• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NUKES at the WTC[W:20]

Why so imprecise? They were firemen, describing the secondary explosions, multiple explosions.

Why would you bring up something so nonsensical, "These guys didn't mention molten steel even once", and fail to discuss the secondary explosions, the multiple explosions the "two male humans in the video" described?

I asked for evidence regarding molten steel, and you responded with this video. This video does not provide evidence for the existence of molten steel.

Are you saying you are trying to change the subject to this video? Because if now your claim rests on some sort of "explosion" argument, I can certainly talk about that. But only if you tell me unequivocally that you want to change the subject off of molten steel.
 
I have clearly said I have heard the claims people make. Lots of them. I even spelled out one of the vaporized metal ones. You are either not reading my posts, or not understanding them. Or you're just lying. I described one of these claims, and you're trying to pretend I haven't heard of them. I've also heard Thoreau72 claim things about radiationless nukes and x-ray laser balls.

What I haven't seen is actual evidence to back up the claims. When I asked for evidence, you showed me a video of two firefighters... who never mention molten metal of any kind.

It's clear to me that you have no actual evidence to back up your claim that molten steel was present. Furthermore, you are steadfastly refusing to even describe why you think molten steel would be important information. Why are you so imprecise about your own claims? Why are you so unwilling to describe your beliefs?

Stop trying to make this about me. You have an assertion. Tell me what it is, and back it up with evidence. Then I'll respond.

You folks constantly try to "make it about others", maligning them with silly names, when it is you US conspiracy theorists who are the ones that believe in such phantasmagorical fantasies.

Now, the vaporized/molten steel.

1.

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

Jet fuel and office furnishings cannot melt, let alone vaporize steel.

2. 911 molten metal steel wtc pouring out long clip NIST FOIA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJT8K77DTYM

3. Scientists Examine the Molten Steel that Lingered for Weeks Underneath WTC 1, 2 & 7 on 9/11 - Many Surprises Found

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTa_XL_k8fY
 
You folks constantly try to "make it about others", maligning them with silly names, when it is you US conspiracy theorists who are the ones that believe in such phantasmagorical fantasies.

Now, the vaporized/molten steel.

1.

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

Jet fuel and office furnishings cannot melt, let alone vaporize steel.
Neither can coal yet they use it to make steel. Not that any molten steel was ever found.
Stupid argument is stupid

2. 911 molten metal steel wtc pouring out long clip NIST FOIA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJT8K77DTYM
Umm that isn't steel

3. Scientists Examine the Molten Steel that Lingered for Weeks Underneath WTC 1, 2 & 7 on 9/11 - Many Surprises Found

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTa_XL_k8fY
Again no actual molten steel shown in that video.


So what we have is 0 evidence of molten steel, congrats for failing to even provide a shred of evidence to back up your false claims
 
I have clearly said I have heard the claims people make. Lots of them. I even spelled out one of the vaporized metal ones. You are either not reading my posts, or not understanding them. Or you're just lying. I described one of these claims, and you're trying to pretend I haven't heard of them. I've also heard Thoreau72 claim things about radiationless nukes and x-ray laser balls.

You have no focus. You and zyzygy are all over the map. Why bring up Thoreau? He and what he has previously discussed has nothing to do with what we are discussing.

What I haven't seen is actual evidence to back up the claims. When I asked for evidence, you showed me a video of two firefighters... who never mention molten metal of any kind.

With all due respect, I wonder if you can actually read. I was laying out all the various facts that folks like you ignore. I didn't remotely suggest that the firemen would say anything about molten steel. I said, put in bold.

Facts like NIST lied about explosions, categorically denying they existed despite numerous reports from NYC firemen, reporters, video, first responders, NYC policemen, ...

Suppressed Firefighter's Spliced CBS News

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXtaK6biqmQ

How in heaven's name did you get that absolutely CLEAR reference to explosions confused with molten steel?
 
You folks constantly try to "make it about others", maligning them with silly names, when it is you US conspiracy theorists who are the ones that believe in such phantasmagorical fantasies.

