9/11: What really happened on that day? >>MOD WARNING<<

No, you are trying to conflate and confuse the examples, and I spotted it immediately. Your conflation is erroneous, and does not address the question (see Metabunk if you have any problems). Please pay attention to the point being discussed and not run off on another tangent.

Do you care to address the question and not change the subject?

Here it is again:

"
9/11 truth answer me this just once. I've asked this question for years and no truther has had the stones to answer:

How does molten steel prove controlled demolition?

This sort of testimony is dragged up time and time again as evidence of controlled demolition:

"So when they did collapse, it was obvious to those who saw it that it was controlled demolition. I saw it and nobody can convince me otherwise. I saw molten steel, like lava, that just cannot happen simply under the stress of those fires or from the subsequent collapse." - Tom Ford, worked on the pile on 9/11'

Ok, he can't make the call on molten steel, as he had neither the expertise, nor the ability to test the material. Furthermore, in many recitations of this and other testimony, 'steel' becomes interchangeable with 'metal', so those giving the account aren't even sure.

Moving on, let's just accept that molten steel was true. How do explosives produce this effect? This is a scientific question that 9/11 truth won't touch. They avoid the convection effect of the pile that many firefighters are familiar with (cf underground fires). The pile wasn't cleared for months and NASA recorded the extremely high temperatures within the pile.

So, how does the deployment of explosives produce this effect given that explosive force is instantaneous?

That needs to be established before we can accept the premise that 'molten steel = controlled demolition'. As does if it truly was molten steel (note that no large solidified pools of solidified steel were discovered; the meteorite is NOT the product of molten steel and is clearly an aggregate or conglomeration produced under pressure with heat and water). Thermite when deployed historically only melted that which was cut, thus limiting the effect to the inconsequential-no 'pools' or 'rivers' of 'molten steel' as 9/11 truth claim.

So far we don't really know if there actually was molten steel, and whether explosives can produce this effect. Any further extrapolation on the hypothesis is immaterial until these points are clear.

So 9/11 truth, you have the floor, how does molten steel prove controlled demolition? It's a simple enough question. "

Now you're up to speed can you possibly address the question on a scientific level? Please note the core question.

 

oh? well I seen it too, I seen how they blew the (*)(*)(*)(*)er all to hell and back.





Did you know that posers never see that for some strange reason?

Weird huh?

Well maybe they dont know what they are looking at? Then again maybe they are just posing?

 

Are you drunk? What has that drek to do with my point about you not knowing whether he is lying or not? Wow, truthers come up with the craziest responses sometimes.

 

The question is how did the steel get molten in the first place, oh and if you dont like the terminology then how did it get so hot it glowed yellow white hot and the smoke was white just like thermite? lets start there.

We have plenty of examples of thermetic reactions that look identical where is your 'free flowing' amalgamate that looks the same?

- - - Updated - - -

come on get with the program and stop being so incredulous.


Here sing along with me!


O say can you see,
by the dawn's early light,
what so proudly we hailed
at the twilight's last gleaming,
whose broad stripes and bright stars,
through the perilous fight,
o'er the ramparts we watched,
were so gallantly streaming?
And the rocket's red glare,
the beams bursting in air,
gave proof through the night
that our flag was still there.
O say does that star-spangled banner yet wave
o'er the land of the free
and the home of the brave?

O thus be it ever,
when freemen shall stand
between their loved homes
and the war's desolation!
Blest with victory and peace,
may the heaven-rescued land
praise the Power that hath made
and preserved us a nation!
Then conquer we must,
when our cause it is just,
and this be our motto,
"In God we trust."
And the star-spangled banner
in triumph shall wave
o'er the land of the free
and the home of the brave!

 

You finally got it!!!! Wow. Now, can you answer the question? Can you prove the premise as presented by 9/11 truth?

So? I don't have the BOP here. If 9/11 posits that molten steel = CD, then 9/11 truth needs to prove it. 'Similar' means absolutely nothing in the scientific realm.

No, you should stop casting aspersions on those you don't know. Have some dignity and respect for others.

 

Yes, but that is all irrelevant. I've accepted that there was molten steel for the purposes of the question. What needs to be ascertained before the claim qualifies as evidence is the following:

So, how does the deployment of explosives/therm*te produce this effect given that the explosive force is instantaneous?

If this cannot be proven on an academic level, then it doesn't qualify as evidence as the premise cannot be demonstrated.

 

cant prove anything to a poser though.

you see we have 1 gubmint agency denying that there was molten steel, another admitting there was melted beams, and virtually everyone who worked on the pile claiming there was molten steel and posers asking for proof when you can see it several pics both flowing and after it solidified and by the remains it left behind.


