Poll

What is the truth about the 911 attack on the World Trade Center?

Hijacked Planes were flown into the two towers.  Resulting fires caused the collapse.
14 (60.9%)
The planes were CGI and it was controlled demolition
2 (8.7%)
Something other than planes were flown into the twin towers,  missiles drones etc.
2 (8.7%)
The planes were holographic projections from a special satellite, and it was a directed energy weapon
1 (4.3%)
Something else.
3 (13%)
Denspressure
1 (4.3%)

Total Members Voted: 23

Voting closed: March 06, 2017, 10:56:40 PM

911 What is the truth?

  • 6866 Replies
  • 761425 Views
*

Bom Tishop

  • 11196
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #240 on: February 16, 2017, 03:56:16 AM »
Not a very proud way to bow out after getting demolished (ha ha no pun intended)..

No I called it quits after your arse backwards description of the collapse,  I realised then and there, you were too far gone to be reached.

Not to mention your looney theory of no planes hitting WTC1 and WTC2,   That should have alerted me to the type of nutcase I was dealing with.

I seriously thought you were genuine before this thread,  glad to see the real you emerge from the debris.

Lying as always....Going out true to form...

You truly are all of jacks desperation...It is a fowl odor.

I never said nothing hit the towers...I said there are issues with the video evidence, stated what 1000s of witnesses heard and saw..using just these alone, I said nothing would have had to hit tower 1...tower 2 was not hit by the commercial flight we were told, it was hit by something, but not that...Nor I have ever cared about my hypothetical opinions on this thread...you just keep going after them to avoid the hard facts I present..

How many times have I said I don't want to speak hypothetical, but just facts? You cannot even hold a candle with facts, so you must use other tactics.


And my "backwards" views of the towers is exactly how they were build..I explained how they would fall. You cannot handle that...So of course it is backwards to you.

UNT decided to issue a diploma to me telling me I could talk about this with authority, multiple companies have issued certs to me saying I can talk about this with authority, 1000s of customers through a decade pay me so I can do this stuff for them with an authority

What do you have?

You can't even form a coherent simple rebuttal besides "Nuh uh!!"

Smdh ::)
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

*

disputeone

  • 24826
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #241 on: February 16, 2017, 03:59:39 AM »
You can't even form a coherent simple rebuttal besides "Nuh uh!!"

Smdh ::)

I think you are giving him entirely too much credit there.
Quote from: Stash
I'm anti-judaism.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl
Whose narrative is it to not believe the government?

Quote from: Wolvaccine
speech should be a privilege. Not a right.

*

Rayzor

  • 12111
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #242 on: February 16, 2017, 04:02:31 AM »
I never said nothing hit the towers...I said there are issues with the video evidence, stated what 1000s of witnesses heard and saw..using just these alone, I said nothing would have had to hit tower 1...tower 2 was not hit by the commercial flight we were told, it was hit by something, but not that...Nor I have ever cared about my hypothetical opinions on this thread...you just keep going after them to avoid the hard facts I present..

Correct you didn't  you said "no planes hit the towers",  and that's what I repeated.   You seem to be unable to read.  is that a problem with your phone still?  Or are you just lazy?
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #243 on: February 16, 2017, 04:03:46 AM »

Is there no depth you won't sink to?

I'm predicting...no...

Another prediction,  actually I shouldn't make fun of BHS,  his phone keeps auto correcting his posts,  Erie, eerie also  he meant to say +- 8 % of free fall,  ... oh wait that's what he did say  LOL

Hey numb nuts...

Has that rash cleared up yet?

Are you going to address this:


Who knows why they didn't  release some specific data,  certainly not me and definitely not you.

Why do you believe the NIST report but do not take at face value the stated reason they refuse to release the input/results data leading to the conclusions in the reports?

Patrick Gallagher stated the reason for not releasing the data as: "...might jeopardize public safety."

Why do you disagree with that written statement by Mr. Gallagher?

Why do you not question:

1. What public?

2. What safety?

*

Rayzor

  • 12111
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #244 on: February 16, 2017, 04:08:10 AM »
Hey numb nuts...

Has that rash cleared up yet?

Are you going to address this:

 

Ha ha,,  man could I have fun with that..   but I'll show restraint and just say,  ask your girlfriend.


