Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Providing proof/evidence that supports the US 911 Conspiracy Theory


Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, Omni said:

We have yet to see those. All you have so far is HOT steel that got twisted and broken because of the heat.

Another Omni lie. A baldfaced lie to boot!

How does jet fuel/office furnishings melt and vaporize steel? 

Do you know what eutectic steel is? Perhaps OftenWrong/Wilber can help you out. 

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

It is the same eutectic steel described by the NYT, after interviewing FEMA scientists.  [bolded [THICK] is mine]

“A one-inch [THICK] column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges – which are curled like a paper scroll – have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes – some larger than a silver dollar – let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending – but not holes.”

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

Edited by hot enough
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, hot enough said:

How does jet fuel/office furnishings melt and vaporize steel? 

It can't, and it didn't. And it didn't need to to bring down the towers. Steel weakens long before it melts. How many times do you need to be shown that? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Omni said:

It can't, and it didn't. And it didn't need to to bring down the towers. Steel weakens long before it melts. How many times do you need to be shown that? 

You have never shown anything. You are a one liner science denier. You know nothing, which is evident from your silly one liners. 

There has never ever been a collapse before or since. Explain why the Cardington unprotected steel survived temperatures higher than WTCs 1, 2 and 7 and there was no collapse. 

Below is what happens when steel is exposed to a thermate reaction. See how the flange is thinned, "almost to razor sharpness" the holes that are in the flange.

Jonathon Cole was able to replicate this by making his own homemade thermate. He made crude steel devices to focus the thermate burn and the flanges and he got the same results as this steel that John Gross is pointing to.

Jet fuel/office furnishings cannot do this to steel. Explain why the FEMA scientists were puzzled by this eutectic steel.

911truthgrosswtc7beam.jpg

Edited by hot enough
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, hot enough said:

Below is what happens when steel is exposed to a thermate reaction

Below is what happens to steel when it gets roasted by a combination of burning jet fuel fanned by high speed winds blowing in the hole left by a 767, and streaming up the now voided elevator shaft. Have you ever done any oxy/acetylene welding? Try it some time and you'll learn something. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Omni said:

Below is what happens to steel when it gets roasted by a combination of burning jet fuel fanned by high speed winds blowing in the hole left by a 767, and streaming up the now voided elevator shaft. Have you ever done any oxy/acetylene welding? Try it some time and you'll learn something. 

As is always the case for you, Omni, there is nothing "Below". Things roasted ["roasted" - how unscientific can you get?] are house oven temperatures. 

"a combination of burning jet fuel fanned by high speed winds blowing in the hole left by a 767, and streaming up the now voided elevator shaft." 

Where do you get this bullshit? It's hilarious, it's Omni! Everyone knows that you are lying because what you describe is not what the videos of the twin towers shows at all. 

NIST, nor US conspiracy theory supporting scientist has ever suggested such nonsense. Now everyone knows you are lying. 

You are really getting desperate.

And the "oxy/acetylene welding" dog and pony show! Next you'll be trotting out the blacksmith video.

 

 

 

 

Edited by hot enough
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Omni said:

I figured that video was basic enough for even you to get it. I guess I was wrong. Hard to make it any simpler.

Explain what your blacksmith video shows, Omni. After all you said it was "basic". 

Notice how Omni avoids everything and focuses on the most inane thing to cause "distractions". 

Edited by hot enough
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, hot enough said:

Explain what your blacksmith video shows, Omni. After all you said it was "basic". 

Structural steel looses it's strength when heated, well before it actually melts. Remember buddy bending that hot rod with his pinky? Now imagine if that rod was holding up the floor of an office building and it was heated to the point of being able to be bent by a pinky. It fails, falls, and it's weight and impact take out the floor below it, and on and on until there is simply a pile of rubble. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Wilber said:

Didn't have to. The aircraft caused several floors in the middle to fail. When they failed, the floors on top dropped onto the floor below and caused it to fail and so on, the failures just cascaded down to the bottom. It's pretty obvious from the videos that the collapse started near the impact point and worked its way down the building.

Well that is not what and how AE9/11 explained it. Those floors above may have possibly collapsed say ten to twelve floors below but not the whole building. Think about it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Omni said:

Structural steel looses it's strength when heated, well before it actually melts.

It didn't in the Cardington test fires, where the secondary steel beams were totally unprotected, which means zero insulation. Let's review.

Secondary steel beams were not protected.Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900° C (1,500-1,700° F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments." 

WTC wasn't a blacksmiths forge. It was sooty, low temperature fires, fires that were not near as hot or widespread as ALL the other office fires that have never seen a collapse. 

Jonathon Cole did a review of the blacksmith video and he pointed out how the blacksmiths point had no point. Had all the steel columns on the first floor, perimeter and central, been heated in a forge to the temps and the time the blacksmith had done so and if there was a huge wind that day, the towers would have toppled over. 