Now, the vaporized/molten steel.

1.

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

Jet fuel and office furnishings cannot melt, let alone vaporize steel.

2. 911 molten metal steel wtc pouring out long clip NIST FOIA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJT8K77DTYM

3. Scientists Examine the Molten Steel that Lingered for Weeks Underneath WTC 1, 2 & 7 on 9/11 - Many Surprises Found

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTa_XL_k8fY

These videos describe molten metal.

Did you notice how I repeatedly made an emphasis on the word steel?

There's a reason: not all metal has the same melting point as steel. Jet fuel and office fires can easily melt various types of metal.

Are you willing to admit to the possibility that it was actually molten aluminum or copper that was observed?
 
Neither can coal yet they use it to make steel. Not that any molten steel was ever found.
Stupid argument is stupid


Umm that isn't steel


Again no actual molten steel shown in that video.


So what we have is 0 evidence of molten steel, congrats for failing to even provide a shred of evidence to back up your false claims

1. Pictures from FEMA, you do know who FEMA is, do you not, showing molten and vaporized steel. Let's get this recorded - you are denying photographic evidence of molten and vaporized steel?

2. Yes, it was molten steel flowing from WTC minutes before it was blown up. Provide your proof that it wasn't molten steel.
 
These videos describe molten metal.

Did you notice how I repeatedly made an emphasis on the word steel?

There's a reason: not all metal has the same melting point as steel. Jet fuel and office fires can easily melt various types of metal.

Are you willing to admit to the possibility that it was actually molten aluminum or copper that was observed?

Now do I have to repeatedly show you the FEMA pictures of molten and vaporized steel?


As I mentioned, the molten steel flowing from WTC2 was not aluminum. If you think you can prove it was aluminum, then do so.
 
I just want to get it absolutely clear from you folks that you have never heard of the molten steel, vaporized steel, vaporized lead, molten molybdenum, all found at WTC.

An easy question to answer - "No, I have never heard of those molten metals"/"Yes, I have heard of those molten metals"/or anything in between.

The usual twoofer evasiveness. You all work from the same handbook. Nothing new here folks. End of thread?
 
You have no focus. You and zyzygy are all over the map. Why bring up Thoreau? He and what he has previously discussed has nothing to do with what we are discussing.



With all due respect, I wonder if you can actually read. I was laying out all the various facts that folks like you ignore. I didn't remotely suggest that the firemen would say anything about molten steel. I said, put in bold.

Facts like NIST lied about explosions, categorically denying they existed despite numerous reports from NYC firemen, reporters, video, first responders, NYC policemen, ...

Suppressed Firefighter's Spliced CBS News

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXtaK6biqmQ

How in heaven's name did you get that absolutely CLEAR reference to explosions confused with molten steel?


Because I was asking about molten steel, and you responded with explosions. I will take this as an admission you want to change the subject.

Those firefighters were inside a collapsing structure. They were injured, and probably in shock. Them describing the event as an "explosion" is entirely natural. The amount of kinetic energy involved in a structure that large collapsing actually exceeds that of bombs. The noise will definitely resemble explosions. People have described the sound of a tornado passing nearby as that of a freight train, this doesn't prove a freight train was actually present in a tornado.

I was present for an old bridge section collapsing during deconstruction, right across the river from my hotel. It really did sound like a bomb going off. And that thing wasn't even a hundredth of the mass of the WTC towers.
 
Now do I have to repeatedly show you the FEMA pictures of molten and vaporized steel?


As I mentioned, the molten steel flowing from WTC2 was not aluminum. If you think you can prove it was aluminum, then do so.

No, you prove it was steel.

Your claim is "molten steel is present, therefore ____."

You have yet to prove the first part, and yet to explain the second. I cannot respond to a claim you refuse to actually make.
 
Are you willing to admit to the possibility that it was actually molten aluminum or copper that was observed?

No, because 911 was an evil gub'ment plot.
 