Who knows why they didn't  release some specific data,  certainly not me and definitely not you.

Why do you believe the NIST report but do not take at face value the stated reason they refuse to release the input/results data leading to the conclusions in the reports?

Patrick Gallagher stated the reason for not releasing the data as: "...might jeopardize public safety."

Why do you disagree with that written statement by Mr. Gallagher?

Why do you not question:

1. What public?

2. What safety?


I think I've said it clearly already,  I don't know why they didn't release some specific data, but that doesn't mean I'm going to leap up and down shouting conspiracy.  I'd need to borrow your tin foil hat for that.

Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11196
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #245 on: February 16, 2017, 04:14:10 AM »
I never said nothing hit the towers...I said there are issues with the video evidence, stated what 1000s of witnesses heard and saw..using just these alone, I said nothing would have had to hit tower 1...tower 2 was not hit by the commercial flight we were told, it was hit by something, but not that...Nor I have ever cared about my hypothetical opinions on this thread...you just keep going after them to avoid the hard facts I present..

Correct you didn't  you said "no planes hit the towers",  and that's what I repeated.   You seem to be unable to read.  is that a problem with your phone still?  Or are you just lazy?

I stated exactly what I present as an hypothesis and why...I would get way more in-depth if I didn't think it was a waste. I also continuously said let's not talk about that, because it doesn't matter..Let's just focus on the facts.

Yes I am lazy with my posts...I have already told you that...Not to mention..

Yep since I don't proof read my stuff, and that is your only argument EVER. I say good for you. My brain has always sucked at spelling, sorry, you can't have everything. Numbers, logic, problem solving skills ect is my strong suit. I knew when I was a kid I was going to have problems there. Parts of my brain is over develped other parts are a bit lacking (people skills sometimes, over thinking the smallest task, and a few other issues) Also being dyslexic has never helped matters.

Dug that up...Since typically spelling is an attack here from people towards me when they have lost a debate.

I have had to battle through a perplexity of mental issues to get where I am, and it was and still isn't an easy road. So if you want to make fun of me on misspellings, or the fact I use auto correct because I can't spell worth a fuck...fine by you..

Fortunately I am not debating about grammar or spelling, nor would I ever.

We are talking about 9/11 and it's impossibilities of the official story. The fact you had to go to spelling simply means you lost soldier.
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11196
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #246 on: February 16, 2017, 04:18:09 AM »
I'd need to borrow your tin foil hat for that.


Let's leave me and my credentials/experience etc out of the picture for a moment.

There are 1000s upon 1000s of people just like me, many even more intelligent and accomplished than I that think the same thing.

Call that Looney?

That is leaving out the millions of "regular folks" who feel the same way.

Also leaving people and leaders of other countries who roll their eyes that Americans even thought of accepting the official story. People of power in other countries have even publicly said it was all nonsense...

That's a bit further than a tin foil hat conspiracy don't you the Mr. Fish?
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

*

Rayzor

  • 12111
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #247 on: February 16, 2017, 04:20:36 AM »
We are talking about 9/11 and it's impossibilities of the official story. The fact you had to go to spelling simply means you lost soldier.

If you had convinced me that you actually had a case,  then you could claim a victory of sorts,  but the further we went,  it became obvious that you were too far gone. 

There were plenty of opportunities where you could have presented a coherent argument,  and you might have had a convert.  The fact is you didn't

If you want to look in terms of winning and losing,  Everybody loses when conspiracy replaces science and truth.
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

disputeone

  • 24826
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #248 on: February 16, 2017, 04:22:39 AM »
If you want to look in terms of winning and losing,  Everybody loses when conspiracy replaces science and truth.

Agreed.

Edit.

If you want to continue this I would recommend doing it here.
« Last Edit: February 16, 2017, 04:27:20 AM by disputeone »
Quote from: Stash
I'm anti-judaism.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl
Whose narrative is it to not believe the government?

Quote from: Wolvaccine
speech should be a privilege. Not a right.

Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #249 on: February 16, 2017, 04:29:04 AM »
Ha ha,,  man could I have fun with that..   but I'll show restraint and just say,  ask your girlfriend.

I asked her last night. She replied with this signal:


Said she was not going to go any further.