Mr Cole heated a steel rod, the same size as the blacksmiths but at a point on the rod that was reflective of where the fire actually was, which was not at the base, it was at the 92 floor for WTC1. He heated it red hot, as per the BS, then took a heavy hammer and hammered hard on the top. The rod didn't bend, nor did it collapse to the bottom. It didn't do anything. 

Here, you can watch it yourself. It illustrates all the simple memes that the uninformed believe are just that, memes, that have no basis in science.

 

Edited by hot enough
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, taxme said:

Well that is not what and how AE9/11 explained it. Those floors above may have possibly collapsed say ten to twelve floors below but not the whole building. Think about it. 

taxme, the study done and the paper written by Tony Szamboti and Graeme McQueen, "The Missing Jolt - A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis" describes how WTC1 would have self arrested within two floors. 

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/TheMissingJolt7.pdf

Edited by hot enough
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Omni said:

Who doesn't understand? Or do you think the video was faked? And the planes were all holograms right? Conspiracy theorists are like that.

The blacksmith doesn't understand and as I mentioned, "someone who trots out a blacksmith talking about things he obviously does not understand is not any smarter or more knowledgeable that said blacksmith".

Your rant illustrates your desperation, Omni. Who was talking about faking videos and holograms? 

Again, the blacksmith doesn't understand and as I mentioned, "someone who trots out a blacksmith talking about things he obviously does not understand is not any smarter or more knowledgeable that said blacksmith".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, hot enough said:

The blacksmith doesn't understand and as I mentioned, "someone who trots out a blacksmith talking about things he obviously does not understand is not any smarter or more knowledgeable that said blacksmith".

Your rant illustrates your desperation, Omni. Who was talking about faking videos and holograms? 

Again, the blacksmith doesn't understand and as I mentioned, "someone who trots out a blacksmith talking about things he obviously does not understand is not any smarter or more knowledgeable that said blacksmith".

You're going around in circles. I'll leave you to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Omni said:

You're going around in circles. I'll leave you to it.

And you are dizzy, dizzy with confusion. It must be tough to lie so wantonly, knowing that you are studiously avoiding seven easy Yes/No questions, anyone of which would free you from this incredible confusion. 

And here are some easy questions for you to illustrate how important science is to you.

1. Do you deny that the US government developed nanothermite in the 1990s?

2. Do you deny that unreacted nanothermite particles were found in WTC dust?

3. Do you deny that the by-products of thermitic reactions were found in WTC dust, iron microspheres in volumes 1500 times greater than that of normal office dust?

4. Do you deny the molten and vaporized steel described by FEMA, pictures of which anyone can see?

5. Do you deny the molten and fused steel and concrete, one named the Meteorite and housed in a 911 museum? 

6. Do you deny the molten handguns found and stored in a 911 museum?

7. Do you deny that John Gross [and others] of NIST lied about the molten/vaporized steel, the explosions, the bombs reported, WTC7 free fall, the shear studs, the composite floors, the ...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, hot enough said:

taxme, the study done and the paper written by Tony Szamboti and Graeme McQueen, "The Missing Jolt - A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis" describes how WTC1 would have self arrested within two floors. 

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/TheMissingJolt7.pdf

We may have some anti-conspiracy members here trying to cover up and trying to end this twin towers conspiracy discussion. It won't work. Truth shall prevail.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, taxme said:

We may have some anti-conspiracy members here trying to cover up and trying to end this twin towers conspiracy discussion. It won't work. Truth shall prevail.  

Actually, Omni, eyeball, Wilber, Dop, OftenWrong, ... belong to a group of the wackiest conspiracy theorists who have ever walked the planet, people who support the US government official conspiracy theory. They deny stark realities, ones that can be seen with their own eyes. Everything from 1 to 7 is verifiable by any person who still has the gift of sight.

And yet these people refuse to even look at these simple Yes/No questions, let alone answer them. Right, Rue? 

1. Do you deny that the US government developed nanothermite in the 1990s?

2. Do you deny that unreacted nanothermite particles were found in WTC dust?

3. Do you deny that the by-products of thermitic reactions were found in WTC dust, iron microspheres in volumes 1500 times greater than that of normal office dust?

4. Do you deny the molten and vaporized steel described by FEMA, pictures of which anyone can see?

5. Do you deny the molten and fused steel and concrete, one named the Meteorite and housed in a 911 museum? 

6. Do you deny the molten handguns found and stored in a 911 museum?

7. Do you deny that John Gross [and others] of NIST lied about the molten/vaporized steel, the explosions, the bombs reported, WTC7 free fall, the shear studs, the composite floors, the ...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Wilber said:

Yes it will, regardless of wingnut ranting and raving.

Just try one little question, Wilber, the man of science. It doesn't hurt to answer a simple Yes/No question. Even your kids could do it.

4. Do you deny the molten and vaporized steel described by FEMA, pictures of which anyone can see?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, hot enough said:

Just try one little question, Wilber, the man of science. It doesn't hurt to answer a simple Yes/No question. Even your kids could do it.

4. Do you deny the molten and vaporized steel described by FEMA, pictures of which anyone can see?

I see a lot of molten aluminum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...