The fact is that there was molten (*)(*)(*)(*) that glowed yellow white hot and molten (*)(*)(*)(*) that glows yellow white hot cannot come from a plane crash and had to be at least 2700 degrees to obtain that color.

[video=youtube;OmuzyWC60eE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmuzyWC60eE#t=29[/video]


Its already proven but posers and megabunkers are actually foolish enough to ask for proof when there is so much evidence proving it that if it alive it would bite em in the ass?

and of course what makes the posers the laughing stock of the science community is that they think that a precise material makes a kibbles bit of difference.

After demonstrating such incredible lack of scientific knowledge how can anyone take posers seriously at this point?




wtf is wrong with the site that gifs arent working

 

Yes, but that is all irrelevant. I've accepted that there was molten steel for the purposes of the question. What needs to be ascertained before the claim qualifies as evidence is the following:

So, how does the deployment of explosives/therm*te produce this effect (molten metal) given that the explosive force is instantaneous?

If this cannot be proven on an academic level, then it doesn't qualify as evidence as the premise cannot be demonstrated.

 

wrong nothing is instantaneous, physics 000001

thermate cutter torches are not instantaneous

if 911 truth does not dignify indignant demands its not surprising when they have to include physics and engineering tutoring to posers as a part of a package deal. I know I wont do it.

 

Ok, I'll reword it to accommodate your correction:

So, how does the deployment of explosives/therm*te produce this effect given that the explosive force is almost instantaneous?

Thermite cutter torches? Ok, how does the deployment of therm*te cutter torches produce this effect given that the explosive force is almost instantaneous?

If you have any further caveats, please just insert them yourself and ponder the actual question if you would be so kind.

 

are you asking me how the use of thermate cutter torches produce molten steel?

if that is the ridiculous question you are asking then I suggest you look up and read the 2001 and previous patents that explain it. A little home work can save a lot of red face.

 

I explained the meaning of the 'effect' above in a previous post to which you replied. The 'effect' being molten metal under the pile for an extended period. I hope that is clear. When I've asked how the molten state was maintained for such lengthy periods, the response has invariably been 'convection'. So, if convection maintained the high temperatures, could it not also be responsible for the effect, and NOT explosives as posited, for there is a lack of physical evidence to support the explosives/therm*te/therm*te cutter claim(s)?

Why should anyone accept the AE911T premise if it can't be demonstrated? We both know if that cannot be proven, it will be dismissed in any future enquiry.

If you have further problems, please revise the post #905 on page 91 for clarity as I suggested earlier.

 

you asked the question how it [molten metal above 2400f] proves demolition.

molten metal under the pile is irrelevant. the length is was sustained is irrelevant.

the fact remains there was molten metal on site at temps well above 2400f.

That is all that is necessary to prove it was a demolition. The laughable part is that posers do not know why.

feel free to stop dancing around in circles and stick the point.

 

I asked you to revise the previous pages to get up to speed and you didn't. Therefore, your confusion. If you parachute in without revising the thread, then that is your problem, not mine.

So, can you explain it if it is relevant to my point as asked? How does this prove the deployment of explosives/therm*te/Therm*te cutters, or anything else you can imagine. All anyone supplies is a fallacious argument from incredulity, you included. Can you prove the claim? What facts discount the possibility of convection causing the high temperatures (actually, your evidence for the high temps is flawed, but I will address that later so as to not confuse the issue any further)?

It is not difficult, and it needn't cause so much confusion as appears to be the case. Six pages later and I'm still trying to explain a simple first year point of logic, that is, can anyone prove the premise I'm asked to accept as given?

 

the fact remains there was molten metal on site at temps well above 2400f.

That is all that is necessary to prove it was a demolition.

I am not here to jump through your rhetorical irrelevant hoops because you cannot comprehend the answer. I answered your question in its entirety and mickey is not here to protect you or delete correct answers. Denial of the facts as I stated in blue is your problem. Failure to understand the physics is your problem. Failure to understand engineering is your problem. not mine and I wont let you make it mine.

If you have any other questions while I am here state them now because I just about dun for the day.

 

Noted. You're unwilling to prove the premise, but you state you know the reasoning. Thanks for being so helpful.

Can you please direct me to a site that would explain the premise, or is that too hard? AE9/11T ask me to accept it as a given and I can see the flaw in the logic, hence the question.

 

Not in the minds of posers and trolls that we have now days trying to re-float their titanic.

If you read the previous response you will know why I am dun and otta here

Those guys are comedians.

