9/11 Conspiracy Solved?: Names, Connections, Details Exposed...

[SAYIT]

I would like to know what can keep steel in a molten state under oxygen starved conditions for weeks at a time.......

As I sit here at my mostly Aluminum computer desk.........

they dont make office computer desk from aluminum its way to expensive

You want a ******* picture dipshit?

The CTs can make giant leaps of speculative faith but can't comprehend a simple metaphor. Go figure.

 

[SAYIT]

I would like to know what can keep steel in a molten state under oxygen starved conditions for weeks at a time.......

As I sit here at my mostly Aluminum computer desk.........

they dont make office computer desk from aluminum its way to expensive

Maybe not a lot of them, but....

Glass 'Miranda' Computer Desk | Overstock.com

There are chairs made with aluminum as well.

I have no clue if there was any used in the WTC offices.

It is far more rational to presume (and prove) there was enough lower temp metals in and on those 100+ story buildings to create both molten streams and puddles than it is to assume some secret super stuff melted steel on 9/11 and continued to do so for weeks. Unfortunately rationality is frowned upon in the CT Movement.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

6 farts in a row from the agent trolls sense my last post. and another again from agent say it.

I really have to hand it to you. It's informative, thought provoking posts like this that have people from all walks of life flocking to support the Truth Movement.

Well done. Keep using well written posts like this going to inform the masses.

 

[eots]

I would like to know what can keep steel in a molten state under oxygen starved conditions for weeks at a time.......

As I sit here at my mostly Aluminum computer desk.........

they dont make office computer desk from aluminum its way to expensive

You want a ******* picture dipshit?

yes

 

[eots]

funny how we do not hear of molten metal flowing like a river in all these other far more intense building fires or molten metals dripping from the the buildings wonder why that is ??

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65Qg_-89Zr8]Bad Ass Skyscraper Fires and Destruction!! Awesome!! - YouTube[/ame]

 

[SAYIT]

funny how we do not hear of molten metal flowing like a river in all these other far more intense building fires or molten metals dripping from the the buildings wonder why that is ??

Bad Ass Skyscraper Fires and Destruction!! Awesome!! - YouTube

You still seem to be avoiding Sarge's very pertinent question: what substance can melt steel and keep it in a molten state under oxygen starved conditions for weeks?

 

[Montrovant]

funny how we do not hear of molten metal flowing like a river in all these other far more intense building fires or molten metals dripping from the the buildings wonder why that is ??

Bad Ass Skyscraper Fires and Destruction!! Awesome!! - YouTube

Honestly, it could be as simple as that none of those other building fires are surrounded by conspiracy theories about how they happened. There could well have been molten metal at some of them, but it may have been seen as no big deal, given the massive fires.

I don't know vaguely enough about any of those fires to say what was or was not reported about them. Do you?

 

[Mr. Jones]

funny how we do not hear of molten metal flowing like a river in all these other far more intense building fires or molten metals dripping from the the buildings wonder why that is ??

Bad Ass Skyscraper Fires and Destruction!! Awesome!! - YouTube

Honestly, it could be as simple as that none of those other building fires are surrounded by conspiracy theories about how they happened. There could well have been molten metal at some of them, but it may have been seen as no big deal, given the massive fires.

I don't know vaguely enough about any of those fires to say what was or was not reported about them. Do you?

All you really have to see in watching them is that none of them collapsed in just under FF acceleration, and all had been consumed by more intense fires for longer periods of time, and did not produce the results of WTC 7...

 

[SAYIT]

funny how we do not hear of molten metal flowing like a river in all these other far more intense building fires or molten metals dripping from the the buildings wonder why that is ??

Bad Ass Skyscraper Fires and Destruction!! Awesome!! - YouTube

Honestly, it could be as simple as that none of those other building fires are surrounded by conspiracy theories about how they happened. There could well have been molten metal at some of them, but it may have been seen as no big deal, given the massive fires.

