controlled airspace under 10k,

How come you can't discuss the molten iron microspheres described by the USGS, RJLee, FEMA, The molten steel flowing out of WTC2, the molten/vaporized/eutectic steel described by FEMA, the melted revolvers, the fused concrete and steel, the free fall of WTC7, the accelerating speed of the twin towers, any one of which blows apart the USGOCT myth?

[Omni]

Just now, hot enough said:

How come you can't discuss the molten iron microspheres described by the USGS, RJLee, FEMA, The molten steel flowing out of WTC2, the molten/vaporized/eutectic steel described by FEMA, the melted revolvers, the fused concrete and steel, the free fall of WTC7, the accelerating speed of the twin towers, any one of which blows apart the USGOCT myth?

I can discuss it. It didn't happen. The melted metal was aluminum. The "nanu nanu's" are the result of paint chips. The floors pancaked at the speed of gravity.

[hot enough]

8 minutes ago, Omni said:

Sure, how could a fuel laden 767 flying into a building at nearly 600 mph ever cause any serious damage? 

Typical of Omni science and Omni debate. 

Were you able to remember that meme by yourself, it is roughly 20 words long, or did you have to have a confab with Wilber and the boys?

[hot enough]

8 minutes ago, Omni said:

The melted metal was aluminum.

Provide your source.

[hot enough]

13 minutes ago, Omni said:

It didn't happen.

What didn't happen? You are awful when it comes to science and being clear. But you know that, that is and has been your schtick since you arrived. 

1) Are you denying that iron microspheres, molten molybdenum, vaporized lead, were found in WTC dust by RJLee?

2) Are you denying that FEMA found and studied the eutectic steel and published a report on same?

3) Are you denying the melted revolvers, the fused concrete and steel, the free fall of WTC7, the accelerating speed of the twin towers' collapse?

Edited July 6, 2017 by hot enough