 

Why can't you explain anything you claim? Why do feel it is necessary to behave in an objectionable and hostile fashion all the time?

The question is highly valid and the ad homs won't change its significance, for it is a point of logic. If you fail to understand this, that is not my fault. It's first year stuff, it shouldn't be difficult.

So, six pages later, adherents of the alternative stories are unable to prove a much repeated premise. I knew this before I embarked upon this exercise, and it succeeded in demonstrating the levels of understanding in logic, and the scientific method inherent among those who denounce the accepted version. I thought the results might be a little more favourable, however, reality is what it is. Not one respondent appeared to understand the point of logic, but it is difficult to tell if the responses were genuine.

Thanks everyone for contributing to this experiment.

 

The NASA image of the WTC pile five days later. The heat signatures denote temperatures up to 1400 deg F.



Yet Kokomojojo just claimed they reached 2400 deg F.
Koko, do you care to tell me when that temperature was recorded?

E.T.A. Before being asked, I sourced the above pic and text from Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

 

Part 1:

In the early history of the 9/11 truth movement, the Silverstein PBS quote was cited as evidence for the destruction of 7WTC by Controlled Demolition.

Here is the original quote (PBS documentary America Rebuilds: A Year at Ground Zero):

"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, uh, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."

This quote is cited as evidence for Silverstein ordering the destruction of the building, however, clearly there is confusion over the use of the collective pronoun 'they'. In this case, 'they' are obviously the FDNY despite Silverstein's mistake regarding plural and the singular subject of the previous sentence ("the fire department commander"). Silverstein did not participate in the decision making process as claimed.

Recognising this flaw in the hypothesis, one of the early gurus of the movement altered the meaning of the text in an interview:

James Fetzer, co-chairman of “Scholars for 9/11 Truth” interviewed on Alan Colmes’ radio show, June, 2006:

Fetzer: Larry Silverstein, in New York, actually directed the World Trade Center Number 7 be pulled, meaning brought down by controlled demolition.

Colmes: Wasn’t he the landlord? Why would he want that to happen?

Fetzer: Well, it’s recorded. He admitted it in an interview that he had it pulled. Now, just to make an obvious point, Alan, it can’t have been pulled unless there were prepositioned explosives in World Trade Center 7

==============================================================================================

Kevin Barrett who formed 'Scholars for 9/11 truth' after the great schism between Stephen Jones (of Therm*te fame) and Fetzer, went on to state the following:

"9/11 insurance-fraudster Larry Silverstein, like the Poe narrator, was apparently confounded by the noise of his own lying heartbeat when he confessed on national TV to making "a decision to pull (WTC-7)...and we made that decision to pull, and we watched the building collapse." Silverstein's inability to get anything built on the site during the past five years, leaving a gigantic bomb crater screaming silently to the world that the WTC was destroyed by bombs, not by planes, is another, far more eloquent confession. To borrow a phrase from the Loose Change logo, Larry's bomb crater is "louder than words." Perhaps the best possible memorial would be to leave the site exactly the way it is, and hold a ribbon-cutting ceremony for the Larry Silverstein Memorial Bomb Crater.

The altered quote has become the source for this sort of public invective. And that is how a myth is born.

http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.doc

Not only is there no evidence the FDNY demolished the building, it is clear that Silverstein never issued the order attributed to him. Having said that, many sites still promote this erroneous belief despite the facts being readily available.

 

I feel for your loss, but at the same time, I must point out that you are certainly not the only one to have had these things happen. More importantly for this discussion, many who have found them in very similar situations do -not- believe the official story. Over 300 survivors and family members question the official story:
http://patriotsquestion911.com/survivors.html

You mention the fire department of new york. Did you know there is a website called Fire Fighters for 9/11 Truth? http://ff911truthandunity.org/ Here's a good youtube video, which talks about its creation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxGB2YoGV-I

You're right, I wasn't there, but many of those cited above were. And yes, I have come to rely on google to find important information, but it's one thing to simply google something and take whatever comes up as the truth. It's another to spend years not only googling, but reading the material that comes up, and cross referencing with other material (including books) to get as close as possible to the truth.

 

I find the wording there is rather interesting. I have no evidence that the FDNY demolished the building either. As to there being no evidence that Silverstein issued an order to demolish the building, as far as I know, you're right. That being said, the quote from him above strongly suggests that he -believed- that such an order was given. "Pull" is the slang used for the controlled demolition of a building. Nor would he be alone in that belief. Another point that has been made, is that there is no you can't just order a building demolished and expect it to come down as ordered. We're entering the realm of physics here: controlled demolitions take a lot of time. Explosives would have had to have been placed well in advance of 9/11. There is testimony from various people who were there at the time who have stated that there was someone who looked like he was in charge of a countdown before building 7 collapsed, which can be seen here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jlxw9TZ_0Cc

 

I understand your position and I have encountered it before. I'll present the following texts and leave you to make up your own mind if you like. I'll try to keep it concise.