I don't know vaguely enough about any of those fires to say what was or was not reported about them. Do you?

All you really have to see in watching them is that none of them collapsed in just under FF acceleration, and all had been consumed by more intense fires for longer periods of time, and did not produce the results of WTC 7...

Can the difference be that the WTC buildings used significantly different core support systems? Reinforced concrete was not used in the WTC (but I'm certain you knew that). You seem to know enough about this subject to be aware of this critical difference, forcing me to conclude you are being disingenuous.

http://www.debunking911.com/madrid.htm/

https://www.google.com/url?q=http:/...ds-cse&usg=AFQjCNE-6HFLY5kKGyABekL7YErlZUftSQ

 

[Montrovant]

funny how we do not hear of molten metal flowing like a river in all these other far more intense building fires or molten metals dripping from the the buildings wonder why that is ??

Bad Ass Skyscraper Fires and Destruction!! Awesome!! - YouTube

Honestly, it could be as simple as that none of those other building fires are surrounded by conspiracy theories about how they happened. There could well have been molten metal at some of them, but it may have been seen as no big deal, given the massive fires.

I don't know vaguely enough about any of those fires to say what was or was not reported about them. Do you?

All you really have to see in watching them is that none of them collapsed in just under FF acceleration, and all had been consumed by more intense fires for longer periods of time, and did not produce the results of WTC 7...

First, that says nothing about whether molten metal was present at any of those building fires or not.

Second, not all buildings are equal, either in planning, construction or materials.

Third, is there a large enough sample size of high-rise buildings undergoing these types of massive fires to know how they are likely to react?

Fourth, if the collapse of WTC 7 WAS completely out of the ordinary, that does not mean it wasn't fire that caused it. It's perfectly fine as a reason to question, but not to come to conclusions.

 

[eots]

Honestly, it could be as simple as that none of those other building fires are surrounded by conspiracy theories about how they happened. There could well have been molten metal at some of them, but it may have been seen as no big deal, given the massive fires.

I don't know vaguely enough about any of those fires to say what was or was not reported about them. Do you?

All you really have to see in watching them is that none of them collapsed in just under FF acceleration, and all had been consumed by more intense fires for longer periods of time, and did not produce the results of WTC 7...

First, that says nothing about whether molten metal was present at any of those building fires or not.

Second, not all buildings are equal, either in planning, construction or materials.

Third, is there a large enough sample size of high-rise buildings undergoing these types of massive fires to know how they are likely to react?

Fourth, if the collapse of WTC 7 WAS completely out of the ordinary, that does not mean it wasn't fire that caused it. It's perfectly fine as a reason to question, but not to come to conclusions.

WE SEE MOLTEN METAL COMING OUT OF THE SIDE OF THE BUILDING THE CLAIM IS ITS ALUMINUM BUT YET IN OTHER BUILDING FIRES WE NEVER SEE THIS


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPu9IqBfMIw]9/11: South Tower Molten Metal & Collapse - YouTube[/ame]

 

[eots]

And the tower had a core wtf happened to the core ???..nist does not even attempt to answer this question

 

[eots]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__gUjUv1vvw]Building the World Trade Center and Twin Towers - 1 of 2 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[SFC Ollie]

All you really have to see in watching them is that none of them collapsed in just under FF acceleration, and all had been consumed by more intense fires for longer periods of time, and did not produce the results of WTC 7...

First, that says nothing about whether molten metal was present at any of those building fires or not.

Second, not all buildings are equal, either in planning, construction or materials.

Third, is there a large enough sample size of high-rise buildings undergoing these types of massive fires to know how they are likely to react?

Fourth, if the collapse of WTC 7 WAS completely out of the ordinary, that does not mean it wasn't fire that caused it. It's perfectly fine as a reason to question, but not to come to conclusions.

