• 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!

Science says there were no hijackers on 911

TheGoverness said:
Leslie Robertson was one of the structural engineers for the WTC, not a journalist.

As to what you are referring to:

Leslie Robertson
Click to expand...

I never said L Robertson was a journalist. He was contained in a list of various people.
 
TheGoverness said:
From how you structured your post, you made it seem that way.
Click to expand...

I didn't make it seem that way, you took it that way, which illustrates how easily people can be fooled. But I agree with you, that it would be possible for some to think as you have.

You know, of course, because you have been reading these posts, that I was doing a quick repeat of people that I had previously described. Could you have forgotten so quickly?
 
camlok said:
I didn't make it seem that way, you took it that way, which illustrates how easily people can be fooled. But I agree with you, that it would be possible for some to think as you have.

You know, of course, because you have been reading these posts, that I was doing a quick repeat of people that I had previously described. Could you have forgotten so quickly?
Click to expand...

This is really besides the point.

The main point is that there isn't any evidence to show that there was molten steel at the site.

WTC Molten Steel
 
Last edited:
TheGoverness said:
This is really besides the point.
Click to expand...

Hardly, the point it shows is how easily people can be fooled. That you, and so many others believe such a fiction as the US government 9-11 conspiracy theory is truly unbelievable.

TheGoverness said:
The main point is that there isn't any evidence to show that there was molten steel at the site.

WTC Molten Steel
Click to expand...


See what I mean, you admit that there were two points because you have "The main point".

As I have said, and provided sources to numerous people reporting to news sources and being reported by those news sources as having seen molten steel. John Gross touching the end of a previously molten/vaporized steel girder. You can see the latter with your own eyes, if you have the courage to follow the link.
 
camlok said:
Hardly, the point it shows is how easily people can be fooled. That you, and so many others believe such a fiction as the US government 9-11 conspiracy theory is truly unbelievable.
Click to expand...

I'm not the one that's believing in a conspiracy theory in here.

As I have said, and provided sources to numerous people reporting to news sources and being reported by those news sources as having seen molten steel. John Gross touching the end of a previously molten/vaporized steel girder. You can see the latter with your own eyes, if you have the courage to follow the link.
Click to expand...

Dude, you don't have anything solid to go on here, besides wild speculation.
 
camlok said:
You tell me, mike.

The fact is it was there, That cannot be denied. It was described by firemen, Leslie Robertson, the only journalist allowed full access to the site, the picture of John Gross, NIST 2nd in command "scientist" who categorically denied the molten steel, touching the end of a previously molten, vaporized steel girder.

How many more do you need before that your inpenetrable cloak allows facts in?
Click to expand...

It is your claim to prove, not mine to disprove. Typical tactic used by those who have nothing.

Was post 7 to complex for you to understand?
Do you understand what "vaporized" means?

Since your not great at backing up your statement with link. I will follow suite. There are other participants who worked the 9/11 WTC sites that contradict the people your quoting by cherry picking data.

It is clear you also did not understand investigation and dealing with eye witness statements. People state what they believe they heard, have seen, ect. What is important is what other physical evidence confirms what that are claiming.

Have you read any shooting reports in the last few years involving law enforcement? example.
Witness A : victim was shot in the back by the LEO
Witness B : victim was shot in the front by the LEO
medical examiner report: victim has a gun shot wound that entered from the front and exited the back.

Was witness A lying. Most likely not. They stated what they believe they saw. Unfortunately for them the medical report did not back it up.

So once again. Either prove your thermite and molten steel for 90+ days theory or move on.
 
Quag said:
Please provide links of MSM claiming molten metal for 90 days.
Im sure Ill be waiting more than 90 days for you to do so
Click to expand...


Are we one day on or two? Are you prepared to call NYC firefighters and US military personnel liars, Quag?


- According to a member of New York Air National Guard’s 109th Air Wing, who is at Ground Zero from September 22 to October 6: “One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers’ remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots.” [NATIONAL GUARD MAGAZINE, 12/2001]

- New York firefighters will recall “heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel.” [NEW YORK POST, 3/3/2004]
 
camlok said:
Quite obviously the amount needed to do that would be the amount that was determined by the experts to bring down the towers and WTC7. There wouldn't have been any specific design calculations done for keeping all the molten steel that was found in a molten state for X number of days because that was simply the after effects of the controlled demolitions.

