Providing proof/evidence that supports the US 911 Conspiracy Theory

[hot enough]

8 minutes ago, Omni said:

I'll wait

Still no proof from Omni, never any proof from Omni. Such deep dishonesty.

Prove there were ACTUALLY hijackers. Where are the photographs? Airports have CCTVs. 

Where is the DNA? 

[Omni]

1 minute ago, hot enough said:

Still no proof from Omni, never any proof from Omni. Such deep dishonesty.

Prove there were ACTUALLY hijackers. Where are the photographs? Airports have CCTVs. 

Where is the DNA? 

So you have nothing on that question as I suspected. Planes don't usually hit buildings especially when they are flown by competent pilots in clear weather.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Omni said:

So you have nothing on that question as I suspected. Planes don't usually hit buildings especially when they are flown by competent pilots in clear weather.

Maybe a wasp got into the cabin.  I know I've almost lost control of my car when that happened.

[hot enough]

The molten steel seen flowing out of WTC2 has been proven to be molten steel from the nanothermite that was used to blow up the twin towers.

 

Liquid metal was seen pouring out of the South Tower during the final seven minutes before its collapse on September 11, 2001. Was it a combination of steel and iron, or was it aluminum and/or lead? What was the molten metal reported under the rubble of the Twin Towers at Ground Zero? And why is the identification of the molten metal important?

 

Put another way, the evidence does in fact demonstrate that the observed molten metal was indeed molten iron and molten steel, and that it could not have been either molten aluminum or molten lead.

Proof that the molten metal was in fact steel and iron allows us to draw three conclusions. First, it reveals that the official explanation for the collapse of the Twin Towers was certainly false. Second, it exposes misconduct by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), which ignored the National Fire Protection Association's investigative protocols in the NFPA 921 Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations. Third, and most importantly, it provides clear-cut evidence of controlled demolition. This revelation justifies a true investigation of the collapses of the WTC skyscrapers.

http://www1.ae911truth.org/en/affiliate-marketing-program/899-what-was-the-molten-metal-seen-pouring-out-of-the-south-tower-minutes-before-its-collapse-steel-and-iron-or-aluminum-andor-lead.html

[hot enough]

11 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Maybe a

You've already proven and admitted beyond any doubt that you are a purposefully dishonest distorter, falsifier, talebearer, charlatan, cheat, dissembler, liar ... .

Without any sense of shame whatsoever. 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, hot enough said:

You've already proven and admitted beyond any doubt that you are a purposefully dishonest distorter, falsifier, talebearer, charlatan, cheat, dissembler, liar ... .

Without any sense of shame whatsoever. 

I just like to chat...

[Omni]

14 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Maybe a wasp got into the cabin.  I know I've almost lost control of my car when that happened.

Oh and here all along I heard the hijackers were Arab not WASP.

[Omni]

15 minutes ago, hot enough said:

The molten steel

Aluminum.

[hot enough]

9 minutes ago, Omni said:

Aluminum.

You know that is an outright lie, Omni, and still you lie. Why? You know NIST lied and still you support those lies. Why?

NIST never did any tests/experiments to verify their unscientific contention.

You know it is molten steel, which is, in and of itself, fatal to the USGOCT, the one you can't provide any evidence for

Quote

TFigure 3. A thermite reaction generates yellow-white hot molten iron at well over 2500°C/4000°F and white smoke. This type of material can melt and cut steel beams.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) did document the flow of molten metal pouring out of the South Tower during the final seven minutes before its collapse, noting the accompanying "unusual bright flame" and "plume of white smoke." However, NIST failed to investigate the phenomenon, dismissing it as molten aluminum from the crashed jet, which melts at only 660°C/1220°F.

NIST's hypothesis may seem plausible at first. But Dr. Steven Jones demonstrates in his 2006 paper "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?" that the official government hypothesis is untested and implausible.

