Video of molten iron dripping out of WTC on 9/11

Ux
Posts: 37
Joined: 2008-08-28
User is offlineOffline
Video of molten iron dripping out of WTC on 9/11

This cannot be explained except with the presence of thermate, which is a military-grade explosive.

video.google.com/videoplay

 


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:If you're just

Quote:

If you're just bullshitting because you don't really care if your country goes fascist, I am sure will ignore this question.

I live in the Special Administrative Region of a Communist country, so this is not high on my list of concerns.

Quote:

I sincerely doubt you've ever taken a science course.

I note that this is not a response to the argument at hand. It is a red herring. Detonation is always much faster than deflagration, that is a basic fact about explosive reactions, and detonation will always render an active metal inert by oxidation. That also is a basic fact about ionization and metal reactivity. Aluminum is a more reactive metal than iron, and so it will displace Iron oxide. But Aluminum oxidizes very quickly, and once oxidized is no longer reactive. It cannot participate in the thermite reaction. This is very basic chemistry. Anyone who went to high school should know about displacement reactivity and oxidation.

At any rate, it is hard to express the sheer magnitude of error in your statement that I have never taken a science course, but I don't need to defend myself here. I simply invite you to answer the simple question I posed in the other thread, and we can see which one of is is pretending to know about the subject matter.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
The "secrets" are few. The

The "secrets" are few. The government sucks, as the poeple suck as most everyone sucks. Appeasers are rich and poor. No rich, no poor, no more. What is the middle? How to get to the middle? Feed the poor , eat the rich ..... We are the conspiracy .... Educate.


D-cubed
Rational VIP!
D-cubed's picture
Posts: 715
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Ux wrote:Molten steel

Ux wrote:

Molten steel dripping out of the building.

Explosions in the basement before the 1st plane hit that injured workers.

Huge amounts of drilling sounds from the walls the weekend before 9/11.

Numerous secondary explosions before and during the collapses.

Firemen reporting the fires were small and under control, not raging infernos.

Free-fall collapse of WTC 1, 2, and 7.

270 smoking guns:

killtown.911review.org/911smokingguns.html

Be brave and face the truth. If you fail to, it's not rationality but irrationality that is the cause of your failure.

 

Since it has already been proven gasoline was enough to melt the metal let's go onto your other unsupported assertions.

During the time of the event people were fleeing the building or rushing into it to get as many people out.  I highly doubt they had time to properly investigate any other sounds occuring in the building to verify that they were indeed set explosives going off.

The presence of "drilling sounds" doesn't not lead one to conclude that there was actually drilling or drilling for the purpose of weakening the structural integrity of the building.  That's merely wishful thinking without any verifiable evidence.

Next maybe you'll tell us none of the Apollo missions actually landed on the moon.  You pack a lot of faith into your assertions, and like creationism, you are light on the facts and heavy on the illogical non-sequiturs.


Ux
Posts: 37
Joined: 2008-08-28
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:WTC 7 was

nigelTheBold wrote:

WTC 7 was damaged on the north side, the side facing WTC 1 & 2.

Wrong. The south side faced 1 & 2. You don't even know the basic facts.

Furthermore: [the argument you will ignore because you fear losing it] since when does a steel frame building fall down in 7 seconds because it has damage on one side? Not that it did of course: You can't even prove that it did have such extraordinary damage, because photos show none.

Where did you learn to argue, in bible school?

 http://www.studyof911.com/articles/winstonwtc701/Images/Fig6.jpg

 

 


Ux
Posts: 37
Joined: 2008-08-28
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra wrote:Blurb in

zarathustra wrote:

Blurb in above post should look like this (strikeout feature didn't work):

And would you then suggest that Bush & Israel forced 19 Arab muslims to enter the United States (before Bush had even been elected), enroll in flight school and martial arts, then commandeer commercial airliners and take their own lives by flying them into buildings suddenly go into hiding on 9/11/2001 -- all as a cover-up for a planned demolition?

There were never more than a few Arabs on the planes. certainly not 19.

The ones that were on there were probably patsies.

Passenger list from Sept 17, 2001:

http://web.archive.org/web/20010917033858/http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA77.victims.html

Passenger list from Nov 10 2001:

http://web.archive.org/web/20011110121024/http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/09/13/MN199465.DT...

