-
Confession of a Worthless Soul on Facebook "9/11 Debates"
Elizabeth Tague Dan, please unblock anyone you have and allow them right of reply.
Please also answer Keoki as her points are NOT spam, but entirely relevent.
Spinning someone saying SMALL PLANE somehow into them stating 'drone' is PURE CONJECTURE on YOUR part and not honest.
Dan Plesse Elizabeth Tague
it was SMALL PLANE and other DETAILS
everything on this subject has been covered. No more replies are necessary.
ALL additional questions have been off topic. I never said that she said the word "drone" . I never said that anyone used the word "drone". therefore the concept was off topic.
It was a manufactured issued without any merit.
9/11 is NOT about word games. If your "members" enjoy 9/11 word games and off topic concepts please open another thread without me in it. If anyone would like to talk about NON WORD GAME Issues I will reply.
Word games is officially forbidden.
Your other member refuse to do any research (review documents, videos, and only make counter questions with reused concepts. If you say the same concept more then once THAT COUNTS AS SPAM!
Reusing the same response to everything COUNTS AS SPAM. SPAM means reusing over and over the same ideas regardless of the topic.- Elizabeth Tague Yet in the end Dan all you habe really is "word games" . . . endless semantics and all just to avoid simple hard facts like the woman CLEARLY said plane and so ANY discussion to spin that into your beloved 'drone' IS mere word games.
- Dan Plesse Quick edit
ALL additional questions have been off topic. I never said that she said the word "drone" . I never said that anyone used the word "drone". therefore the concept was off topic. - Elizabeth Tague Nor do we "refuse" to look at videos, etc . . . we have seen them all before.
Truthism has produced NOTHING new since Loose Change and every truther blog or video is just a rehash of the SAME stuff recycled again and again and again and again . . . an endless roundabout spinning round and round but going nowhere. - Dan Plesse The topic is now closed for you too. You said your part I replied. Its over. Unless you can think of something else.
- Dan Plesse I have no interest into WHY you don't do anything. I am happy that you confessed at least.
Can I ask why you bother then? Why are you here ? "WE have seen them all before." Is there some other activity that you enjoy? What are you giving up in exchange to reply to me right now? Is it worth it? What is your point? Is this your JOB?
Painting everything over with same brush sounds bias and very anti Debate. This should be a PRO debate page however that never seems to happen.
This does this page sound like the right fix for you? Are you burned out?a few seconds ago · Edited · Like
- Elizabeth Tague The mere fact that truthism in the end is nothing more than endless rehashes shows how little actusl substance and merit it has.
And correcting wrong and false stuff is NEVER a waste of time or effort.
Or do you think fear and ignorance and fasle information are good things thst should remain unchallenged then? - Elizabeth Tague Guaranteed Dan, I will and do know more REAL things about 9/11 than truthers do.
Ever wonder why debunkers can oh! so easily correct false truther claims like money missing at the Pentagon or that Marvin Bush was in "charge" of WTC security. - Elizabeth Tague Love the vain attempt at spin too . . . whrn you need to spin what I actually said Dan, it just shows how little you have really.
- Dan Plesse You really jumped over the JOB QUESTION.. wow. What's that about? Then you jumped over everything else. Just skipped on past it.
" spin what I actually said Dan" OK can you transcribe the exact text i.e words SHE said for the record?
Why don't YOU ALSO Offer helpful solutions? That another strange gap.
Her words sound nothing like the official story? do they? If they do, which words do it for you? (this has to with 9/11 CBS DRONE WITNESS CBS Live Coverage on September 11, 2001 SMALLER PLANE)
The radio broadcasts of 9/11 which I listen every night to which you DON"T bother with sound NOTHING like your little story.
If it did. I would not be hear right now. I wouldn't bother listening to endless hours broadcast.
Have you listened to a single broadcast?a few seconds ago · Edited · Like
Dan Plesse I am going to listen to more 9/11 broadcasts. I will not continue to ask questions without answers. GOOD NIGHT! The Topic is now closed.
Thursday, January 30, 2014
Confession of a Worthless Soul on Facebook "9/11 Debates"
9/11 Arson Evidence John Gross Building 7
 |
| 9/11 Arson Evidence |
 |
| 9/11 Arson Evidence |
 |
| What the hell |
 |
| 9/11 Arson Evidence |
 |
| 9/11 Arson Evidence |
 |
| Thermite Evidence |
 |
| 9/11 Arson Evidence |
Ron Morales #9
"100's of firefighters and witness testimony to MOLTEN STEEL ignored by the Commission report."