I think I've said it clearly already,  I don't know why they didn't release some specific data, but that doesn't mean I'm going to leap up and down shouting conspiracy.  I'd need to borrow your tin foil hat for that.
Nice to know your reality includes a definition of clarity more fitting of


Again, the NIST chair clearly states he did not release the inputs/results data in the interests of: "...public safety."

Why do you deny this if he clearly states this to be the reason for withholding the data?

I am 100 percent convinced it is because you know it to be an absolute bull shit reason.

The reason I am 100 percent convinced is simply because you are so full of bull shit yourself and that qualifies you as a bull shit expert.

You and sokarul.

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11196
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #250 on: February 16, 2017, 04:42:27 AM »
We are talking about 9/11 and it's impossibilities of the official story. The fact you had to go to spelling simply means you lost soldier.

If you had convinced me that you actually had a case,  then you could claim a victory of sorts,  but the further we went,  it became obvious that you were too far gone. 

There were plenty of opportunities where you could have presented a coherent argument,  and you might have had a convert.  The fact is you didn't

If you want to look in terms of winning and losing,  Everybody loses when conspiracy replaces science and truth.

There is nothing more I can do for you...Anything I presented you either ignored, resorted to ad hominem responses, or simply said "Well the officials said so, I believe them"...A governments dream.

Everything i said was grounded in science, experience (between mine and other people's recordable experience) and logic. I stated things that were MY opinion very clearly, just because you kept asking for it..I didn't even want to talk about that. I stated that on page one...All you have used is diversion and confusion tactics...

This is literally 2 percent of what I know about this subject...I can't even get in the good stuff with you, because you can't even make it past the opening statement.


You wanna win me over....talk to me like someone intelligent I should give an ear to.

When you get this...

That is the only two options.....There are no others..Either reality was violated and we accept the story (this doesn't even include 1000s of other issues) or it was a lie.

As much as you would like to fight it...There is no other available options...So you choose to side with an impossibility?


But just to play your uneducated game...

Let's assume I entertain the model your video shows (which I don't)...

So the plane is allowed to enter without restriction...Pass through the outside vertical exoskeleton and horizontal exoskeleton to the core.

Ok, those few floors are compromised on the 91-93 floors...That would not cause a collapse.

But let's say it did in that area.

It would collapse on itself at the path of least resistance...However, there is not enough damaged and removed material.

So you would have a situation such as this..



However, even if by magic it started a free fall collapse at that 90th floor, it would not make it past the 44th floor because of the doubled core stacking (this building did not have CG sway compensation like newer buildings so CG directional load was set up like older scrappers, more like a sea bowie), the lower 40 was built like a tank compared to the upper sections...Multiples of the mass of the upper decks.

However, if we keep using magic....Let's say it collapsed this area too....We would have this...



Just multiped by a factor 3.8

And not at a free fall...

Would have taken anywhere from minutes to hours..

Stress junctions, their cert load in the 60s was anywhere from 5 times to 100times less than what it could take before complete failure...Not to mention, since the CG was controlled in a more simple "old school" design (as stated, like a sea bowie), the more mass you keep removing from the upper area, the more robust the bottom becomes as well as the CG continues to get lower.

If you had a 40 story WTC center with the same structural design, you would never knock that damn building over, you would have to dismantle that thing  piece by piece.

Unless we are using magic again.


If you just tell me you are a huge Harry Potter fan...I will leave you alone rayzor.... Seriously

Refute it....Tell me why I am wrong...Give me specifics..

If you aren't qualified..Tell me, and leave the conversation...

This is nothing...Just chicken scratch for me...I can tell you the fucking metallurgical make up of every fucking piece of structural metal in that building and the supposed vessel that struck it...AND the concrete AND the enternal water content. I can support my position to the molecular level if you want to...Wanna talk design fine...I can tell you how many estimated fucking rivets, bolts, spacers etc etc etc...Wanna talk design theory, let's go...

I can defend my position from 1000 different angles...

But we haven't even walked past the door...

Your answer of "NIST says so" is unacceptable...especially when it goes against physics and reality...I need another...And I need a real one.

Either you can do this or you can't....

You have options...

Actually bring it for once...

Admit you are wrong...

Admit you are over your head and walk...

Or admit you just want to believe in magic...

I am tired of wasting my time.