And it wasn't just simple thermite, it was nanothermite, a much much different, more powerful explosive.
Click to expand...

There was no nano thermite and thermite is not an explosive.
 
camlok said:
Are we one day on or two? Are you prepared to call NYC firefighters and US military personnel liars, Quag?


- According to a member of New York Air National Guard’s 109th Air Wing, who is at Ground Zero from September 22 to October 6: “One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers’ remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots.” [NATIONAL GUARD MAGAZINE, 12/2001]

- New York firefighters will recall “heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel.” [NEW YORK POST, 3/3/2004]
Click to expand...

How did the firemen recognize molten steel merely by looking at it?
 
camlok said:
It is completely impossible that the alleged 911 hijackers caused the collapse of WTC towers 1, 2 and 7.

The existence of molten metals; steel, molybdenum, iron at WTC the existence of vaporized steel at WTC, the existence of nanothermite at WTC all attest to the fact that the alleged hijackers did not cause the collapse of WTC towers 1, 2 and 7.

Pictures of the vaporized steel

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

The only fuel that the hijackers are said to have brought to the WTC, according to the official government story, is jet fuel. Add office furnishings and you have fuels that can reach a maximum of about 1,800F. Steel melts at about 2,800F. Molybdenum melts at about 4,700F. Vaporized steel needs higher temperatures.


Point TT-6: The Claim that There Was No Molten Steel or Iron in the WTC
Point TT-6: Buildings

Point TT-6: The Claim That There Was No Molten Steel or Iron in the WTC Buildings | Consensus 911
Click to expand...

You CT guys are ignorant. Look up what "eutectic mixture" means.
 
camlok said:
Numerous eyewitnesses saw molten steel after 9-11. These reports start right after the events and continue for months afterwards. The only thing that can explain this volume of molten steel is thermite.
Click to expand...
How do they know it was molten steel? Did they take a sample of it and verify it was still steel? Not aluminum? Not a eutectic mixture, which is no longer steel?

How do they know?

They they have spectral analysis equipment ready to use?

Did they have one of these?

 
Last edited:
mike2810 said:
It is your claim to prove, not mine to disprove.

Do you understand what "vaporized" means?

I will follow suite. [suit]
Click to expand...

No, I provided eye witness accounts, while you have provided nothing. Yes. I understand 'vaporized'. Do you understand 'suit'?

I provided a link to John Gross, the liar who denied molten steel, touching the end of a molten/vaporized steel girder.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SLIzSCt_cg

Right above is a link to John Gross, NIST's number two scientist, categorically denying molten steel; he says, "no eyewitnesses said so" and right after there are a group of firemen describing, "Ya get down below and you'd see molten steel, MOLTEN STEEL, running down the channel rails ... ".

Are you calling those NYC firemen liars?

Did you see how totally uncomfortable John Gross was with his lie, shifting around, his face twitching, he plays nervously with his glasses, his little grins, totally unscientific, totally a huge lie.

Especially when you consider [which you won't - major, unbelievable cognitive dissonance going on in many brains here] all the supporting evidence for nanothermite. Which, I don't need to tell you, or anyone else - had no LEGITIMATE/LEGAL reason to be there.
 
Lord of Planar said:
How do they know it was molten steel? Did they take a sample of it and verify it was still steel? Not aluminum? Not a eutectic mixture, which is no longer steel?

How do they know?
Click to expand...
Are you calling NYC firemen, a structural engineer, L Robertson and US military personnel liars. On what authority? Because you are the Lord of Planar?

Because everyone who isn't denying reality knows what molten steel looks like. Leslie Robertson is a structural engineer. He was on the design team of WTC.

If you think you know better, describe your ideas and then support them with facts and sources.
 
camlok said:
No, I provided eye witness accounts, while you have provided nothing. Yes. I understand 'vaporized'. Do you understand 'suit'?