 

 

 

 


Hmac
Hmac's picture
Posts: 93
Joined: 2008-08-03
User is offlineOffline
Ux wrote:jcgadfly

Ux wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

 Thermate is an incendiary not an explosive.

It's a pyrotechnic compound: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite

So now, what else would you like to nit-pick about while your country descends into fascism, eh dummy?

 

 

Also from the same site:

Quote:
It is not explosive

 

Thermite will not cut vertical steel columns without someone using a specialized device to direct it. Thermite will not create clean cuts. Thermite burns down, and keeps burning until the fuel is exhausted. A 4 pound thermite device will burn through an engine block. One the size of a tall beer can will burn through a tank hull. To get the volume of material falling from the towers that conspiracy theorist wingnuts attribute to thermite would require approximately 18,000 pounds.

The military calls beercan-sized thermite devices "grenades". They also call similarly-sized smoke cannisters "grenades". Even with the misnomer, they know thermite is not an explosive; it's an incendiary device.


Hmac
Hmac's picture
Posts: 93
Joined: 2008-08-03
User is offlineOffline
Ux wrote:nigelTheBold

Ux wrote:

nigelTheBold wrote:

WTC 7 was damaged on the north side, the side facing WTC 1 & 2.

Wrong. The south side faced 1 & 2. You don't even know the basic facts.

Furthermore: [the argument you will ignore because you fear losing it] since when does a steel frame building fall down in 7 seconds because it has damage on one side? Not that it did of course: You can't even prove that it did have such extraordinary damage, because photos show none.

Where did you learn to argue, in bible school?

 http://www.studyof911.com/articles/winstonwtc701/Images/Fig6.jpg

 

 

 

Even (relatively) minor damage on the outside couldn't *possibly* have started fires on the inside, and ruptured fuel supply lines leading to the 24,000 gallons of diesel fuel stored IN the building, though, could they?


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:The military calls

Quote:

The military calls beercan-sized thermite devices "grenades". They also call similarly-sized smoke cannisters "grenades".

Exactly. Thermite grenades will direct extreme heat at a small area for a small amount of time. Thermite grenades have been used during and since WWII as a silent method of disabling artillery. Just open the loading hatch, shove the grenade in, and it welds shut the breechblock, making the weapon impossible to load, and hence the artillery tube little more than a useless piece of metal. Thermite was also used in air raids, especially in the Pacific Theatre during the extended bombing of Tokyo and Osaka, because at that time homes and many other structures in Japanese cities were made out of wood. This naturally requires the use of massive quantities of thermite. Similiarily, the use of thermite to melt through the supports of a skyscraper to collapse it will require thousands and thousands of kilograms. It is not feasible. It is a localized incendiary. That's why it functions so well in a task such as disabling artillery tubes.

EDIT: An even better trick is to throw the thermite grenade down the barrel. Then the gun will explode when fired and kill the gunner and the loader.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Hmac wrote:Ux wrote:jcgadfly

Hmac wrote:

Ux wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

 Thermate is an incendiary not an explosive.

It's a pyrotechnic compound: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite

So now, what else would you like to nit-pick about while your country descends into fascism, eh dummy?

 

 

Also from the same site:

Quote:
It is not explosive

 

Thermite will not cut vertical steel columns without someone using a specialized device to direct it. Thermite will not create clean cuts. Thermite burns down, and keeps burning until the fuel is exhausted. A 4 pound thermite device will burn through an engine block. One the size of a tall beer can will burn through a tank hull. To get the volume of material falling from the towers that conspiracy theorist wingnuts attribute to thermite would require approximately 18,000 pounds.

The military calls beercan-sized thermite devices "grenades". They also call similarly-sized smoke cannisters "grenades". Even with the misnomer, they know thermite is not an explosive; it's an incendiary device.

What about this, Ux? Are you saying that several construction crews came in during the "power down", broke through all they'd have to break through to cut the columns and stood there calmly cutting through all the columns? While, outside, air craft were coming toward the building intent on collison?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Hmac
Hmac's picture
Posts: 93
Joined: 2008-08-03
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Hmac wrote:Ux

jcgadfly wrote:

Hmac wrote:

Ux wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

 Thermate is an incendiary not an explosive.

It's a pyrotechnic compound: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite

So now, what else would you like to nit-pick about while your country descends into fascism, eh dummy?