If you want to look in terms of winning and losing,  Everybody loses when conspiracy replaces science and truth.

Agreed.

Edit.

If you want to continue this I would recommend doing it here.

Agreed...No one wins....The more people there like symptom, the easier it is for the true perpetrators to get away with it.
« Last Edit: February 16, 2017, 04:45:16 AM by Babyhighspeed »
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

*

Rayzor

  • 12111
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #251 on: February 16, 2017, 04:49:02 AM »
Ha ha,,  man could I have fun with that..   but I'll show restraint and just say,  ask your girlfriend.

I asked her last night. She replied with this signal:
Said she was not going to go any further.

That's what she did when I asked her what was she used to.

I think I've said it clearly already,  I don't know why they didn't release some specific data, but that doesn't mean I'm going to leap up and down shouting conspiracy.  I'd need to borrow your tin foil hat for that.
Nice to know your reality includes a definition of clarity more fitting of
Again, the NIST chair clearly states he did not release the inputs/results data in the interests of: "...public safety."

Why do you deny this if he clearly states this to be the reason for withholding the data?

I am 100 percent convinced it is because you know it to be an absolute bull shit reason.

The reason I am 100 percent convinced is simply because you are so full of bull shit yourself and that qualifies you as a bull shit expert.

You and sokarul.

Coming from you I'll take that as a compliment.   At least sokarul is sane,  unlike the 911 conspiracy loonies.
 
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

disputeone

  • 24826
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #252 on: February 16, 2017, 04:54:49 AM »
If you want to continue this I would recommend doing it here.
Quote from: Stash
I'm anti-judaism.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl
Whose narrative is it to not believe the government?

Quote from: Wolvaccine
speech should be a privilege. Not a right.

Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #253 on: February 16, 2017, 04:57:03 AM »
Coming from you I'll take that as a compliment.   At least sokarul is sane,  unlike the 911 conspiracy loonies.
Your entire arguments here in a synopsis:

Q: "Why did WTC 1 fall?"
A (from Rayzor): "See the NIST report! Trust the NIST! All hail the NIST!"
Q: "Why did WTC 2 fall?"
A (from Rayzor): "See the NIST report! Trust the NIST! All hail the NIST!"
Q: Why did WTC 7 fall?
A (from Rayzor): "See the NIST report! Trust the NIST! All hail the NIST!"
Q: "Why did the NIST refuse to provide the inputs/results data in response to a FOIA request?"
A (from Rayzor): "I don't know, even though the reason is written in the letter signed by the NIST chair!"

Again, the NIST chair clearly states he did not release the inputs/results data in the interests of: "...public safety."

Why do you deny this if he clearly states this to be the reason for withholding the data?

I am 100 percent convinced it is because you know it to be an absolute bull shit reason.

The reason I am 100 percent convinced is simply because you are so full of bull shit yourself and that qualifies you as a bull shit expert.

You and sokarul.
« Last Edit: February 16, 2017, 04:59:58 AM by totallackey »

*

Rayzor

  • 12111
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #254 on: February 16, 2017, 05:08:48 AM »
We are talking about 9/11 and it's impossibilities of the official story. The fact you had to go to spelling simply means you lost soldier.

If you had convinced me that you actually had a case,  then you could claim a victory of sorts,  but the further we went,  it became obvious that you were too far gone. 

There were plenty of opportunities where you could have presented a coherent argument,  and you might have had a convert.  The fact is you didn't

If you want to look in terms of winning and losing,  Everybody loses when conspiracy replaces science and truth.

There is nothing more I can do for you...Anything I presented you either ignored, resorted to ad hominem responses, or simply said "Well the officials said so, I believe them"...A governments dream.

Everything i said was grounded in science, experience (between mine and other people's recordable experience) and logic. I stated things that were MY opinion very clearly, just because you kept asking for it..I didn't even want to talk about that. I stated that on page one...All you have used is diversion and confusion tactics...

This is literally 2 percent of what I know about this subject...I can't even get in the good stuff with you, because you can't even make it past the opening statement.


You wanna win me over....talk to me like someone intelligent I should give an ear to.

When you get this...

That is the only two options.....There are no others..Either reality was violated and we accept the story (this doesn't even include 1000s of other issues) or it was a lie.