Dr. Jones' paper reveals that the initial bright yellow-white glow of the expelled liquid was consistent with a glowing stream of molten iron from "a nearby thermite reaction zone," and the expected white smoke (aluminum oxide off-gassing) supports that conclusion. NIST must rely on its claim of molten aluminum in order to validate its official fire-based explanation, because office fires cannot generate the extreme temperature required to melt steel or iron. The fundamental flaw of the aluminum hypothesis, though, is that the implied temperature of the white glow remains above 1200°C/2200°F, regardless of the metal involved. An independent researcher suggested that the molten substance could be lead from storage batteries, but this explanation fails — as do all hypotheses based on alternative metals — because the temperature required for the yellow-white glow of the metal is beyond the capability of the building fire.

Figure 4. Molten aluminum appears silvery when poured in daylight conditions, even if initially heated to the yellow-white temperature range in the crucible.Dr. Jones also notes that molten aluminum appears silvery as it melts at 660°C/1220°F, and that it remains silvery when poured in daylight conditions, regardless of the temperature. It is theoretically possible to continue heating liquid aluminum way past its melting point and into the yellow-white temperature range, but the office fire was not a plausible source for such high temperatures, and there was no crucible to contain liquid aluminum for continued heating. Put another way, even if the building fire could have somehow provided the needed temperature for the yellow-white glow, the unrestrained aluminum would have melted and trickled away before it could achieve such a temperature. This problem also rules out other proposed alternative metals — lead, for example — which have similarly low melting points.

Finally, Dr. Jones adds that even if liquid aluminum could have been restrained long enough to make it glow white, it would still have appeared silvery within the first two meters of falling through the air in daylight conditions, due to its high reflectivity and low emissivity.

Figure 5. The liquid metal cannot be aluminum, for it remains orange-yellow, despite falling several hundred feet in broad daylight. NIST states that aluminum "can display an orange glow" if blended with organic materials, but Dr. Jones has experimentally invalidated this theory by demonstrating that organics and molten aluminum do not mix.Thus, the liquid metal seen pouring out of the South Tower could not have been aluminum, since it remains yellow in broad daylight, despite falling several hundred feet through the air.

NIST tries to circumvent this problem with the untested proposition that the observed glow could be due to the mixing of aluminum with combustible organic materials from the building's interior. But Dr. Jones has actually performed the experiments that soundly refute NIST's hypothesis. As he puts it, "This is a key to understanding why the aluminum does not 'glow orange' due to partially-burned organics 'mixed' in (per NIST theory), because they do notmix in! My colleague noted that, just like oil and water, organics and molten aluminum do not mix. The hydrocarbons float to the top, and there burn — and embers glow, yes, but just in spots. The organics clearly do not impart to the hot liquid aluminum an 'orange glow' when it falls, when you actually do the experiment!"

http://www1.ae911truth.org/en/affiliate-marketing-program/899-what-was-the-molten-metal-seen-pouring-out-of-the-south-tower-minutes-before-its-collapse-steel-and-iron-or-aluminum-andor-lead.html

 

[hot enough]

19 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I just like to chat...

No, you like to lie, as you have already admitted.

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. 

[hot enough]

21 minutes ago, Omni said:

Oh and here all along I heard the hijackers were Arab not WASP.

You sure don't have much respect for MLW Guidelines, or yourself, Omni. 

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. 

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, hot enough said:

No, you like to lie, as you have already admitted.

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. 

You're right, I deliberately broke that rule.  I prostrate myself before the Mods.  May God have mercy on my soul.

[Omni]

6 minutes ago, hot enough said:

You sure don't have much respect for MLW Guidelines, or yourself, Omni. 

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 you should re-read the last line there. And then you can read this link. As you go down the page you will find how the "molten steel" theory has been debunked.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/9-11

[hot enough]

8 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

You're right, I deliberately broke that rule.  I prostrate myself before the Mods.  May God have mercy on my soul.

That's not the important point. 

Why do you lie with such wild abandon? 