Now do I have to repeatedly show you the FEMA pictures of molten and vaporized steel?


As I mentioned, the molten steel flowing from WTC2 was not aluminum. If you think you can prove it was aluminum, then do so.

You don't know how this works. You have to prove that it was steel then there will be something to discuss.
 
1. Pictures from FEMA, you do know who FEMA is, do you not, showing molten and vaporized steel. Let's get this recorded - you are denying photographic evidence of molten and vaporized steel?
Only they didnt show molten steel
DOH!!!!!!
Showing a mechanical fork pick up glowing metal bars is not showing molten steel. You realize you would need some sort of bucket to pick up molten steel (or any other molten metal )right?

2. Yes, it was molten steel flowing from WTC minutes before it was blown up. Provide your proof that it wasn't molten steel.
You claim it was molten steel you must prove it was. Neither you nor anyone else has come close to doing so
 
Only they didnt show molten steel
DOH!!!!!!
Showing a mechanical fork pick up glowing metal bars is not showing molten steel. You realize you would need some sort of bucket to pick up molten steel (or any other molten metal )right?


You claim it was molten steel you must prove it was. Neither you nor anyone else has come close to doing so
He has obviously never worked in a steel mill. I have.
 
He has obviously never worked in a steel mill. I have.

You dont need to work in a steel mill to know that you dont pick up liquids with a fork and glowing hot molten material can be things other than steel.
 
You dont need to work in a steel mill to know that you dont pick up liquids with a fork and glowing hot molten material can be things other than steel.

Tuther is as truther does.
 
Because I was asking about molten steel, and you responded with explosions. I will take this as an admission you want to change the subject.

Totally illogical. The "molten steel" was completely separate from the portion, that I put in bold to illustrate how you were being cagey, evasive, dishonest.

Those firefighters were inside a collapsing structure. They were injured, and probably in shock. Them describing the event as an "explosion" is entirely natural. The amount of kinetic energy involved in a structure that large collapsing actually exceeds that of bombs. The noise will definitely resemble explosions. People have described the sound of a tornado passing nearby as that of a freight train, this doesn't prove a freight train was actually present in a tornado.

You are not an explosives expert. You are not a fireman, trained for explosions, recognizing explosions.

Are you an expert of any kind?

===============

9/11 Investigation Says 156 People Witnessed Explosions At WTC

Witness testimony given to the official 9/11 investigation reveals that 156 people gave oral accounts to authorities saying that they witnessed bombs being exploded at the World Trade Center buildings on the day of the attack.

Retired university professor Graeme MacQueen uncovered the eyewitness accounts after trawling through 12,000 pages of oral accounts given by Fire Department employees in the months after 9/11.


The statements given by witnesses reveal that many saw or heard explosions at the twin towers, supporting the theory that the buildings collapsed due to a controlled demolition.

Truth and Shadows reports:

“It’s all well and good to say these buildings were demolished, but surely someone would notice, right?” MacQueen said in an interview. “Well, they did.”

This treasure trove of eyewitness evidence was just waiting to be examined, but for years the City of New York was determined to keep that from happening. It took a lawsuit by the New York Times to force the release of the pages in 2006.

The idea for the project, MacQueen explains, came from an article written early that year by David Ray Griffin, entitled “Explosive Testimony: Revelations about the Twin Towers in the 9/11 Oral Histories” in which 31 witnesses to explosions in the towers were identified. Fascinated by the selection of first-hand accounts that Griffin had presented, MacQueen thought a more detailed analysis of all 503 histories could reveal more. The accounts—from firefighters, emergency medical technicians, and paramedics—were recorded between early October 2001 and late January 2002.


“They suffered through the thing; many of them are sick now,” he explains. “They can tell me what they saw, what they heard, what they felt — just remarkable. What an opportunity to just get a sense of what it was like that day.”

As MacQueen discovered, many gave vivid descriptions of explosions. After carefully examining all the accounts, he arrived at a “cautious” total of 118 who reported blasts (he says he was actually criticized for underestimating).

