|
Do you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11? (pg. 222)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| culorut |
You are a ing troll.
Linking to pathetic websites to defend yourself again? Do you have any of your own thoughts to share or do you simply google for other trolls who are too scared to face the truth about 9/11 and hide behind the ty posts they create to feel safe and comfortable in their own fantasy world?
Next time click on your heels a few times and wish you where not in OZ anymore Dorothy because you are definitely in a debate you cannot handle.
You do not even posses enough of a brain to understand the most simple and straight forward things that are right in front of your own eyes.
Of course WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 where in blown up. It's right there in every last video available.
Controlled demolition is obvious and all three buildings caught on numerous video footage is all that was ever needed.
No education required fuk face.
:wtf: |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by culorut
Linking to pathetic websites to defend yourself again? Do you have any of your own thoughts to share |
see, unlike arrogant tard troofers like yourself, i know i dont possess the expertise to study the collapse of skyscrapers. so i just linked to a bunch of peer reviewed papers by structural engineers that provide some interesting analyses.
im sorry if you don't understand this is how things are done in the real world.
| quote: | Originally posted by culorut
fantasy world? |
hahahahaahahahahhahahahaha.
| quote: | Originally posted by culorut
Controlled demolition is obvious |
Obvious, yes. So where are all the criminal charges against those that OBVIOUSLY brought the towers down. And why did the insurance company pay silverstein if the he pulled it? And where is the second investigation?
Its actually obvious just by looking at the videos that there weren't any explosives, but I just wanted to draw everyone's attention to you throwing around terms you don't have the first clue about, for s and giggles. The rest of us enjoy your illogical and non sequitur-ridden diatribes and I didn’t want them to miss that little chestnut! Did you even get through high school in the end? Or are you still there? :haha:
| quote: | Originally posted by culorut
No education required fuk face.
|
that's what your parents thought when planning your future obviously. if only they'd worked harder to send you to a good school, tsk tsk. |
|
|
| XaNaX |
| quote: | Originally posted by {b.s.e.}
the official story is pure, unadulterated bull. if you can't see that the thermate sparks flowing out windows -floors and floors below the impact site- or the squibs knocking glass and dust out into the air horizontally, or even the clear dispute with the conservation of motion; or the buildings falling into their footprints, or the molten steel weeks into debris removal; or the puts on airline stock days before, or the mysterious transactions; the closed door commission (with no transcript, bush and cheney lying together in harmony) as suspicious and grounds for deeper research then you're as stupid as i think you are.
|
| quote: | Originally posted by culorut
Controlled demolition is obvious and all three buildings caught on numerous video footage is all that was ever needed.
No education required fuk face.
|
Yes, clearly you have no education.
I can't decide which of you is the bigger clown in this thread. For once could you maybe post some actual evidence to support any of the baseless claims that either of you are making? |
|
|
| colonelcrisp |
| quote: | Originally posted by XaNaX
Yes, clearly you have no education.
I can't decide which of you is the bigger clown in this thread. For once could you maybe post some actual evidence to support any of the baseless claims that either of you are making? |
they both have demonstrated key indicator signs general stupidity (the words thermite/thermate, controlled demolition and molten steel are some of the red flag items). Coupled with their lack of understanding of fundamental evidence reliability (janitor vs Liscenced engineers..... and the entire body of the ASCE), i would hypothesize that they are both currently in the wheel house of the failboat en route to the port near the tinfoil hat factory......... |
|
|
| culorut |
Three more posts ignoring the obvious and all saying that anyone who believes that the official story is BS (which it is) has no education.
:rolleyes:
I am sure the people that where actually there at ground zero have less education then trolls who post without any common sense all over the internet.
I am sure countless engineers (some with 55 years of experience), Italy's former president, numerous scientists, the rescue workers, victims who escaped the tragedies all do not posses enough of an education or experience.
I am sure the videos released which show controlled demolition and no actual planes where they are supposed to be are all faked even though every single source from the hundreds of different feeds show the exact same thing. This was live and recorded, anyone can make out what happened.
I am postively sure you morons definitely cannot grasp reality as the all post the same and ignore the hard truth of 9/11. |
|
|
| culorut |
| quote: | | they both have demonstrated key indicator signs general stupidity (the words thermite/thermate, controlled demolition and molten steel are some of the red flag items). Coupled with their lack of understanding of fundamental evidence reliability (janitor vs Liscenced engineers..... and the entire body of the ASCE), i would hypothesize that they are both currently in the wheel house of the failboat en route to the port near the tinfoil hat factory......... |
I'm sorry you obviously must know better then the people that where actually there and the actual fact that there was molten metal present....idiot.
Red hot molten metal in the ground 5 weeks after 9/11
|
|
|
| colonelcrisp |
| quote: | Originally posted by culorut
I'm sorry you obviously must know better then the people that where actually there and the actual fact that there was molten metal present....idiot.