[hot enough]

8 minutes ago, Omni said:

And then you can read this link. As you go down the page you will find how the "molten steel" theory has been debunked.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/9-11

Explain to us how it has been "debunked". 

[Guest]

Just now, hot enough said:

That's not the important point. 

Why do you lie with such wild abandon? 

It's not wild abandon.  It's actually fairly well focused.

[hot enough]

12 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

It's not wild abandon.  It's actually fairly well focused.

Wild abandon lying or fairly well focused lying is still lying. It's evident that you're not worth the trouble of typing a sentence to. 

We can all agree on one thing. The supporters of the US government official conspiracy theory frequently lie, by omission and by outright denying reality. 

[Omni]

6 minutes ago, hot enough said:

Explain to us how it has been "debunked". 

Airplanes are made of aluminum. Burning jet fuel, especially mixed with other flammable materials from the offices, burns hot enough to melt aluminum, not steel. And as the article explains, "there is no documented evidence of molten steel at the WTC site".

[Omni]

Now then, I'm still waiting for you attempt to tell us why those planes crashed into the towers under the guidance of their rightful aircrew.

[hot enough]

9 minutes ago, Omni said:

Airplanes are made of aluminum. Burning jet fuel, especially mixed with other flammable materials from the offices, burns hot enough to melt aluminum, not steel. And as the article explains, "there is no documented evidence of molten steel at the WTC site".

What a god awful "explanation"!

You know you are lying because there is scientific proof in the article I provided, in the form of scientific experiments that refute the false NIST contention that it was molten aluminum. A scientist who worked for NIST actually did the experiment that proved organics would not mix with molten aluminum, but NIST knew that was false even before they advanced it.

Just as you know it is false now! Why do you continue to outright, baldface lie?

[Omni]

1 minute ago, hot enough said:

What a god awful "explanation"!

And where's yours to the question I keep asking, and you keep putting your tail between your legs and running away from as to why the planes hit the buildings. Please don't bother us with anymore of your conspiracy's until you can explain that one.

[hot enough]

14 minutes ago, Omni said:

Now then, I'm still waiting for you attempt to tell us why those planes crashed into the towers under the guidance of their rightful aircrew.

Since you are such an adept liar about the molten steel, it's clear that you are also trying to advance a lie Re: the planes. You tell us what happened, with proof. Remember, you support the "rock solid" USGOCT. 

[Rue]

5 hours ago, hot enough said:

The molten steel seen flowing out of WTC2 has been proven to be molten steel from the nanothermite that was used to blow up the twin towers.

 

Liquid metal was seen pouring out of the South Tower during the final seven minutes before its collapse on September 11, 2001. Was it a combination of steel and iron, or was it aluminum and/or lead? What was the molten metal reported under the rubble of the Twin Towers at Ground Zero? And why is the identification of the molten metal important?

 

Put another way, the evidence does in fact demonstrate that the observed molten metal was indeed molten iron and molten steel, and that it could not have been either molten aluminum or molten lead.

Proof that the molten metal was in fact steel and iron allows us to draw three conclusions. First, it reveals that the official explanation for the collapse of the Twin Towers was certainly false. Second, it exposes misconduct by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), which ignored the National Fire Protection Association's investigative protocols in the NFPA 921 Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations. Third, and most importantly, it provides clear-cut evidence of controlled demolition. This revelation justifies a true investigation of the collapses of the WTC skyscrapers.

http://www1.ae911truth.org/en/affiliate-marketing-program/899-what-was-the-molten-metal-seen-pouring-out-of-the-south-tower-minutes-before-its-collapse-steel-and-iron-or-aluminum-andor-lead.html

With due respect there appears to be something seriously wrong with you. Nothing in the tape you showed proved the liquid metal on the video was steel.

Its clear to anyone who has seen the tape the liquid metal was never definitively tested to be able to be defined as  only being steel.