 

 

Also from the same site:

Quote:
It is not explosive

 

Thermite will not cut vertical steel columns without someone using a specialized device to direct it. Thermite will not create clean cuts. Thermite burns down, and keeps burning until the fuel is exhausted. A 4 pound thermite device will burn through an engine block. One the size of a tall beer can will burn through a tank hull. To get the volume of material falling from the towers that conspiracy theorist wingnuts attribute to thermite would require approximately 18,000 pounds.

The military calls beercan-sized thermite devices "grenades". They also call similarly-sized smoke cannisters "grenades". Even with the misnomer, they know thermite is not an explosive; it's an incendiary device.

What about this, Ux? Are you saying that several construction crews came in during the "power down", broke through all they'd have to break through to cut the columns and stood there calmly cutting through all the columns? While, outside, air craft were coming toward the building intent on collison?

 

Evil Jedi using red light sabers. Maybe that's it.


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Ux wrote:nigelTheBold

Ux wrote:

nigelTheBold wrote:

WTC 7 was damaged on the north side, the side facing WTC 1 & 2.

Wrong. The south side faced 1 & 2. You don't even know the basic facts.

Fine then.

WTC 7 was damaged on the south side, the side facing WTC 1 & 2.

Quote:

Furthermore: [the argument you will ignore because you fear losing it] since when does a steel frame building fall down in 7 seconds because it has damage on one side? Not that it did of course: You can't even prove that it did have such extraordinary damage, because photos show none.

Where did you learn to argue, in bible school?

 http://www.studyof911.com/articles/winstonwtc701/Images/Fig6.jpg

I don't fear losing it. I've already admitted there are unanswered questions; but you can't even get basic physics right, you assert speculation as fact, and you ignore posts that address the issues at hand. How am I to take you seriously?

I too would like it to make sense. I'd like a simple narrative with no gaps. Conspiracy theories don't provide that. Neither does the official story. The official story makes more sense, though, based on what we know as fact.

There was damage to the south side of WTC 7. Period. End of story. Video evidence should be sufficient, I hope? I won't need to dig up testimony from the many firefighters who stated they saw severe damage to the south side?

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Hmac wrote:jcgadfly

Hmac wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Hmac wrote:

Ux wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

 Thermate is an incendiary not an explosive.

It's a pyrotechnic compound: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite

So now, what else would you like to nit-pick about while your country descends into fascism, eh dummy?

 

 

Also from the same site:

Quote:
It is not explosive

 

Thermite will not cut vertical steel columns without someone using a specialized device to direct it. Thermite will not create clean cuts. Thermite burns down, and keeps burning until the fuel is exhausted. A 4 pound thermite device will burn through an engine block. One the size of a tall beer can will burn through a tank hull. To get the volume of material falling from the towers that conspiracy theorist wingnuts attribute to thermite would require approximately 18,000 pounds.

The military calls beercan-sized thermite devices "grenades". They also call similarly-sized smoke cannisters "grenades". Even with the misnomer, they know thermite is not an explosive; it's an incendiary device.

What about this, Ux? Are you saying that several construction crews came in during the "power down", broke through all they'd have to break through to cut the columns and stood there calmly cutting through all the columns? While, outside, air craft were coming toward the building intent on collison?

 

Evil Jedi using red light sabers. Maybe that's it.

I've heard that Force lighming cam be nasty stuff also.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:I've heard

jcgadfly wrote:
I've heard that Force lighming cam be nasty stuff also.
It's true, force lightning is very dangerous. So, alway guide lightning, or gently encourage it. Never force lightning.


 

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
JillSwift wrote:jcgadfly

JillSwift wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
I've heard that Force lighming cam be nasty stuff also.
It's true, force lightning is very dangerous. So, alway guide lightning, or gently encourage it. Never force lightning.


 

 

 

Thanks - needed that laugh

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Wonko
Wonko's picture
Posts: 518
Joined: 2008-06-18
User is offlineOffline
Ux wrote:Molten steel

Ux wrote:

Molten steel dripping out of the building.

Explosions in the basement before the 1st plane hit that injured workers.

Huge amounts of drilling sounds from the walls the weekend before 9/11.

Numerous secondary explosions before and during the collapses.

Firemen reporting the fires were small and under control, not raging infernos.

Free-fall collapse of WTC 1, 2, and 7.