Red hot molten metal in the ground 5 weeks after 9/11
|
while i dont have audio at work...... i still fail to see any molten metal in that video. where is your "irrefutable evidence"? |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by culorut
I'm sorry you obviously must know better then the people that where actually there and the actual fact that there was molten metal present....idiot.
Red hot molten metal in the ground 5 weeks after 9/11
|
if the metal was molten wouldn't it melt (or stick to) the equipment used to extract it from the site?
anyway - enough already, this thread needs to die |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by culorut
I am sure countless engineers (some with 55 years of experience), Italy's former president, numerous scientists, the rescue workers, victims who escaped the tragedies all do not posses enough of an education or experience. |
i love how you keep repeating the cossiga fallacy :haha:
| quote: | Originally posted by culorut
I am sure the videos released which show controlled demolition |
so why dont any of the videos capture the sound of demolition explosives? :conf:
also, i have yet to see any truther arguments as to why "molten metal" (we'll ignore the fact that it wasn't actually molten) = explosives.
to borrow truther logic: molten metal has never ever been found after a demolition of a large building. so what does it mean?
do you even know how much thermite would be required to keep reacting up to 6 weeks later? :stongue: :stongue:
get an education and stop peddling this highschool nonsense. |
|
|
| culorut |
There was molten metal you idiots. The video just showed red hot metal being pulled out 5 weeks after the actual incident and one of the workers which was there say it in his own fukin words.
Even FEMA reported high temperature corrosion in the metal, the high temperatures lasted for months after the incident. I am sure you guys have read the report. :rolleyes:
Please tell me NASA's thermal image is incorrect also so I can piss on you guys some more. It is actually beginning to be fun watching you door knobs ignore the obvious.
A - 1341 F
B - 1034 F
C - 1161 F
D - 963 F
E - 801 F
F - 1377 F
G - 819 F
H - 1017 F
As noted above in the thermal image World Trade 7 had the same hot spots as WTC1 and WTC2. No plane crashed into WTC7 so you trolls can rule out the fukin fairy tale jet fuel that weakened the supports and caused the buildings to be demolished.
:haha: |
|
|
| culorut |
Reports of molten metal in the foundations of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers are frequently noted in literature of proponents of theories that the buildings were destroyed through controlled demolition. The most widely publicized report is one by American Free Press reporter Christopher Bollyn citing principals of two of the companies contracted to clean up Ground Zero. The president of Tully Construction of Flushing, NY, said he saw pools of "literally molten steel" at Ground Zero. Bollyn also cites Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition Inc. (CDI) of Phoenix, MD, as having seen molten steel in the bottoms of elevator shafts "three, four, and five weeks" after the attack.
A review of of the documentary Collateral Damage in the New York Post describes firemen at Ground Zero recalling "heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel."
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evi...oltensteel.html |
|
|
| XaNaX |
| quote: | Originally posted by culorut
Reports of molten metal in the foundations of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers are frequently noted in literature of proponents of theories that the buildings were destroyed through controlled demolition. The most widely publicized report is one by American Free Press reporter Christopher Bollyn citing principals of two of the companies contracted to clean up Ground Zero. The president of Tully Construction of Flushing, NY, said he saw pools of "literally molten steel" at Ground Zero. Bollyn also cites Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition Inc. (CDI) of Phoenix, MD, as having seen molten steel in the bottoms of elevator shafts "three, four, and five weeks" after the attack.
A review of of the documentary Collateral Damage in the New York Post describes firemen at Ground Zero recalling "heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel."
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evi...oltensteel.html |
I think you must have poured molten tinfoil on your head or something because it seems like your tiny little brain has finally completely stopped working.
Can you please tell me how molten metal = controlled demolition? This is easily the most ridiculous baseless claim you have made yet (and that is saying something considering you are a no-planer).
| quote: |
11. Why do some photographs show a yellow stream of molten metal pouring down the side of WTC2 that NIST claims was aluminum from the crashed plane although aluminum burns with a white glow?
NIST reported (NCSTAR 1-5A) that just before 9:52 a.m., a bright spot appeared at the top of a window on the 80th floor of WTC 2, four windows removed from the east edge on the north face, followed by the flow of a glowing liquid. This flow lasted approximately four seconds before subsiding. Many such liquid flows were observed from near this location in the seven minutes leading up to the collapse of this tower. There is no evidence of similar molten liquid pouring out from another location in WTC 2 or from anywhere within WTC 1.
Photographs, and NIST simulations of the aircraft impact, show large piles of debris in the 80th and 81st floors of WTC 2 near the site where the glowing liquid eventually appeared. Much of this debris came from the aircraft itself and from the office furnishings that the aircraft pushed forward as it tunneled to this far end of the building. Large fires developed on these piles shortly after the aircraft impact and continued to burn in the area until the tower collapsed.
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.
12. Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."
NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.
The responses to questions number 2, 4, 5 and 11 demonstrate why NIST concluded that there were no explosives or controlled demolition involved in the collapses of the WTC towers.
Furthermore, a very large quantity of thermite (a mixture of powdered or granular aluminum metal and powdered iron oxide that burns at extremely high temperatures when ignited) or another incendiary compound would have had to be placed on at least the number of columns damaged by the aircraft impact and weakened by the subsequent fires to bring down a tower. Thermite burns slowly relative to explosive materials and can require several minutes in contact with a massive steel section to heat it to a temperature that would result in substantial weakening. Separate from the WTC towers investigation, NIST researchers estimated that at least 0.13 pounds of thermite would be required to heat each pound of a steel section to approximately 700 degrees Celsius (the temperature at which steel weakens substantially). Therefore, while a thermite reaction can cut through large steel columns, many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been placed inconspicuously ahead of time, remotely ignited, and somehow held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building. This makes it an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled demolition.
Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC towers, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard that was prevalent in the interior partitions.
13. Why did the NIST investigation not consider reports of molten steel in the wreckage from the WTC towers?
NIST investigators and experts from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEONY)—who inspected the WTC steel at the WTC site and the salvage yards—found no evidence that would support the melting of steel in a jet-fuel ignited fire in the towers prior to collapse. The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing.
NIST considered the damage to the steel structure and its fireproofing caused by the aircraft impact and the subsequent fires when the buildings were still standing since that damage was responsible for initiating the collapse of the WTC towers.
Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing.
|
and please read:
Molten metal != controlled demolition moron
| quote: |
Conspiracy sites like to bring up molten metal found 6 weeks after the buildings fell to suggest a bomb must have created the effect. The explanation doesn't go into the amount of explosive material needed because it would be an absurd amount. There is another explanation which is more plausible.
Before reading the below, it might be a good idea for the novice to read Mark Ferran's explanation on how "Iron Burns!!!"
Oxidation of iron by air is not the only EXOTHERMIC reaction of iron (= structural steel which is about 98 % Fe, 1 % Mn, 0.2 % C, 0.2 % Si.....). There is at least one additional reaction of iron with the capability of keeping the rubble pile hot and cooking!
The reaction between IRON AND STEAM is also very EXOTHERMIC and fast at temperatures above 400 deg C. This reaction produces Fe3O4 AND HYDROGEN. It is the classic example of a REVERSIBLE REACTION studied in Chemistry labs at high school. But believe it or not, back at the turn of the century, the reaction of iron and steam was used as an industrial process for the manufacture of hydrogen.
I think iron and steam could have reacted in this way (at least for a while) and generated a lot of heat. What is more, the hydrogen released would have been converted back to water by reaction with oxygen, thereby generating even more heat. In this case spraying water on the rubble pile was like adding fuel to a fire!
Now add in gypsum reactions with H2 and CO and we have a great source of SO2 and/or H2S to sulfide the steel!
Perhaps the endless spraying of water on the rubble pile was not such a good idea!
In the usual lab experiment on the reversible reaction of iron and "steam", nitrogen (or some inert gas) is bubbled through water to create a gas stream saturated with water vapor at room temperature. This gas is then allowed to flow into a glass tube about 1 meter long containing iron in an inert boat at its center. This assembly is heated in a tube furnace to some desired temperature, say 500 deg C. The hydrogen/ nitrogen gas mixture is collected at the outlet of the tube furnace.
In the industrial process the feed gas might also be "water gas" which is a mixture of CO and water vapor. The outlet gas contains mostly H2 and CO2.
I am sure there was plenty of water vapor AND oxygen in the void spaces in the rubble pile. This is the "steam" I am referring to.
Please remember that the recovered pieces of structural steel were heavily OXIDIZED as well as sulfided. The most important oxidizing agents available in the rubble pile were obviously O2 and H2O.
The rubble pile was not only inhomogeneous with regard to its composition, it was inhomogeneous with regard to its temperature. This was due to localized chemical reactions. Such reactions were capable of generating high temperatures in these localized hot spots.
The demolitionists much beloved thermite is a good example, BUT NOT THE ONLY EXAMPLE. AND THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF WHATSOEVER THAT THERMITE, THERMATE, SOL-GEL NANO-THERMITE WAS EVER PRESENT AT THE WTC SITE!!!!!!
It is irrelevant whether or not the steam was wet or dry, that is a chemical engineering notion only of interest in a closed and controlled system, usually under high-pressure, such as a steam generator in a power station.
Water vapor was present in the rubble pile and water vapor reacts with iron releasing HYDROGEN.
ITS CALLED A CORROSION REACTION:
METAL + WATER = METAL OXIDE + HYDROGEN
WHEN IT HAPPENED AT THREE MILE ISLAND IT CREATED A HYDROGEN BUBBLE
|
|
|
|
|
|