Because it was irrelevant. Fire fighters witnessed molten material that some of them interpreted as molten steel, which would be a natural assumption upon seeing molten stuff in the debris of a steel structured building. But as none of them were metallurgists and one is not capable of assaying the metallic composition of molten metal by sight alone, their OPINIONS that what they saw was steel is not evidence that it was. There were under the rubble fires that burned for months and the molten material could have been aluminum (since there were thousands of tons of aluminum in the debris), slag, or a combination of both plus other metals. The molten material was witnessed to have been present for over six weeks after 9/11.
As controlled demolitions do not produce pools of molten metal at all and no thermite reaction has ever been demonstrated to be able to produce a pool of molten metal that stayed molten for even an hour, much less six weeks, we can exclude either controlled demolition and thermite as the cause. However, there have been known cases of debris fires burning for months and reaching temperatures capable of melting aluminum, and over a hundred thousand gallons of stored diesel fuel in the basements of the WTC could have fed such fires.
It was also demonstrated (without rebuttal by anyone) that a thermite reaction melting steel at the top of the Towers (since the collapses began from the top down) could not have resulted in molten steel ending up in the basements of the building (where the diesel fuel was stored). And that molten material could not have been molten steel because molten steel produces massive explosions when in contact with even a small amount of water. However, millions of gallons of water fell on the WTC debris pile during this time and yet there were no reports of massive explosions.
""NIST's John Gross denies the existence of Molten Metal",
This is a lie. Gross was asked about reports of molten STEEL and he said he was unaware of such reports. Saying that you're unaware of reports of molten steel is not the same thing as denying the presence of molten metal.
" 'Swiss Cheese', "
There was a report of corroded metal that was estimated to have been corroded at about 1800 degrees F, which is at the high end of an office fire but far below a thermite event.
"As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running."
See above. Since neither controlled demolition not thermite have nor could have produced molten steel that stayed molten for that long (controlled demolitions don't produce pools of molten material at all), we can exclude both as the cause of long lasting molten material.
"Leslie Robertson"
He said "steel" in one talk but later said he couldn't recall using such a term rather than "metal." It would not be surprising for someone to inadvertently use the word "steel" when referring to the debris at a steel structured building rather than "metal." Robertson nevertheless is not a metallurgist and, again, one cannot assay the metallic composition of molten metal by sight alone, and he was reporting what others had told him.
3 hours ago · Edited · Like
Reply to #9
"MOLTEN STEEL" can even be seen as a straw man argument NOW because it is NOT the highest temperatures reached and reported officially to date. The NYPD museums has already reported molten rock and Lava.
Witness testimony was universally ignored by the Commission report regardless of who and where, NIST has withdrawn thousands files from FOIA requests (problem with drones) and House of Representatives Bill H. Res. 428
http://investigatesandyhook.blogspot.com/.../new-york...
which core 9/11 Commission investigative team members have called the "9/11 Commission Report" a shame on national television.
And that's not the start of it!
Reply to #9
"MOLTEN STEEL" can even be seen as a straw man argument NOW because it is NOT the highest temperatures reached and reported officially to date. The NYPD museums has already reported molten rock and Lava.
Witness testimony was universally ignored by the Commission report regardless of who and where, NIST has withdrawn thousands files from FOIA requests (problem with drones) and House of Representatives Bill H. Res. 428
http://investigatesandyhook.blogspot.com/.../new-york...
which core 9/11 Commission investigative team members have called the "9/11 Commission Report" a shame on national television.
And that's not the start of it!
investigatesandyhook.blogspot.
a few seconds ago · Like · Remove Preview
- Dan Plesse Leslie E. Robertson to give presentation on World Trade Center design, demise 2002
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3-8tKQt3yM
www.youtube.com
Leslie E. Robertson to give presentation on World Trade Center design, demise http://news.stanford.edu/news/2002/april3/ worldtradecenter-43.html
Maxwell Bridges Part of #9: "100's of firefighters and witness testimony to MOLTEN STEEL ignored by the Commission report."
Mr. Ron Morales wrote: "Because it was irrelevant. Fire fighters witnessed molten material that some of them interpreted as molten steel, which would be a natural assumption upon seeing molten stuff in the debris of a steel structured building."
The key phrase is "some of them (may have) interpreted." Mr. Morales is making his own interpretation of their testimony. Given that fire fighters undergo lots of ongoing training in the area of fires and building materials and that they might even have hobbies that involve metal working and welding, Mr. Morales himself is making faulty assumptions about the validity of fire fighter observations.