Yet you produce the tape as if it said that and you out and out lied and said the liquid metal was proven to be steel. There was no independent testing to prove it was only steel. To this day no one has proven the liquid metal was steel. In fact the very papers you quote speculated it was steel but never proved it was steel. In fact you have no proof it was not lead, aluminum or that it was steel.

Its now a joke how you plop out the same theories over and over trying to pose them as proven facts.

Edited July 8, 2017 by Rue

[Rue]

5 hours ago, hot enough said:

You sure don't have much respect for MLW Guidelines, or yourself, Omni. 

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. 

Again is there something seriously wrong with you you want to share? Why would you come on this forum, call everyone who disagrees with you a liar and other childish insults then quote the very MLW guidelines you openly break? Would you have people really believe you are that disconnected from what you accuse others of doing while y oud o the very same thing? That either makes you a very disturbed young man with emotional issues or absolutely stupid. Either way I don't care but don't come on this forum breaking every rule of moderation and then quote the rules. It makes you look even more foolish then any of your ridiculous attempts at misusing terms or not being able to decipher a theory from a proven fact.

[Rue]

5 hours ago, hot enough said:

Explain to us how it has been "debunked". 

Again there must be something seriously wrong with you. Someone provides you a rebuttal and you engage in this role play of pretending they did not give it to you. Do you really think that passes as debate.

Here are the words you were given and did not know how to respond to and pretend don't exist:

"There is no documented evidence of the presence of actually-melted steel at ground zero. The molten material noted in the 9/11 Commission report was "slag," not a molten metal. Most of the reports of "molten steel" found at ground zero were merely references to obviously red-hot solid steel. Even if they actually found "molten" metal, aluminum (which the planes were made out of) melts well under the temperature of jet fuel (pure aluminum melts at 660° C, jet fuel burns around 980° C^[23] going up to +2,000 °C^[24]). In addition, the mix of jet fuel, plastics, rugs, curtains etc. may burn hot enough to melt aluminum. (This can be demonstrated by placing an empty aluminum soda can on top of an ordinary campfire.)

Additionally, the melting point of steel is within the range of 1425-1540° C,^[25] well outside the temperatures recorded at Ground Zero in the weeks following the attacks. What conspiracy theorists fail to note is that steel thermally expands while it remains strong and thus fire rapidly destroys uninsulated steel structures, and steel begins to lose its structural integrity (and red hot steel itself burns in air or in the presence of steam) at well below its melting point, or 700-820° C, well within temperatures recorded at ground zero in the weeks following the attacks). Meanwhile, molten steel is not typically found at the site of buildings that have actually been demolished using "explosives" to sever columns. Also, the first law of thermodynamics prevents even the super hot molten product of thermite charges from remaining molten long after thermite ignition. Therefore, whatever molten materials were observed at ground zero in the weeks following the collapses, that molten material was not originally present and molten at the time of the collapses (it began to melt after the collapses, not before the collapses)."

You have no clue how to respond to the above so you do 3 things:

1-pretend the information given to you never was; and

2-call anyone who gives you the information, a liar; and

3-periodically provide you tube tapes of people speculating theories and then passing them off as proven facts.

The above 3 techniques have not worked.

You have zero credibility because you have not once on this thread debated-you think you only have to quote a paper or a you tube and it automatically

proves your point and you can at that point bluff you know what the tape or paper said without referencing it in your own words and you think you can avoid debating the rebuttals by simply calling someone a liar and pretending their rebuttal was never given to you.

Its over, the  3 step shuffle, the name calling, the inability to understand the very words you quote. Its over.

You really need to know when to stop and say, you know what guys, I have my views, there other views let's leave it at that. Not you, you have to come back on like you do on other threads and try bluff your way with insults.

Grow up.

If you don't have the integrity to debate a rebuttal don't, but don't come on this board pretending you were not given something you asked for, That childish response is done. You have used that technique one to many times and its just digging the hole of your bafoonerisms even deeper