 

I've been studying 9-11-2001 news reports and available firefighting operational and command, descriptions and accounts for well over 21 months now.

Yes, there were secondary explosions before the collapses, including what are now believed to be two or three BLEVE which;  a) are potentially unrelated to the planes that slammed the structures and b) may have caused other failures extraneous to the central core.

However, the secondary explosions cannot be said to be numerous, if by numerous your intended meaning is that said explosions created or hastened the collapses. The total number of "other" explosions have been guesstimated at approximately three dozen. Those reported explosions were/are still minimal compared to any that caused major structural failure.

Finally, firefighters within the incident command structure heard only a report or possibly two, although one is questionable, that fires were actually "small".

Floors that were described repeatedly as "fully involved" would never mean the fire was under control.

However, yes, Ux, you are correct in that no evidence has been brought forth yet that describe any of the fires as being "raging infernos".

 


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1230
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is onlineOnline
Mr. Conspiracy Likes to Dodge

You seem to have trouble answering direct questions.

Ux wrote:

zarathustra wrote:

Blurb in above post should look like this (strikeout feature didn't work):

And would you then suggest that Bush & Israel forced 19 Arab muslims to enter the United States (before Bush had even been elected), enroll in flight school and martial arts, then commandeer commercial airliners and take their own lives by flying them into buildings suddenly go into hiding on 9/11/2001 -- all as a cover-up for a planned demolition?

There were never more than a few Arabs on the planes. certainly not 19.

The ones that were on there were probably patsies.

So I asked you to explain how the planes were flown into the buildings (and by whom).  Your response fails to address that, and apparently contradicts your earlier quip:  You've backtracked from

Quote:
The earliest passenger lists for the planes, before the terrorists' names were announced, don't even list any Arabs. That's a fact.

to

Quote:
a few Arabs

I am not only still waiting for you to explain how the planes were flown into the buildings (and by whom), but wondering also why you can't keep the details of your own conspiracy theory straight (no Arabs?  A few Arabs?).  We saw this before with your non-sequitur on mohammed atta.  Was he not involved (since he wasn't on the passenger list as you originally claimed), or was he (since he was supposedly found talking to a man claiming to be CIA agent)?  Please make up your mind and answer, preferably in that order.

As far as the links you provided to support your claim the arabs weren't on the planes:  The 2nd link didn't work for me, but the 1st demonstrates your lack of concern for accuracy.   These are clearly labeled "Victims Lists".  If you had bothered to closely peruse the provided lists, you would realize they were not comprehensive, nor intended to be.  For example, the link for AA flight 11 says in introduction that 92 people died on board, but only lists about 30 passenger names.  Is this the best you can do to support your conspiracy theory?

Being no engineer, I cannot critique your account of the towers' collapse, but if you demonstrate such sloppiness with something as simple as a list of passengers, I suspect the margin of error scales accordingly when you stray into science. 

And we're still waiting for you to share your physics CV with us.

 

 

 

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Aside from the science, how

Aside from the science, how many people can keep a secret, and all the way to their death bed?  911 was to big of an event, to many involved, to keep secret, a huge conspiracy as suggested by Ux. I am missing something?


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
This reminds me of a High

This reminds me of a High School dropout arguing with a University Department faculty about why he's right and they are wrong about their particular field of study.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:Aside

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

Aside from the science, how many people can keep a secret, and all the way to their death bed?  911 was to big of an event, to many involved, to keep secret, a huge conspiracy as suggested by Ux. I am missing something?

Are you missing something?

Not at all, iGay. Not at all.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Nigel, I hope not. Thanks,

Nigel, I hope not. Thanks, but hey, me not iGay, never met such a man to adore that way .... ,  igod as you.


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:Nigel,

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

Nigel, I hope not. Thanks, but hey, me not iGay, never met such a man to adore that way .... ,  igod as you.

Sorry -- didn't mean that to be an inference to your sexual preference. No one who knows you from the boards would doubt your adoration of women. I'll do iGod from now on.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1230
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is onlineOnline
Conspiracy


 This might provide a useful perspective...


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2396
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Zarathustra

                      My perspective is I just wasted 1:58 of my life for nothing. That duche doesn't know the first thing about oceanliner dynamics,  he thinks an iceberg bounces like an ice cube or that at full speed ahead the Titanic can stop on a dime; How?  Any steemer needs a mile or two to dead stop.

 

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?