“They’re more reliable, in my opinion, than most newspaper accounts because these people were taped, and the audio tapes were transcribed,” he says. “You get the name of the person; you get where they were, who interviewed them, and when they were interviewed. This is really useful.”

9/11 Investigation Says 156 People Witnessed Explosions At WTC - Your News Wire

=========

The above mentioned study -

118 Witnesses:
The Firefighters’ Testimony to Explosions in the Twin Towers

http://journalof911studies.com/articles/Article_5_118Witnesses_WorldTradeCenter.pdf
 
You claim it was molten steel you must prove it was. Neither you nor anyone else has come close to doing so

Then it should be easy for you to prove. Being as you are an expert on 9-11, you should be able to do it right off the cuff.

How have you and zyzygy missed the FEMA pictures of molten/vaporized steel, one piece from WTC7 and the other from one of the twin towers?
 
Then it should be easy for you to prove. Being as you are an expert on 9-11, you should be able to do it right off the cuff.

How have you and zyzygy missed the FEMA pictures of molten/vaporized steel, one piece from WTC7 and the other from one of the twin towers?
Prove that it was vaporized steel.
 
Totally illogical. The "molten steel" was completely separate from the portion, that I put in bold to illustrate how you were being cagey, evasive, dishonest.



You are not an explosives expert. You are not a fireman, trained for explosions, recognizing explosions.

Are you an expert of any kind?

===============

9/11 Investigation Says 156 People Witnessed Explosions At WTC

Witness testimony given to the official 9/11 investigation reveals that 156 people gave oral accounts to authorities saying that they witnessed bombs being exploded at the World Trade Center buildings on the day of the attack.

Retired university professor Graeme MacQueen uncovered the eyewitness accounts after trawling through 12,000 pages of oral accounts given by Fire Department employees in the months after 9/11.


The statements given by witnesses reveal that many saw or heard explosions at the twin towers, supporting the theory that the buildings collapsed due to a controlled demolition.

Truth and Shadows reports:

“It’s all well and good to say these buildings were demolished, but surely someone would notice, right?” MacQueen said in an interview. “Well, they did.”

This treasure trove of eyewitness evidence was just waiting to be examined, but for years the City of New York was determined to keep that from happening. It took a lawsuit by the New York Times to force the release of the pages in 2006.

The idea for the project, MacQueen explains, came from an article written early that year by David Ray Griffin, entitled “Explosive Testimony: Revelations about the Twin Towers in the 9/11 Oral Histories” in which 31 witnesses to explosions in the towers were identified. Fascinated by the selection of first-hand accounts that Griffin had presented, MacQueen thought a more detailed analysis of all 503 histories could reveal more. The accounts—from firefighters, emergency medical technicians, and paramedics—were recorded between early October 2001 and late January 2002.


“They suffered through the thing; many of them are sick now,” he explains. “They can tell me what they saw, what they heard, what they felt — just remarkable. What an opportunity to just get a sense of what it was like that day.”

As MacQueen discovered, many gave vivid descriptions of explosions. After carefully examining all the accounts, he arrived at a “cautious” total of 118 who reported blasts (he says he was actually criticized for underestimating).

“They’re more reliable, in my opinion, than most newspaper accounts because these people were taped, and the audio tapes were transcribed,” he says. “You get the name of the person; you get where they were, who interviewed them, and when they were interviewed. This is really useful.”

9/11 Investigation Says 156 People Witnessed Explosions At WTC - Your News Wire

=========

The above mentioned study -

118 Witnesses:
The Firefighters’ Testimony to Explosions in the Twin Towers

http://journalof911studies.com/articles/Article_5_118Witnesses_WorldTradeCenter.pdf

A huge building collapses and there were noises that sounded like explosions? Color me unsurprised. Do you have any real proof that there were explosions caused by explosives?
 
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't address the subject.
Cinston Whurchill

Are you going to bring any proof of your claims into this discussion?
 
Back
Top Bottom