0
   

Dennis Kucinich: we're being played...

 
 
camlok
 
  0  
Reply Mon 20 Feb, 2017 04:00 pm
@McGentrix,
McGentrix: Right.

You are describing Donald Trump as a "truther", a "conspiracy theorist". Wait 'til Baldimo and Layman get a hold of you.
0 Replies
 
George
 
  2  
Reply Tue 21 Feb, 2017 05:35 am
@camlok,
camlok wrote:
That's something that neither you or I know, George?
Thank you for your reply, Scooter That sums your explanations up nicely.

Now go away and stop bothering the grown-ups.
camlok
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 21 Feb, 2017 07:17 am
@George,
Hardly, George.

What of the molten steel? The alleged hijackers could not have melted steel, 2750F, with jet fuel/office furnishings fires that could only reach 1,800F and which only actually burned much lower than that.

What of NIST's lies, this top notch group of scientists denying WTC free fall; could it be because free fall describes a building being blown up, a controlled demolition, the only way known to science to achieve free fall? Of course that's why NIST lied.

Shyam Sunder, NIST's lead scientist, carefully explained why
free fall was not possible, because there was resistance that had to be overcome, the tons of structural steel supporting the eight floors, the 100 feet of WTC7 that did fall at free fall speed.

Then NIST changed their mind, when it was pointed out to them by a physics teacher that it was free fall, something that could be seen and measured with simple high school physics programs.

NIST agreed, admitting free fall and admitting that WTC7 was a controlled demolition. Aren't you shocked, angry, that "scientists", paid with your tax dollars, lied to you? This is a monumental discovery. Why wasn't there a concomitant monumental admission from NIST? Why was this monumental NIST revision reported by the American "press"?

Why did NIST baldface lie, numerous times, saying there was no molten metals when there are numerous reports, FEMA scientists describing molten metal, numerous other scientists describing steel eroded by a eutectic reaction, from the recently discovered [US Lawrence Livermore Labs] recently patented [1996/97] high grade, non commercially available nanothermite, which was also found in the world trade center dust.

What was this NANOthermite doing at WTC?
Leadfoot
 
  2  
Reply Wed 22 Feb, 2017 10:05 am
@camlok,
cam, I'm sure you are familiar with the counter arguments on 'molten steel' (just Google 'WTC molton steel' if not).

Even thermite would not explain molten steel weeks after the event. That kind of kills the credibility of the reports of it.

Do you have arguments against the case against molten steel ?
camlok
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 22 Feb, 2017 11:03 am
@Leadfoot,
Quote:
cam, I'm sure you are familiar with the counter arguments on 'molten steel' (just Google 'WTC molton steel' if not).


Please put them forward.

Quote:
Even thermite would not explain molten steel weeks after the event. That kind of kills the credibility of the reports of it.


I don't have any idea of what you mean. Please explain.

Quote:
Do you have arguments against the case against molten steel ?


There are no arguments against molten steel. There are myriad pictures of it, scientists describing it, pointing to it, discussing it.

There is even a picture of a NIST scientist denying molten steel yet there is a picture of him pointing to it, touching it.

How weird is that?

Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Feb, 2017 09:52 am
@camlok,
Here's one of many links:
http://911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html

Quote:
There is even a picture of a NIST scientist denying molten steel yet there is a picture of him pointing to it, touching it.

Oh please, I've spent many hours looking at molten steel when gas and arc welding steel. NOBODY touches it.

And molten steel does not 'glow red'. The reports of describing it that way tells me they haven't seen it and don't even know what molten steel looks like.

I'd like to see those pictures you mentioned along with when and where they were taken.
camlok
 
  0  
Reply Thu 23 Feb, 2017 10:11 am
@Leadfoot,
Quote:
Oh please, I've spent many hours looking at molten steel when gas and arc welding steel. NOBODY touches it.


Good joke!

Quote:

I'd like to see those pictures you mentioned along with when and where they were taken.


Okay.

Copy and paste "John Gross denies molten metal touching molten steel beam" into Google. Click on Images. He's number 1 and number 4 picture. The pictures were taken when he went to the 911 "boneyards". In the video, you will notice him saying that the went to the boneyards, and he still categorically denies molten steel.

Here's a video of him categorically denying it, watch him squirm throughout.