Part 2.

Does 'pull it' mean to demolish a building in the context of 7WTC?

Excerpt:

"Brent Blanchard, a demolitions expert with Protec, and contributor to ImplosionWorld.com, weighs in with his expert opinion:
We have never once heard the term 'pull it' being used to refer to the explosive demolition of a building, and neither has any blast team we've spoken with. The term is used in conventional demolition circles, to describe the specific activity of attaching long cables to a pre-weakened building and maneuvering heavy equipment (excavators, bulldozers etc) to 'pull' the frame of the structure over onto its side for further dismantlement. This author and our research team were on site when workers pulled over the six story remains of WTC6 in late fall 2001, however we can say with certainty that a similar operation would have been logistically impossible at Ground Zero on 9/11, physically impossible for a building the size of WTC7, and the structure did not collapse in that manner anyway.
In the weeks following 9/11, several Protec building inspectors and staff photographers, including this author, were contracted by demolition teams to document the deconstruction and debris removal processes at Ground Zero. These processes included the mechanical pull-down of the remains of the U.S. Customs Building (WTC 6) and various other activities occurring simultaneously throughout the site. "

http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.doc P. 36

Does 'pull it' mean abandon the operation and evacuate for the FDNY in the context of 7WTC? Possibly.

Excerpt:

"There was a big discussion going on at that point about pulling all of our units out of 7 World Trade Center. Chief Nigro didn't feel it was worth taking the slightest chance of somebody else getting injured. So at that point we made a decision to take all of our units out of 7 World Trade Center because there was a potential for collapse.
Q. It was on fire, correct, Captain?
A. Yes, it was on fire at that time. Then they said it suffered some form of structural damage. These things were going on at the same time. The fact that we thought we found Ganci and Feehan and his place at 7 World Trade Center. Made the decision to back everybody away, took all the units and moved them all the way back toward North End Avenue, which is as far I guess west as you could get on Vesey Street, to keep them out of the way. &#8211;Captain Ray Goldbach

So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn&#8217;t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn&#8217;t look good. But they had a hose line operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. &#8211; Capt. Chris Boyle

Someone gave a Mayday. I guess it was someone trapped under one of the pedestrian bridges. We started to go under there to look. One of the Chiefs pulled us out of there. He said don't go under there. ..We searched that building and then we started making another move in and we got pulled out again, because I guess the Chiefs were getting more in control of the situation. They pulled everybody out of there. ...that was probably like four or five o'clock before we stopped. &#8211;Firefighter Todd Fredrickson

When the third building came down that's where we were (Stuyvesant High School). We were actually -- they pulled us all back. Actually they pulled us all the way back that far at the point because they didn't want any -- they didn't want us anywhere near it. Everyone was just running around. When the third building came down, we were on that corner in front of the school, and everybody just stood back. They pulled us all back at that time, almost an hour before it, because they were sure -- they knew it was going to come down, but they weren't sure. So they pulled everyone back, and everybody stood there and we actually just waited and waited until it went down, because it was unsafe. They wouldn't let anyone next to I guess the two piles, we would call them, where one and two was. We stood back. We waited. &#8211;EMT Joseph Fortis

After that they decided to pull everybody out and I know -- what building was it? Building 5, I believe [sic], the other tall building there, the third building that came down, they were evacuating people. So everyone just pushed up West Street all the way up towards the high school there. I forget the name of the high school. &#8211;Firefighter Brian Russo

Then approximately I guess maybe two hours before number 7 came down, we went into Ground Zero and helped dig around and was there when they located Chief Feehan and one of the chiefs pulled us all out because they said 7 was going to come down. &#8211;Firefighter Kevin Quinn

P. 37 of the same link above.

 

Odd how often the views of the PC conspiracy brigade tally with jihadist/Saudi views isn't it ?

 

The idea that "pull it" had anything to do with the firefighters is ludicrous. Silverstein slipped and all that crap from "debunking" sites will never hold water.

Case and point:
"Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building..."
--Fox news (in an attempted debunking piece)

"No manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY."
--FEMA report

"There was no firefighting in WTC 7."
--Popular Mechanics

"By 11:30 a.m. [several HOURS prior to the collapse], the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from [WTC 7] for safety reasons."
--New York Times