192
   

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

 
 
neptuneblue
 
  3  
Tue 29 Sep, 2020 10:37 pm
@oralloy,
Well, until such time, shut up.
oralloy
 
  -3  
Tue 29 Sep, 2020 10:38 pm
@neptuneblue,
No. I have as much right to post here as anyone else does.
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  2  
Tue 29 Sep, 2020 10:39 pm
@neptuneblue,
neptune, it could only be incoherent fiction though. Like theRump, he can't come up with a single honest, understandable point!
unable2know
 
  -2  
Tue 29 Sep, 2020 10:39 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
There was no melted or vaporized steel.


See how he lies!! Three FEMA scientists described molten/vaporized WTC7 steel in the NYTs and oralloy denies reality. Such is the depth of usa brainwashing.
=====================
New York Times journalist James Glanz, writing near the end of 2001 about the collapse of WTC 7, reported that some engineers said that a “combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down,” but that this “would not explain,” according to Dr. Barnett, “steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures.” [13]

Glanz was referring to Jonathan Barnett, a professor of fire protection engineering at the Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI). Early in 2002, Barnett and two WPI colleagues published an analysis of a section of steel from one of the Twin Towers, along with sections from WTC 7, as an appendix to FEMA’s 2002 World Trade Center Building Performance Study. [14] Their discoveries were also reported in a WPI article entitled “The ‘Deep Mystery’ of Melted Steel,” which said:

“[S]teel – which has a melting point of 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit [1538°C] – may weaken and bend, but does not melt during an ordinary office fire. Yet metallurgical studies on WTC steel brought back to WPI reveal that a novel phenomenon – called a eutectic reaction – occurred at the surface, causing intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese.”

Stating that the New York Times called these findings “perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation,” the article added:

“A one-inch 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.” [15]

In discussing “the deepest mystery,” the New York Times story said: “The steel apparently melted away, but no fire in any of the buildings was believed to be hot enough to melt steel outright.” [16] That was an understatement, because a building fire, even with a perfect mixture of air and fuel, could at most reach 1,000°C (1,832°F). [17] In fact, Professor Thomas Eagar of MIT estimated that the fires were “probably only about 1,200 or 1,300°F [648 or 704°C].” [18]
oralloy
 
  -4  
Tue 29 Sep, 2020 10:41 pm
@unable2know,
You are the only liar here. There was no melted or vaporized steel.
unable2know
 
  -2  
Tue 29 Sep, 2020 10:42 pm
@BillW,
Quote:
he can't come up with a single honest, understandable point!


oralloy has gone gonzo with his lies and inability to come up with anything remotely sensible. He denies reality, reality that is right in front of him.
oralloy
 
  -4  
Tue 29 Sep, 2020 10:43 pm
@unable2know,
You are the only person here who is lying. You are also the only person here who is denying reality.

Reality, as much as you dislike it, is perfectly sensible.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -4  
Tue 29 Sep, 2020 10:45 pm
@BillW,
BillW wrote:
neptune, it could only be incoherent fiction though. Like theRump, he can't come up with a single honest, understandable point!

The fact that you are too stupid to understand something does not mean that it is incoherent or dishonest.
0 Replies
 
unable2know
 
  -2  
Tue 29 Sep, 2020 10:45 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
There was no ... vaporized steel.


but that this “would not explain,” according to Dr. Barnett, “steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures.”

Quote:
There was no melted ... steel.


In discussing “the deepest mystery,” the New York Times story said: “The steel apparently melted away, but no fire in any of the buildings was believed to be hot enough to melt steel outright.”
oralloy
 
  -2  
Tue 29 Sep, 2020 10:47 pm
@unable2know,
Yet another reference to the same piece of chemically-corroded steel.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Tue 29 Sep, 2020 10:49 pm
@unable2know,
unable2know wrote:
The red material contains grains approximately 100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures.

Is this a description of the "nanothermite" that they didn't find at the WTC?
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -3  
Tue 29 Sep, 2020 10:50 pm
@unable2know,
unable2know wrote:
oralloy is woefully ignorant on most every topic, certainly the science and evidence of 9/11 and he has displayed that here in spades, along with his myriad bald faced lies.

Wrong again. You are the only person here who is ignorant. You are also the only person here who is lying.
0 Replies
 
unable2know
 
  -1  
Tue 29 Sep, 2020 10:50 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
Yet another reference to the same piece of chemically-corroded steel.


Pretending that you know anything about the science is just another manifestation of your amazing propensity to bald face lie. Explain what you mean.
neptuneblue
 
  3  
Tue 29 Sep, 2020 10:51 pm
I just see no sense to argue about something neither can be coherent about the loss of life, only the loss of a metal.
Walter Hinteler
 
  3  
Tue 29 Sep, 2020 10:53 pm
https://i.imgur.com/bGITrcO.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/ve8vpTr.jpg


https://i.imgur.com/XwJzkMa.jpg
0 Replies
 
unable2know
 
  -1  
Tue 29 Sep, 2020 10:55 pm
@neptuneblue,
The loss of life came when the twin towers were blown up using US military 1990s developed nanothermite. It explains perfectly the molten and vaporized WTCs 1, 2 & 7 structural steel, the 5.87 times normal iron microspheres in WTC dust , a by product of thermitic reactions.
oralloy
 
  -3  
Tue 29 Sep, 2020 10:56 pm
@unable2know,
Wrong again. There was no molten or vaporized steel. And the US government did not attack the World Trade Center.
neptuneblue
 
  3  
Tue 29 Sep, 2020 10:58 pm
@unable2know,
I lost friends and family that day.

Apparently, their memory is reduced to two people who don't care about that fact.
oralloy
 
  -3  
Tue 29 Sep, 2020 11:02 pm
@neptuneblue,
How does my not allowing lies about the attack to stand unchallenged mean that I don't care about the victims?
0 Replies
 
unable2know
 
  0  
Tue 29 Sep, 2020 11:02 pm
@oralloy,
The usa government blew up WTCs 1, 2 & 7. The science is irrefutable. WTC7 free fall, fully admitted to by NIST can only happen with a controlled demolition. If steel framed high rises just automatically collapsed no one would ever walk into another high rise tower.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.84 seconds on 03/10/2025 at 05:16:38