Mr. Ron Morales wrote: "But as none of them were metallurgists and one is not capable of assaying the metallic composition of molten metal by sight alone, their OPINIONS that what they saw was steel is not evidence that it was."
Most welders and foundry workers aren't metallurgist either, but that doesn't mean they can't tell the difference between metals even when red hot or molten. I am not a welder, but have taken welding classes to further another hobby. I have relatives on both sides of the family who were farmers and ranchers, and out of necessity were good welders to keep their equipment in good repair. A co-worker of welds, forges knifes, tinkers on cars, plays with weapons, but that's not what pays his salary. Fire fighters went through extensive training; each year they continue their education into types of fires and building construction; who's to say what additional hobbies they might have that involves heat and metals.
The point is that Mr. Ron Morales argument about the lack of metallurgist credentials only goes so far in being able to discredit the testimony of what a person observed and might have experience in.
Mr. Ron Morales wrote: "There were under the rubble fires that burned for months and the molten material could have been aluminum (since there were thousands of tons of aluminum in the debris), slag, or a combination of both plus other metals. The molten material was witnessed to have been present for over six weeks after 9/11."
Mr. Morales faulty rationalization is disproven by evidence. Type into Google "9/11 meteorite". How did this occur?
According to Mr. Morales, if you aren't a meallurgists, you don't know what hot molten metal looks like even if it would run like liquid down steel rails and trickle onto your boots and burn a hole in your foot.
The two bigger issue for Mr. Morales OPINION are these two accidental acknowledgements: (1) "There were under the rubble fires" and (2) "the rubble fires... burned for months."
The only fires that the OCT admits were from jet fuel and office furnishings some 80 or 90 stories in the air, which would have put them (if they survived the gravity-driven pile-driver) under 30 or 20 stories of smothering debris. Therefore, how was it even possible for this to happen UNDER all the rubble.
Secondly, jet fuel and office furnishing fires require oxygen from air to burn, which would have been in short supply under the smothering rubble and certainly would have been exhausted after days, let alone months.
Okay, okay, I'm being unreasonably extreme, because whenever the debris pile got moved in the clean-up, some air could have gotten in. However, if we assume just office furnishings and building content under smothering dust and debris, such fires could burn, what, like a few hours without exhausting its oxygen source?
Whether or not one applies some science to the issue, I'm sure one could apply some real world camping experience to it. How many times has one almost killed a camp fire by putting too much wood, pine needles, leaves, etc. on it? Yes, it might have smoldered and kept burning a little bit under neath, but not to the point where it would melt one's aluminum beer can.
All in all, my OPINION is that Mr. Morales is mischaracterizing the testimony of the fire fighters and unfairly discrediting their experience with fires (and foundries).
Mr. Morales should PROVE that "the molten material could have been aluminum."
Mr. Ron Morales wrote: "As controlled demolitions do not produce pools of molten metal at all..."
I could agree with this...
Mr. Ron Morales wrote: "... and no thermite reaction has ever been demonstrated to be able to produce a pool of molten metal that stayed molten for even an hour, much less six weeks, ..."
It depends on how much thermite you've got and how you deliver it to the fire. For a single hot-spot of only 4 weeks, you'd need an imaginary garden hose packed with thermite that was over 500,000 miles long. Not very Occam Razar, to be sure.
Mr. Ron Morales wrote: "... we can exclude either controlled demolition and thermite as the cause."
Agreed. AND we can exclude the OCT.
// part 1
- Maxwell Bridges Mr. Ron Morales wrote: "However, there have been known cases of debris fires burning for months and reaching temperatures capable of melting aluminum, and over a hundred thousand gallons of stored diesel fuel in the basements of the WTC could have fed such fires."
Prove this contention, Mr. Morales. The only mention of diesel fuel storage playing a role was in WTC-7, and the official conclusion was that it didn't. No where does anybody mention diesel fuel burning under the towers or contributing to the under-rubble fires (to the point of keeping them burning for weeks). No where do those same experienced fire-fighters mention smelling burning diesel fuel with regards to those molten findings.
Mr. Morales doesn't think far enough into his diesel fuel premise. How is the burning of the diesel fuel regulated so that it could last for many weeks? If the tanks were breeched in the destruction, the tendancy of fire would be to consume as much as possible as fast as possible, like the fire-balls from the impacting jets. In order for diesel fuel to burn, it requires oxygen from the air. Not only were millions of gallons of water poured on the pile from firemen (and rain), but they also poured high-tech fire-fighting chemicals on it. Had it been a diesel fire, it would have been snuffed out well before the six week mark.
Finally, when one correlates the expected location of the diesel tanks to the numerous hot-spots, one will find no such correlation.
Mr. Morales does a valient attempt at a wild-ass explanation, but it comes up short.
Neutron nuclear DEW and nuclear fizzling remnants of the same much more easily explains the anomalous duration of hot-spots and the fire-fighters claims of molten steel/metal (as well as the meteorite) without having to mischaracterize their testimoney as "molten aluminum" and bring in unfounded speculation into diesel fuel tanks.
Mr. Ron Morales wrote: "It was also demonstrated (without rebuttal by anyone) that a thermite reaction melting steel at the top of the Towers (since the collapses began from the top down) could not have resulted in molten steel ending up in the basements of the building (where the diesel fuel was stored)."
Such a lovely strawman that Mr. Morales builds. If Mr. Morales assumes that thermite was used at the top of the towers, why does he all of a sudden assume that thermite wouldn't be everywhere THROUGHOUT the towers including the basement? In for a penny, in for a pound in destroying the towers.
Mr. Ron Morales wrote: "And that molten material could not have been molten steel because molten steel produces massive explosions when in contact with even a small amount of water. However, millions of gallons of water fell on the WTC debris pile during this time and yet there were no reports of massive explosions."
Does it really explode? I would assume that it would just turn the water instantly into steam. Molten steel isn't the same thing as hot oil, which seemingly does explode when drops of water are added. (Really, it is partly because water and oil don't mix, and mostly that the rapid expansion of water into steam displaces the oil violently throwing it out as if an explosion. Molten metal doesn't have the same viscosity as hot cooking oil, so its reaction to water doesn't have to be identical.)
I think that some wide definitions of "molten material" are at play, here. One definition would suggest a liquid form. Another definition would be "red hot" such that it could be almost bent and formed. The salient point is that fire fighters described certain underground WTC areas from the early days as being like a foundry.
""NIST's John Gross denies the existence of Molten Metal",
Mr. Ron Morales wrote: "This is a lie. Gross was asked about reports of molten STEEL and he said he was unaware of such reports. Saying that you're unaware of reports of molten steel is not the same thing as denying the presence of molten metal."
And it is political weasel-wording and plausible deniability.
Reports would imply something written and published. Ergo, given that they controlled exactly such official reports, slow-walked them, suppressed them, juked them, then certainly Mr. Gross uttered no lies. He was unaware of such (published) reports.
" 'Swiss Cheese', "
Mr. Ron Morales wrote: "There was a report of corroded metal that was estimated to have been corroded at about 1800 degrees F, which is at the high end of an office fire but far below a thermite event."
An office fire that was oxygen starved and waning as was evident by the black sooty smoke could not reach that high end.
As for thermite, nuclear heat wave, or nuclear fizzle, which presumably would all be very hot, you can achieve the estimated 1800 F degrees for the Swiss cheese corroded metal by increasing the distance from the heat source.
"As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running."
Mr. Ron Morales wrote: "See above. Since neither controlled demolition not thermite have nor could have produced molten steel that stayed molten for that long (controlled demolitions don't produce pools of molten material at all), we can exclude both as the cause of long lasting molten material."
Agreed. And because the unsubstantiated wild-ass speculation into diesel fuel fires together with a gravity-driven pile-driver also can't explain it, SCIENCE LITERATE RESEARCHERS SHOULD KEEP LOOKING FOR THE SOURCE. Neutron nuclear DEW devices is my contribution.
"Leslie Robertson"
Mr. Ron Morales wrote: "He said "steel" in one talk but later said he couldn't recall using such a term rather than "metal." It would not be surprising for someone to inadvertently use the word "steel" when referring to the debris at a steel structured building rather than "metal." Robertson nevertheless is not a metallurgist and, again, one cannot assay the metallic composition of molten metal by sight alone, and he was reporting what others had told him."
The reason for the limited-hangout into nano-thermite is that it obtains its oxygen from the reaction with steel, leaving iron as a by-product. Iron is metal, but is no longer steel although similar in so many ways.
Interesting that you shoot down Robertson's credentials as not being a metallurgist when you later essentially say it wouldn't matter whether he was or wasn't, because the reports came from others. Pretty tacky.
In summary, this was started from Part of #9: "100's of firefighters and witness testimony to MOLTEN STEEL ignored by the Commission report." To which Mr. Ron Morales wrote: "Because it was irrelevant."
It was not irrelevant, because it is a piece of evidence that needs to be addressed, even with the lame diesel-tanks.
// part 2/2
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)