NIST engineer, John Gross, denies the existance of Molten Steel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAl3vubzSQw



Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Feb, 2017 10:55 am
@camlok,
OK, did that, watched the video. Not at all convincing. In fact much of it convinces me that the 'witnesses' have no idea how steel acts when heated. The best example is the guy talking about the horseshoe shaped bent beam. They 'can't imagine the forces that could do that'? Only an ignorant person would say that when it came from a 100+ story building that was on fire and collapsed.

I work with metal of all kinds a lot. I know how it acts from personal experience. With my own puny arms have bent a 1.25" diameter piece of high strength steel (a truck axel) when heated in the middle to orange-red (WAY below melting point). With one end in a vice, I bent it into a U shape. It did not crack or break. That's just how the ******* material acts.

In short, the people in the videos are obviously not familiar with how materials act under heat and are not credible. The infrared images prove nothing. depending on the heat gradient the camera is adjusted to, the human body can look white hot on a cool day. A picture can tell a thousand lies if you don't understand what you are looking at.

BTW, I did see evidence of molten steel in one brief section of the videos but it was where the debris clearing crew had cut a beam with a torch during the cleanup. There was a LOT of that going on obviously.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Feb, 2017 11:14 am
@Leadfoot,
yeh, these guys are pushing green cheese moons. I do knife making and hqve NEVER melted steel. I work with making Damascus by layering two Rockwell numbers and I flatten and bend yellow orange metql on the qnvil..
The only evidence Id seen on any beams that were cut (stored at Freshkills landfill) were cut by firemen (only after photoing the scene). One can see the weld tracks (totally different form thqn spelter formed steel with a totally different Xl structure).

Im afraid these guys are posting from conspirqcy **** web-sites and trying to act informed when all they do is show us how naive they are. I trongly urge tking materiqls and metllurgy course (they offer non-lb courses in the FREE university over the eb (Presented by accredited universities by REAL scientists who arent loaded with conspiracy as the deriving force.

farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Feb, 2017 11:16 am
@Leadfoot,
Quote:
BTW, I did see evidence of molten steel in one brief section of the videos but it was where the debris clearing crew had cut a beam with a torch during the cleanup. There was a LOT of that going on obviously.


YUP. forensically , these scenes are esy to recreqte. The drops and flow marks are OVER TOP the dirty beams and the piles of rubble, indicating that the beam cutting came AFTER the building was down
camlok
 
  0  
Reply Thu 23 Feb, 2017 11:18 am
@Leadfoot,
September 19-October 2001: Structural Engineer Finds Evidence of Extreme Temperatures at WTC

An engineer investigating the remains of the World Trade Center sees melted girders and other evidence that the towers experienced extreme temperatures on 9/11. Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl is a professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of California, Berkeley. He specializes in studying structural damage done by earthquakes and terrorist bombings. [CHRONICLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION, 12/7/2001; CBS

He examines numerous pieces of steel taken from Ground Zero. [CHRONICLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION, 12/7/2001] Astaneh-Asl will describe the WTC as “the best-designed building I have ever seen.” [SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE, 10/22/2001] Yet he notices unusual warping and other damage in its remaining steel:

bullet At a recycling center in New Jersey, he sees 10-ton steel beams from the towers that look “like giant sticks of twisted licorice.” [CHRONICLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION, 12/7/2001] He shows the San Francisco Chronicle a “banana-shaped, rust-colored piece of steel” that has “twisted like toffee during the terrorist attack.” [SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE, 10/22/2001]
bullet

He later recalls, “I saw melting of girders in [the] World Trade Center.” [PBS, 5/10/2007]

bullet He notes that steel has bent at several connection points that had joined the floors of the WTC to the vertical columns. He describes the connections as being smoothly warped, saying, “If you remember the Salvador Dali paintings with the clocks that are kind of melted—it’s kind of like that.” He adds, “That could only happen if you get steel yellow hot or white hot—perhaps around 2,000 degrees.” [CHRONICLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION, 12/7/2001]

bullet Astaneh-Asl says that steel flanges have been reduced “from an inch thick to paper thin.” [BERKELEYAN, 10/3/2001]

-------------
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.”

“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.”

camlok: These last two quotes relate to the FEMA study,

https://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf

wherein you can see pictures of what has been described above.