WE SEE MOLTEN METAL COMING OUT OF THE SIDE OF THE BUILDING THE CLAIM IS ITS ALUMINUM BUT YET IN OTHER BUILDING FIRES WE NEVER SEE THIS


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPu9IqBfMIw]9/11: South Tower Molten Metal & Collapse - YouTube[/ame]

Other buildings didn't have jetliners crash into them......I'm sure you can see the difference... plus there is some discussion about a battery bank near that area of the building. Which could be part of what we see.....

 

[SFC Ollie]

We can all see the core trying to stand up to about 60 floors of it.....

 

[eots]

funny how we do not hear of molten metal flowing like a river in all these other far more intense building fires or molten metals dripping from the the buildings wonder why that is ??

bad ass skyscraper fires and destruction!! Awesome!! - youtube

you still seem to be avoiding sarge's very pertinent question: What substance can melt steel and keep it in a molten state under oxygen starved conditions for weeks?

who says it was in a molten state for weeks ?

 

[eots]

we can all see the core trying to stand up to about 60 floors of it.....

link

 

[eots]

first, that says nothing about whether molten metal was present at any of those building fires or not.

Second, not all buildings are equal, either in planning, construction or materials.

Third, is there a large enough sample size of high-rise buildings undergoing these types of massive fires to know how they are likely to react?

Fourth, if the collapse of wtc 7 was completely out of the ordinary, that does not mean it wasn't fire that caused it. It's perfectly fine as a reason to question, but not to come to conclusions.

we see molten metal coming out of the side of the building the claim is its aluminum but yet in other building fires we never see this


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpu9iqbfmiw]9/11: South tower molten metal & collapse - youtube[/ame]

other buildings didn't have jetliners crash into them......i'm sure you can see the difference... Plus there is some discussion about a battery bank near that area of the building. Which could be part of what we see.....

other building don't have battery rooms ?

 

[Mr. Jones]

NIST never showed how any of this was even possible.
The other towering infernos did not collapse when subjected to more severe fires and heat. None.
The towers were designed with plane impacts considered, but you all knew this...and 7 was the gotcha moment were the plan was exposed. Strange how flight 93 and WTC7 seemed to be malfunctions in the plan...

 

[daws101]

Neither of you have tried to explain how you can assume it was molten aluminum, despite overwhelming evidence of the presence of there being more steel that made up the towers.
What aluminum there was was present on the outsides of the towers, with the exception of 2 planes, but that still doesn't explain WTC 7, that had no plane inside of it.
The plane parts in the towers were waay up high in the buildings, and the reports of molten steel were up to 70 feet deep in the centers of all 3 the buildings...You can't honestly reason that the molten steel was probably aluminum when one honestly considers these facts.
And you ***** believe saying there is a lack of evidence because NIST ignores it, somehow is YOUR evidence that justifies contradicting hundreds of people, reports and confirmations who were at GZ? You 2 ***** have to twist shit up so bad, to even conclude this is at all reasonable..


I presented instances where NIST ignores evidence, as just one of the reasons why people question NIST's honesty credibility, and integrity, and hence the accuracy of their work.
Ignoring molten steel, ignoring explosions,ignoring FEMA reports, ignoring FF at WTC 7,
ignoring the actual collapses etc are a few instances that explain why there is opposition and doubt regarding the accuracy of their investigation and reports, end of story..

there is nothing to explain we can no more assume it was aluminum then you can assume it was all steel
all that's really known is there were pools of molten materials ,the most likely explanations remains that the molten substance was a mixture of materials.
you have no evidence otherwise.

There is more overwhelming evidence that it was steel, then aluminum that has been presented,hands down.Case closed.
You ignoring all that has been presented is your solution to keep your CT going, but it is a joke when watching you try to do so.

You can't conduct a proper investigation and claim you have a valid and plausible theory by dismissing over whelming evidence and reports and keeping them out of the equation, that point to other possible explanations. It is dishonest, at best and criminal at worst.

I suppose all the reports of explosions are attributable to exploding aerosol cans too...

among other things....