As much as you would like to fight it...There is no other available options...So you choose to side with an impossibility?


But just to play your uneducated game...

Let's assume I entertain the model your video shows (which I don't)...

So the plane is allowed to enter without restriction...Pass through the outside vertical exoskeleton and horizontal exoskeleton to the core.

Ok, those few floors are compromised on the 91-93 floors...That would not cause a collapse.

But let's say it did in that area.

It would collapse on itself at the path of least resistance...However, there is not enough damaged and removed material.

So you would have a situation such as this..



However, even if by magic it started a free fall collapse at that 90th floor, it would not make it past the 44th floor because of the doubled core stacking (this building did not have CG sway compensation like newer buildings so CG directional load was set up like older scrappers, more like a sea bowie), the lower 40 was built like a tank compared to the upper sections...Multiples of the mass of the upper decks.

However, if we keep using magic....Let's say it collapsed this area too....We would have this...



Just multiped by a factor 3.8

And not at a free fall...

Would have taken anywhere from minutes to hours..

Stress junctions, their cert load in the 60s was anywhere from 5 times to 100times less than what it could take before complete failure...Not to mention, since the CG was controlled in a more simple "old school" design (as stated, like a sea bowie), the more mass you keep removing from the upper area, the more robust the bottom becomes as well as the CG continues to get lower.

If you had a 40 story WTC center with the same structural design, you would never knock that damn building over, you would have to dismantle that thing  piece by piece.

Unless we are using magic again.


If you just tell me you are a huge Harry Potter fan...I will leave you alone rayzor.... Seriously

Refute it....Tell me why I am wrong...Give me specifics..

If you aren't qualified..Tell me, and leave the conversation...

This is nothing...Just chicken scratch for me...I can tell you the fucking metallurgical make up of every fucking piece of structural metal in that building and the supposed vessel that struck it...AND the concrete AND the enternal water content. I can support my position to the molecular level if you want to...Wanna talk design fine...I can tell you how many estimated fucking rivets, bolts, spacers etc etc etc...Wanna talk design theory, let's go...

I can defend my position from 1000 different angles...

But we haven't even walked past the door...

Your answer of "NIST says so" is unacceptable...especially when it goes against physics and reality...I need another...And I need a real one.

Either you can do this or you can't....

You have options...

Actually bring it for once...

Admit you are wrong...

Admit you are over your head and walk...

Or admit you just want to believe in magic...

I am tired of wasting my time.

If you want to look in terms of winning and losing,  Everybody loses when conspiracy replaces science and truth.

Agreed.

Edit.

If you want to continue this I would recommend doing it here.

Agreed...No one wins....The more people there like symptom, the easier it is for the true perpetrators to get away with it.

You had plenty of chances, and failed.   

Just for interest,  when I talked about the colour temperature of molten aluminium,  why did you leap in with crap about magnesium fires,  and igniting aluminium.  It was completely out of context with what I was saying.

I corrected you twice and ignored it after than,  but it did start a train of thought.  First some basic chemistry,  Aluminium is incredibly reactive stuff,  when exposed to air it instantly forms an oxide film and  the oxide film protects the underlying aluminium.  However molten aluminium is a different thing altogether,  if it comes in contact with water, it can strip the oxygen off the water molecule, and release hydrogen gas, which is highly explosive.  We know there was molten aluminium seen pouring from the building.  I wonder if any significant amount came into contact with water?

Maybe next time.

Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

disputeone

  • 24826
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #255 on: February 16, 2017, 05:15:33 AM »
Rayzor, you justify this to yourself however you like, but it's over, you said it, if you want to have cheap shots after the fact,

If you want to continue this I would recommend doing it here.
Quote from: Stash
I'm anti-judaism.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl
Whose narrative is it to not believe the government?

Quote from: Wolvaccine
speech should be a privilege. Not a right.

*

Rayzor

  • 12111
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #256 on: February 16, 2017, 05:18:22 AM »
Your entire arguments here in a synopsis:

I see you've put your best work into this, so I feel obliged to respond

Q: "Why did WTC 1 fall?"
A (from Rayzor): "See the NIST report! Trust the NIST! All hail the NIST!"
A. It got hit by a 767  with a full fuel load. (that's a big aircraft in case you weren't sure)

Q: "Why did WTC 2 fall?"
A (from Rayzor): "See the NIST report! Trust the NIST! All hail the NIST!"
See WTC1,  But it was a different plane, same type however.

Q: Why did WTC 7 fall?
A (from Rayzor): "See the NIST report! Trust the NIST! All hail the NIST!"
It was a directed energy weapon from an alien spacecraft.  ( now you know the truth keep it quiet)

Q: "Why did the NIST refuse to provide the inputs/results data in response to a FOIA request?"
A (from Rayzor): "I don't know, even though the reason is written in the letter signed by the NIST chair!"
If you know better go for it.
« Last Edit: February 16, 2017, 05:26:44 AM by Rayzor »
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

Rayzor

  • 12111
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #257 on: February 16, 2017, 05:23:55 AM »
Rayzor, you justify this to yourself however you like, but it's over, you said it, if you want to have cheap shots after the fact,

If you want to continue this I would recommend doing it here.

Why stop,  I've walked away from debating loonies, now  I'm having fun skewering a few 911 truthers.   

Although totallackey isn't in Papa Legba's class,  he's a bit of a pushover.  Watch him come back at me with a clever meme picture...  dumb as fuck!

« Last Edit: February 16, 2017, 05:25:50 AM by Rayzor »
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11196
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #258 on: February 16, 2017, 05:26:54 AM »
You had plenty of chances, and failed.   

Just for interest,  when I talked about the colour temperature of molten aluminium,  why did you leap in with crap about magnesium fires,  and igniting aluminium.  It was completely out of context with what I was saying.

I corrected you twice and ignored it after than,  but it did start a train of thought.  First some basic chemistry,  Aluminium is incredibly reactive stuff,  when exposed to air it instantly forms an oxide film and  the oxide film protects the underlying aluminium.  However molten aluminium is a different thing altogether,  if it comes in contact with water, it can strip the oxygen off the water molecule, and release hydrogen gas, which is highly explosive.  We know there was molten aluminium seen pouring from the building.  I wonder if any significant amount came into contact with water?

Maybe next time.

You gave me zero chances...But this is a good step here.

You said metal fire..Used the words burning...So yes, I came in with that. Burning and melting are two different things...One is physical, other chemical...Different temps required as well.

You are correct in what you said...Simple stuff, nothing secret about it.

There are schools of thought for the water issue...some reports said the sprinkler system had a "technical issue" others the system was turned off and other ideas. Simple fact, they didn't turn on for whatever reason..There was no pressure at all past the 60th which is where the main portioning and termination valves for the upper levels were.

Simple case, there was no pressure or running emergency what up stairs...We can confirm that with video footage. We can also see no ignition of any hydrogen gas from the footage. Also whatever liquid metal we saw up there wasn't from a fire, nor from the plane, if it could have been melted as such, there wouldn't not have been enough of it in one spot to continue a process like that to distribute that much material to be visible like that. Plus the tower was still at a level, and the floors it was coming out of was still at a level, makes no sense for it to just be "flowing out"...

Sure there could have been a trace amounts of condensation MAYBE if I believe the concrete got hot enough in a spot or two to boil the trapped water from processing out of it.

Nice theory though...Step in the right direction
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

*

disputeone

  • 24826
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #259 on: February 16, 2017, 05:30:19 AM »
Rayzor, you justify this to yourself however you like, but it's over, you said it, if you want to have cheap shots after the fact,

If you want to continue this I would recommend doing it here.

Why stop,  I've walked away from debating loonies, now  I'm having fun skewering a few 911 truthers.   

Although totallackey isn't in Papa Legba's class,  he's a bit of a pushover.  Watch him come back at me with a clever meme picture...  dumb as fuck!


I made a thread for you in AR, keep the personal attacks out of the upper fora, please. This is embarrassing now. If you think you are "skewering" anyone here, you are delusional.

Fall acceleration of building 7.

You are going to end this a jibbering mess of failed insults and logic.

But you asked for it.

Mods can we move to tech and alt please. ty.
Quote from: Stash
I'm anti-judaism.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl
Whose narrative is it to not believe the government?

Quote from: Wolvaccine
speech should be a privilege. Not a right.

Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #260 on: February 16, 2017, 05:35:47 AM »
I see you've put your best work into this, so I feel obliged to respond.
Q: "Why did the NIST refuse to provide the inputs/results data in response to a FOIA request?"
A (from Rayzor): "I don't know, even though the reason is written in the letter signed by the NIST chair!"
If you know better go for it.

I will take this evasion, mental reservation, and equivocation, on your part and chalk it up to the fact you know the reason provided by the NIST is bull shit.

Why you do not come right out and unequivocally state that in writing is a clear indication of your total lack of character and integrity.

I know I have written some pretty demeaning things here, directed at many different accounts.

Lately, I have really tried hard to not exhibit this type of behavior in the Upper Fora and left in Angry Ranting where it belongs.

So much for that, you spineless, mealy mouthed, mealy thinking, mealy fingered, fuck.

No picture, as I am attempting to be as clear as possible and do not wish my writing to be misconstrued.

*

Rayzor

  • 12111
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #261 on: February 16, 2017, 05:36:26 AM »
Umm...  this isn't the upper fora,  we relocated to the basement ages ago, remember you asked for it to be moved.   You can go vent there if you like, 

I'm happy here having an intelligent discussion with totallackey. 

Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

disputeone

  • 24826
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #262 on: February 16, 2017, 05:39:42 AM »
Umm...  this isn't the upper fora,  we relocated to the basement ages ago, remember you asked for it to be moved.   You can go vent there if you like, 

I'm happy here having an intelligent discussion with totallackey.

It's still a forum that visitors can see your foul attitude and language.

I don't want you to try and shitpost this into oblivion.

Personal attacks are against the rules.
Quote from: Stash
I'm anti-judaism.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl
Whose narrative is it to not believe the government?

Quote from: Wolvaccine
speech should be a privilege. Not a right.

*

Rayzor

  • 12111
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #263 on: February 16, 2017, 05:40:26 AM »
You had plenty of chances, and failed.   

Just for interest,  when I talked about the colour temperature of molten aluminium,  why did you leap in with crap about magnesium fires,  and igniting aluminium.  It was completely out of context with what I was saying.

I corrected you twice and ignored it after than,  but it did start a train of thought.  First some basic chemistry,  Aluminium is incredibly reactive stuff,  when exposed to air it instantly forms an oxide film and  the oxide film protects the underlying aluminium.  However molten aluminium is a different thing altogether,  if it comes in contact with water, it can strip the oxygen off the water molecule, and release hydrogen gas, which is highly explosive.  We know there was molten aluminium seen pouring from the building.  I wonder if any significant amount came into contact with water?

Maybe next time.

You gave me zero chances...But this is a good step here.

You said metal fire..Used the words burning...So yes, I came in with that. Burning and melting are two different things...One is physical, other chemical...Different temps required as well.

You are correct in what you said...Simple stuff, nothing secret about it.

There are schools of thought for the water issue...some reports said the sprinkler system had a "technical issue" others the system was turned off and other ideas. Simple fact, they didn't turn on for whatever reason..There was no pressure at all past the 60th which is where the main portioning and termination valves for the upper levels were.

Simple case, there was no pressure or running emergency what up stairs...We can confirm that with video footage. We can also see no ignition of any hydrogen gas from the footage. Also whatever liquid metal we saw up there wasn't from a fire, nor from the plane, if it could have been melted as such, there wouldn't not have been enough of it in one spot to continue a process like that to distribute that much material to be visible like that. Plus the tower was still at a level, and the floors it was coming out of was still at a level, makes no sense for it to just be "flowing out"...

Sure there could have been a trace amounts of condensation MAYBE if I believe the concrete got hot enough in a spot or two to boil the trapped water from processing out of it.

Nice theory though...Step in the right direction

Actually I said
Quote from: Rayzor
No you can't say that for a fact without stating your reasons.   You might think you have,  but facts are stubborn things,  they need proof.

There were many sections of where the fire reached temperatures high enough to melt aluminium and weaken steel.  Reports of red molten metal flowing from the building are well known,  as I've already stated, my contention is that was not molten steel but rather molten aluminium, which doesn't start to glow red until you get up into the 800C or so,  molten aluminium is just silver colour. 


NIST concluded that the source of the molten material was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475 degrees Celsius and 640 degrees Celsius (depending on the particular alloy), well below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 degrees Celsius) in the vicinity of the fires.

I don't want this to degenerate to a who said what and when,  you can go back and read it yourself,  but nowhere did I mention magnesium fire, or metal fire or anything like that.  I just want to know why that came into your mind?

Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

disputeone

  • 24826
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #264 on: February 16, 2017, 05:43:20 AM »
I wouldn't entertain him man, he's just fishing for something he can try and use to "get" you.

We comprehensively destroyed him, he knows, that's why he wants to turn this thread into a joke, it isn't.

Keep the personal attacks and vitriol in AR, where they belong.
Quote from: Stash
I'm anti-judaism.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl
Whose narrative is it to not believe the government?

Quote from: Wolvaccine
speech should be a privilege. Not a right.

*

Rayzor

  • 12111
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #265 on: February 16, 2017, 05:45:11 AM »
So much for that, totallackey is a spineless, mealy mouthed, mealy thinking, mealy fingered, fuck.

Agreed
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

disputeone

  • 24826
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #266 on: February 16, 2017, 05:49:45 AM »
Keep the personal attacks and vitriol in AR, where they belong.
Quote from: Stash
I'm anti-judaism.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl
Whose narrative is it to not believe the government?

Quote from: Wolvaccine
speech should be a privilege. Not a right.

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11196
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #267 on: February 16, 2017, 05:54:30 AM »
Razor..Ok... I swear you said metal fire or burning somewhere..I just don't feel like reading through all the nonsense again to attempt to find it. So I take back about a mag fire (only mentioned mag because of that mixture of aluminum) or any other metal being burning.

I admit when I am wrong...I could be here on what you said, maybe I rushed through reading it and thought you did if you really didn't say anything about it. Plus it's small anyways, doesn't matter much.

Though, if you are saying what we saw was aluminum melting, that isn't possible. It was clearly red or amber color. Aluminum is silver/ almost white during the day time... I view it as white during the day, when I work with it, but I am also partially color blind...Could be more silver.

You seem to know this, yet you say we could have saw the plane melting?
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11196
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #268 on: February 16, 2017, 06:02:30 AM »
I wouldn't entertain him man, he's just fishing for something he can try and use to "get" you.

We comprehensively destroyed him, he knows, that's why he wants to turn this thread into a joke, it isn't.

Keep the personal attacks and vitriol in AR, where they belong.

I know....It seemed like he was trying to present a thought out theory.

Though incorrect, it was still something in the right direction of proper communication so I wanted to support that.

However, if he returns back, I will start the totallackey approach and write him off...Speaking of that..

Lately, I have really tried hard to not exhibit this type of behavior in the Upper Fora and left in Angry Ranting where it belongs.

I have noticed your calm demeanor...Well done..

Quote
So much for that, you spineless, mealy mouthed, mealy thinking, mealy fingered, fuck.
Whoops...Slipped up a bit ha ha ha..
Quote
No picture, as I am attempting to be as clear as possible and do not wish my writing to be misconstrued.
This, and really this whole posts his one of your most humourous post you have done lol.
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

*

Rayzor

  • 12111
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #269 on: February 16, 2017, 06:11:40 AM »
Razor..Ok... I swear you said metal fire or burning somewhere..I just don't feel like reading through all the nonsense again to attempt to find it. So I take back about a mag fire (only mentioned mag because of that mixture of aluminum) or any other metal being burning.

I admit when I am wrong...I could be here on what you said, maybe I rushed through reading it and thought you did if you really didn't say anything about it. Plus it's small anyways, doesn't matter much.

Though, if you are saying what we saw was aluminum melting, that isn't possible. It was clearly red or amber color. Aluminum is silver/ almost white during the day time... I view it as white during the day, when I work with it, but I am also partially color blind...Could be more silver.

You seem to know this, yet you say we could have saw the plane melting?

I think it's an important data point.   There are reports of red molten metal flowing out of the building,   so what was it?

Aluminium at melting point is silver,  god knows I've done enough Aluminium casting.   So why is it silver?  It just isn't hot enough,  if you continue heating up to say 800 C or 900 C,  it starts to glow red.  And follows the black body radiation curve more or less depending on emissivity. 

So yes,  it  could be Aluminium,  much more likely than steel.

Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.