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]

[bold is mine]

I-B. The RJ Lee Report

In May 2004, the RJ Lee Group issued a report, entitled “WTC Dust Signature,” at the request of the Deutsche Bank, in order to prove (to its insurance company) that the building was “pervasively contaminated with WTC Dust, unique to the WTC Event.” [19] The report listed five elements in this signature, one of which was: “Spherical iron and spherical or vesicular silicate particles that result from exposure to high temperature.” [20] This was the only statement about iron’s being modified by high temperature in this 2004 report.
However, RJ Lee had written an earlier report in 2003, entitled “WTC Dust Signature Report,” which contained much more about iron. It said: “Particles of materials that had been modified by exposure to high temperature, such as spherical particles of iron and silicates, are common in WTC Dust … but are not common in ‘normal’ interior office dust.” [21] This 2003 version of the report even pointed out that, whereas iron particles constitute only 0.04 percent of normal building dust, they constituted an enormous amount of the WTC dust: 5.87 percent (meaning that there was almost 1,500 times more iron in the dust than normal). [22] This earlier version also explicitly stated that iron and other metals were “melted during the WTC Event, producing spherical metallic particles.” [23]

In addition, whereas the 2004 report did not use the word “vaporize,” this earlier version spoke of temperatures “at which lead would have undergone vaporization.” [24] Accordingly, whereas the 2004 report referred to “high temperatures,” the earlier report indicated that the temperatures were not merely high but extremely high, because for lead to boil and hence vaporize, it must be heated to 1,749°C (3,180°F). [25]

camlok: You can read the above, the entire argument, which proves that steel was melted, steel was vaporized, ... on 9-11. That is simply not possible. The link,

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



camlok
 
  0  
Reply Thu 23 Feb, 2017 11:25 am
@farmerman,
This is the scientist, I'm not being facetious, who can't and won't address any of the science issues, even the ones that he himself raises.

Same thing here, just his uniformed opinions with no sources or proof, except, "I do knife making and hqve NEVER melted steel".

See,

https://able2know.org/topic/369947-8

where there are numerous posts asking that he address questions, some of which he raised. He has not in the nine pages of that thread, except for the same "proof" he offers above.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Feb, 2017 11:29 am
@farmerman,
Heres a longish article from a retired Geochemist who taught ore geology and has a long experience qnd time to write rebuttals . Im sure the "burning hair conspiracy theorists" will poo pooh real science qnd stick to their guns but, like most people recognize, the conspirqcists are a teeny portion of the populaation

https://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/911NutPhysics.HTM

camlok
 
  0  
Reply Thu 23 Feb, 2017 11:29 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
YUP. forensically , these scenes are esy to recreqte. The drops and flow marks are OVER TOP the dirty beams and the piles of rubble, indicating that the beam cutting came AFTER the building was down


What of the steel beam John Gross is touching? What of the FEMA vaporized steel, the links to which I provided in our initial discussions, after you tried a typical buffalo routine with your "wutectic", many days ago?

Why would any scientist continue to embarrass themself like this?
camlok
 
  0  
Reply Thu 23 Feb, 2017 11:35 am
@farmerman,
"I believe it was Lenin that stated that
"truth must be smashed , thus making the beliefs of the proletariat more easily managed"

WOW , whos been doin that lately, while aying he speaks the truth?"
-------------

Guess whose quote this is.
0 Replies
 
camlok
 
  0  
Reply Thu 23 Feb, 2017 12:09 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
and has a long experience qnd time to write rebuttals


You seem to have time to write nothing at all related to science but no time to rebut the science surrounding 911, which you initially suggested you possessed in droves.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Feb, 2017 12:19 pm
@camlok,
when you bring up some science that many of us havent already debunked, (cf Leadfoot qbove) all I can do i remind you of the errors in your evidence-free thinking.

farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Feb, 2017 12:21 pm
@camlok,
sho me the photos, chucky.
camlok
 
  0  
Reply Thu 23 Feb, 2017 12:36 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
when you bring up some science that many of us havent already debunked, (cf Leadfoot qbove) all I can do i remind you of the errors in your evidence-free thinking.


Thank you for confirming that "many of us havent[sic] already debunked.

In point of fact, no one has debunked any of the scientific points that Glennn, Builder, ... and I have raised.

I have literally begged you to reply, many times, to address the science but it's always this.
0 Replies
 
camlok
 
  0  
Reply Thu 23 Feb, 2017 12:41 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
sho me the photos, chucky.


I've directed you to the photos too many times too count. There are many links in my response to Leadfoot. One would surmise that a scientist, being as that is what scientists are supposed to do, would avail themselves of those links, where they didn't have to do any "research" of their own.

farmerman: "WOW , whos been doin that lately, while aying he speaks the truth?"

Here's the ..., I've lost count of the number of times I have provided this.

https://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf
0 Replies
 
 

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
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 04/23/2024 at 06:25:40