I provided a link to John Gross, the liar who denied molten steel, touching the end of a molten/vaporized steel girder.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SLIzSCt_cg

Right above is a link to John Gross, NIST's number two scientist, categorically denying molten steel; he says, "no eyewitnesses said so" and right after there are a group of firemen describing, "Ya get down below and you'd see molten steel, MOLTEN STEEL, running down the channel rails ... ".

Are you calling those NYC firemen liars?

Did you see how totally uncomfortable John Gross was with his lie, shifting around, his face twitching, he plays nervously with his glasses, his little grins, totally unscientific, totally a huge lie.

Especially when you consider [which you won't - major, unbelievable cognitive dissonance going on in many brains here] all the supporting evidence for nanothermite. Which, I don't need to tell you, or anyone else - had no LEGITIMATE/LEGAL reason to be there.
Click to expand...

Your post is nothing more than CT talking points. Present your explanation for the molten metal. How it was created and how it was able to exist for 90+days.

Interesting how your indirectly are calling those first responders who disagree with your source as liars.

Also you seem to refuse to address the link I provided in earlier posts. You seem to have no explanation on how thermite could keep the steel "molten" for 90+ days . It was your claim. It is up to you to show it is valid. So far you have not.

http://911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html
"To finish, none of these stories prove there was molten (as in liquid) steel at the WTC.*There's no evidence temperatures were hot enough to produce that (whatever the energy source), and some of the stories claiming "molten steel" have built-in implausibilities.*There was certainly glowing metal, but this only indicates temperatures within the range of a fire."

Since you like youtube.


 
Last edited:
camlok said:
Prove your statements.
Click to expand...

I make no claims. How would thermite keep steel molten for 90 days? Why are you ignoring that question? I think I know why.
 
mike2810 said:
Your post is nothing more than CT talking points.

Interesting how your indirectly are calling those first responders who disagree with your source as liars.

Also you seem to refuse to address the link I provided in earlier posts. You seem to have no explanation on how thermite could keep the steel "molten" for 90+ days. Good to know.
Click to expand...

Note the complete absence of sources in this post of yours, Mike, and you have the gall to say what you said in sentence one. Then you make a flat out false and illogical assertion, with poor grammar and spelling errors, again, expecting people to accept just Mike's say so and zero sources.
 
camlok said:
Are you calling NYC firemen, a structural engineer, L Robertson and US military personnel liars. On what authority? Because you are the Lord of Planar?

Because everyone who isn't denying reality knows what molten steel looks like. Leslie Robertson is a structural engineer. He was on the design team of WTC.

If you think you know better, describe your ideas and then support them with facts and sources.
Click to expand...

From what I read, the melted material was an eutectic mixture. No longer steel.
 
camlok said:
Isn't that a violation of forum rules?
Click to expand...

Saying "ignorant?"

I don't think so. It's not like calling someone "stupid."

Words have meaning.

It simply means "unaware," or "uninformed."

Do you consider that name-calling?
 
camlok said:
It is completely impossible that the alleged 911 hijackers caused the collapse of WTC towers 1, 2 and 7.

The existence of molten metals; steel, molybdenum, iron at WTC the existence of vaporized steel at WTC, the existence of nanothermite at WTC all attest to the fact that the alleged hijackers did not cause the collapse of WTC towers 1, 2 and 7.

Pictures of the vaporized steel

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

The only fuel that the hijackers are said to have brought to the WTC, according to the official government story, is jet fuel. Add office furnishings and you have fuels that can reach a maximum of about 1,800F. Steel melts at about 2,800F. Molybdenum melts at about 4,700F. Vaporized steel needs higher temperatures.


Point TT-6: The Claim that There Was No Molten Steel or Iron in the WTC
Point TT-6: Buildings

Point TT-6: The Claim That There Was No Molten Steel or Iron in the WTC Buildings | Consensus 911
Click to expand...

Please leave that poor horse alone. He's dead Jim. :beatdeadhorse
 
countryboy said:
Please leave that poor horse alone. He's dead Jim. :beatdeadhorse
Click to expand...

No kidding.

Especially LOL at saying the steel was "vaporized." It was eaten away. Not vaporized.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom