911 WTC 7 Silent Thermate Demolition, Debunkers Grab Your Ankles!

[Faun]

The molten aluminum in the video may well have been reflecting the color emanating from within the crucible, as well as that coming from the ambient lighting after it was poured into the molds. Pointing out both possibilities isn't tantamount to "switch[ing]" a thing.

As for my use of the word "spurious", it was partially in reference to the fact that the video embedded by Daws in post #766 made no mention of the distinction between the colors attainable (by whatever means) during the melting process vs. those that could be exhibited as molten aluminum is poured down 80+ stories through the open air in broad daylight. It had nothing to do with the glowing aspect of incandescence...and everything to do with the color aspect, as have all the relevant statements I've made since.

Too bad for you all my posts are still there for any and all newcomers to the thread to go back and read for themselves.

What is amusing though, speaking of the ol' switcheroo, is how you started out talking about both aspects of incandescence ("glowing orange") and then suddenly dropped the color aspect after only two posts.

Translation of your idiocy ... unlike you, my description of that molten aluminum has not wavered.

 

[Capstone]

Significant unknowns? Really? Islam and 9/11. Wow, I just don't know how to reply to that. What color is the sky in your world...? [emphasis Capstone's]

What a poignantly ironic question. I'm almost envious at the completely unqualified confidence on which it's based. I sometimes pine for the days when I held a similar outlook on world events -- the blackness and whiteness that still permeates the them vs. us mentality so vigorously promoted in the propaganda of those who created the boogeymen of our darkest nightmares. Yes, the evil Muslims of Al Qaeda, ISIS & ISIL, for whom the raging jealousy of our American freedoms is so potent a motivator that many of them have been driven to play the role of mercenary in the proxy armies of the US/Israeli destabilization efforts in the Middle East! Ah, the good ol' days.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

someone farted in here.^

 

[LA RAM FAN]

I can't speak to that "feeling", Monty. I can, however, assure you that I most certainly would not be hailing the testimonies of flip-floppers as evidence of anything but their lack of credibility. I've never been one to undermine my own intellectual honesty.

We're not talking about minor differences, which could be rationalized as natural lapses of memory ETC.; we're talking about complete reversals of previously documented accounts.

monte worships the governments version of events no matter how absurd they are.He worships the versions of what the media and our corrupt government institutions tell him over experts in their fields.lol

He would rather listen to what our corrupt government institutuions tell him about the version of the pentagon that a plane hit that building and did all those incredible manuvers in the air instead of the best expert pilots in the world what THEY have to say.what they have to say means nothing to him.

It means ZERO to him for example that the lady in the air traffic control tower said the air manuvers that were being done by the alleged airliner in the air were so incredible,she thought that it was a jet fighter since a jet fighter would be the only aircraft that could do all those incredible manuvers in the air that were done.not to mention the fact that the best pilots in the world have said THEY could not have pulled off those incredible feats of manuver in the air with a jet airliner that an ALLEGED airliner did.

somehow what that lady traffic controller said and what expert pilots from around the world have said,they are not credible people to him,only the LAMESTREAM media and our government are credible to him.

thats how you know that agents faun,gomer pyle ollie and dawshit-aka sayit,are all indeed paid goverment disinfo agents the fact they constantly come back here everyday for their constant ass beatings they get here everyday.no way would they come back here everyday and make up lies like they do here everyday without getting paid,no way would they do it for free,no way no how.

when you bring up those facts to monte,he is left only capable of doing this in reply.

thats why i dont waste my time with him anymore in the conspiracy section.Now the nonsense he talks in the sports section i can put up with and tolerate, but not in the conspiracy section.

Yeah, I worship the government's version of events. You total nitwit.

Rather than just saying "nitwit", please tell your interpretation of the events as different from the official story.

If you haven't followed 9/11's posts to see how this is just the same tired spiel he throws around no matter the subject, perhaps you would be better off not inserting yourself into it.

As to how I think events were different from the official story, I don't. I'm certainly aware that the official story is incomplete in some details and that it may be wrong in places, but I, along with millions of others, watched as the planes flew into the towers live on television. I've seen various video clips, read statements from witnesses, etc. enough that I find the idea there were no planes, or the planes were something other than what we've all seen, to be pretty ludicrous.

So, planes flew into the towers. I've said before that the nature of the collapses, straight down into themselves, struck me as odd when it happened and still seems odd. However, as I saw no evidence of demolition at the time and have seen no compelling evidence of demolition since, I'm left with the options of either accepting what I saw and the official reports, or believing in some sort of secretive, massive conspiracy using possibly unknown technology to bring down the buildings.

As there are plenty of other instances in life in which something appears odd but clearly happened, I'm willing to go with the official report, in general.

I'm not opposed to questioning, but the trend among the CT posters on this site is not to question but to assume that some or all of the official report is lies, intentional fabrications to cover up a grand conspiracy by some international cabal that secretly controls the world, or something to that effect. 9/11IJ has a long history of finding conspiracy in everything (he's suddenly decided the NFL is part of a conspiracy because of a playcall he didn't like in the Super Bowl) and claiming that everyone who disagrees with him is ignoring the facts, then following that up by claiming to have put those posters on ignore and making fart jokes.

Thank you for your opinion, so you agree with the official account of what allegedly happened. are you willing to revise your position if you were shown facts that prove the official story is a crock?

believe me,with him,you might as well be talking to a brick wall.No he only sees what he WANTS to see,he wont watch videos or read links that shoot down the governments fairy tales.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Ah-ha! Clear and overwhelming evidence that thousands of people conspired to slam passenger jets into 2 of America's tallest buildings (and the Pentagon and an open field in PA) which just happened to be rigged for silent CD for no apparent reason and then successfully maintained silence for the next 13+ years.
And you wonder why rational peeps refer to you "Truthers" as foil-haters?
"I thought the term ‘Truth Movement’ meant that there’d be some search for truth. I was wrong." - Charlie Veitch

NO, clear and overwhelming anecdotal evidence that was further supported by hard physical evidence that explosives/incendiaries were used.

All further implications of those bodies of evidence would have been scientifically irrelevant.

you still arguing with paid troll dawgshit?

 

[LA RAM FAN]

That thermite thing is just a delusion. Nobody has ever seen a 101 story building collapse. Physics is scary. Nobody knows what to think when those towers went down, but unknown physics and a couple of planes full of jet A fuel and planes crashed used by wacko Islamo nut jobs had everything to do with this...

So even though there are some significant unknowns, you believe that the terrorist attack ( that is the radical Arabs flying airliners into buildings ) is the explanation for the total destruction of not only the twin towers but WTC7 also.

you'll never get anywhere with mary,she actually STILL believes JFK got us into Vietnam and esculated the war amazingly.


another brick wall who only sees what she WANTS to see.

 

[SAYIT]

you'll never get anywhere with mary,she actually STILL believes JFK got us into Vietnam and esculated the war amazingly.


another brick wall who only sees what she WANTS to see.

Judging by the number of responses and 'Thanks' your posts generate, I'd say I'm the only poster who doesn't have you on ignore (and that's only because I don't have anyone on ignore). Normal peeps modify their behavior when consistently rejected. You're just not normal, Princess, but thanks for playing.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

As to how I think events were different from the official story, I don't. I'm certainly aware that the official story is incomplete in some details and that it may be wrong in places, but I, along with millions of others, watched as the planes flew into the towers live on television. I've seen various video clips, read statements from witnesses, etc. enough that I find the idea there were no planes, or the planes were something other than what we've all seen, to be pretty ludicrous.

Thats right you saw it on TV so you know its twu!

thats the logic Monty uses.He probably thinks pro wresting is real as well.


you took him to school and handed his ass to him on a platter,an easy thing to do with him.lol

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Your denials of denying the molten aluminum glowed from being heated are noted, but for the benefit of the casual read who might not have seen your denial .... of the molten aluminum seen glowing in that video, you attributed it not to being heated, but to ....

"Had you watched the video, you should have perceived the tint of the lighting apparently shining down on the molds...and that, even though the poured aluminum vaguely reflected that light, it still appeared more silvery-white than orange."​

Only after being bashed over the head a couple of times did you finally acknowledge the molten aluminium did glow from heat, but even that came after your ridiculous notion that someone tinkered with the tint of the video itself. ...

Well, for the benefit of those with capacities for reading comprehension either equal to or weaker than yours...

tint
/tint/
noun
1. a shade or variety of color. ...

...pointing out that the poured/setting aluminum was apparently reflecting the bizarre "tint" (read: color) of the lighting (which was clearly visible in various places throughout that video) was in no way a denial of the fact that molten aluminum can "glow".

The reason I've consistently specified the color aspect of the incandescence is because that is the aspect that's relevant to the issue at hand, namely the color of the molten material seen pouring out of the South Tower on 9/11/01.

...But even after acknowledging that molten aluminum can indeed glow from heat, you then deny the possibility of it being the material seen falling from the tower. ...

What I denied is that the conditions required for molten aluminum to attain the proper color...could have been met as it poured down 80-some stories in the open air and broad daylight after having been melted at the temperatures reportedly reached inside WTC2 -- a fact that's been perfectly consistent with my unwavering focus on color all along.

...About the only consistency among you brain-dead Twoofers is insanity.

And about the only thing you've consistently demonstrated in our somewhat limited interaction on this board is your virtual lack of worthiness to be taken seriously...by anyone. By all means though, keep up the good work.

yep good work on showing HE is the insane one being gullible believing in holographic images worshipping what the media and government tells him instead of listening to experts and witnesses. talk about bush dupes who are insane.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

The molten aluminum in the video may well have been reflecting the color emanating from within the crucible, as well as that coming from the ambient lighting after it was poured into the molds. Pointing out both possibilities isn't tantamount to "switch[ing]" a thing.

As for my use of the word "spurious", it was partially in reference to the fact that the video embedded by Daws in post #766 made no mention of the distinction between the colors attainable (by whatever means) during the melting process vs. those that could be exhibited as molten aluminum is poured down 80+ stories through the open air in broad daylight. It had nothing to do with the glowing aspect of incandescence...and everything to do with the color aspect, as have all the relevant statements I've made since.

Too bad for you all my posts are still there for any and all newcomers to the thread to go back and read for themselves.

What is amusing though, speaking of the ol' switcheroo, is how you started out talking about both aspects of incandescence ("glowing orange") and then suddenly dropped the color aspect after only two posts.

thanks for posting that video you did where robertson initially sais molten steel but then later did a flip flop and said there was none.

I had heard how initially that day when it happened how he first said that but later changed his story to go along with the governments version of events but never had seen any facts that talked about that so i never mentioned that.But now thanks to that video of yours I have proof positive he DID say that initially.

Too bad for barry jennings sake he didnt change his story later on.He would be alive today right now had he done so.

Have you read griffins book DEBUNKING THE 9/11 DEBUNKING? its interesting that you mention that about rebertson flip flopping his story because that book also talks about some man who was the head of a government demolition company,cant remember his name,but he like robertson ALSO initially changed his story.He initially said explosives brought the towers down but just like robertson,ALSO changed his story later on to go along with the governments version.are you familiar with that? do you know who I am talking about?

Robertson and that demolition expert no doubt obviously remember the countless number of people who died in mysterious deaths in the JFK assassination who gave version of events that did not go along with the warren commissions version of of events insisting they saw a gunman behind the picket fence firing a rifle.

He no doubt remembered Hale Boggs who was on the warren commission and even HE said he did not agree with the commissions findings that oswald was the lone assassin and was extremely criticial of their report and as a result,meant an untimely death in a mysterious plane crash.

You just KNOW Boggs murder was fresh in his mind later on when he changed his story.

Robertson got caught with his hand in the cookie jar.He totally about everything years later saying he saw no molten steel when that was EXACTLY what he said he saw three weeks later.lol.

 

[Capstone]

Translation of your idiocy ... unlike you, my description of that molten aluminum has not wavered.

I started out with color and never strayed from that aspect of incandescence. You started out with glowing and color ("glowing orange") and then quickly dropped color like a red-hot potato, most likely hoping nobody'd notice. Watching as your subconscious tattles on your conscious behavior (by way of accusing me of your own goal-post-switching M.O.)...would be a lot funnier...if it weren't such a sad indication of your desperation.

The thrust of my argument, which has been perfectly congruent with my observations on any side issues (such as the empirical presence of strange reddish/orange halos around visible light sources in the video you posted), is that the conditions required for molten aluminum to attain the color exhibited by the material seen pouring from WTC2...could not have been met under those circumstances. In other words, while it's possible to continue heating aluminum way past its melting point (at 1,220°F) into the yellow-white temperature range (Correct me if I'm wrong here, but didn't the guys in your video mention something about 2,900°F?), the officially reported max. temperatures of the fires that burned in the South Tower weren't high enough to do so, especially minus the aid of a crucible for concentrated heating. Without such a mechanism in place, it's highly likely that the unrestrained aluminum would have trickled away before it could have reached/sustained a sufficiently high temperature for an adequate length of time. Most damning of all to the offical explanation, is that even if aluminum from the airplane's fuselage could have somehow met the neccessary conditions to exhibit the proper color during the melting phase, it still would have appeared silvery within the first two meters of falling through the open air in broad daylight, primarily because of its extremely high reflectivity and low emissivity.

 

[Capstone]

. . .Have you read griffins book DEBUNKING THE 9/11 DEBUNKING? its interesting that you mention that about rebertson flip flopping his story because that book also talks about some man who was the head of a government demolition company,cant remember his name,but he like robertson ALSO initially changed hisstory.He initially said explosives brought the towers down but just like robertson,ALSO changed his story later on to go along with the governmentsversion.are you familiar with that? do you know who I am talking about? ...

I haven't read any of D.R. Griffin's books. I have seen and even cited his work from several online articles and videos, and have a ton of respect for the man.

I can't think of the name of the person you're talking about, but the story does ring a bell. I'm pretty sure the info is available somewhere on the net.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

. . .Have you read griffins book DEBUNKING THE 9/11 DEBUNKING? its interesting that you mention that about rebertson flip flopping his story because that book also talks about some man who was the head of a government demolition company,cant remember his name,but he like robertson ALSO initially changed hisstory.He initially said explosives brought the towers down but just like robertson,ALSO changed his story later on to go along with the governmentsversion.are you familiar with that? do you know who I am talking about? ...

I haven't read any of D.R. Griffin's books. I have seen and even cited his work from several online articles and videos, and have a ton of respect for the man.

I can't think of the name of the person you're talking about, but the story does ring a bell. I'm pretty sure the info is available somewhere on the net.

its a great book,you really should read it sometime.Nobody has ever been able to debunk it.the paid shills here will say bullshit like ITS BEEN DEBUNKED with no facts whatsoever to prove it of course. They never take any of my challenges i issue them to read the book or watch any of my videos and then try to refute the facts in them. they are just left doing this of course all the time in defeat.

same as they are doing with you here.

I have read it at least two times and have highlighted many key facts in there so I'll find that quote in that part of the book and post it for you sometime this week.

amazingly he doesnt cover that information in there about robertson you posted in that video on how he initially reported molten steel and then changed his story later on.He does mention Robertsons name and that he did say he saw molten steel initially,but he doesnt mention how robertson changed his story like you proved though so Im glad you posted that video because like i said,i had heard from people that robertson said that in his initial testimony but then changed his story but never saw anything on that so because of that,i have refrained from ever mentioning that over the years but NOW since you provided facts that prove all that did happen,i now have something to go on and i CAN mention that now.

so just feel good to know that there was ONE person who took the time to watch that video here on this thread and had a real interest in it.

 

[Faun]

Your denials of denying the molten aluminum glowed from being heated are noted, but for the benefit of the casual read who might not have seen your denial .... of the molten aluminum seen glowing in that video, you attributed it not to being heated, but to ....

"Had you watched the video, you should have perceived the tint of the lighting apparently shining down on the molds...and that, even though the poured aluminum vaguely reflected that light, it still appeared more silvery-white than orange."​

Only after being bashed over the head a couple of times did you finally acknowledge the molten aluminium did glow from heat, but even that came after your ridiculous notion that someone tinkered with the tint of the video itself. ...

Well, for the benefit of those with capacities for reading comprehension either equal to or weaker than yours...

tint
/tint/
noun
1. a shade or variety of color. ...

...pointing out that the poured/setting aluminum was apparently reflecting the bizarre "tint" (read: color) of the lighting (which was clearly visible in various places throughout that video) was in no way a denial of the fact that molten aluminum can "glow".

The reason I've consistently specified the color aspect of the incandescence is because that is the aspect that's relevant to the issue at hand, namely the color of the molten material seen pouring out of the South Tower on 9/11/01.

...But even after acknowledging that molten aluminum can indeed glow from heat, you then deny the possibility of it being the material seen falling from the tower. ...

What I denied is that the conditions required for molten aluminum to attain the proper color...could have been met as it poured down 80-some stories in the open air and broad daylight after having been melted at the temperatures reportedly reached inside WTC2 -- a fact that's been perfectly consistent with my unwavering focus on color all along.

...About the only consistency among you brain-dead Twoofers is insanity.

And about the only thing you've consistently demonstrated in our somewhat limited interaction on this board is your virtual lack of worthiness to be taken seriously...by anyone. By all means though, keep up the good work.

yep good work on showing HE is the insane one being gullible believing in holographic images worshipping what the media and government tells him instead of listening to experts and witnesses. talk about bush dupes who are insane.

Insanity is believing that it wasn't planes which people saw fly into the Twin Towers, but holographic images -- a technology which not only didn't exist on 9.11, but more than 13 years later, still doesn't exist.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

someone farted in here.^

 

[Faun]

Translation of your idiocy ... unlike you, my description of that molten aluminum has not wavered.

I started out with color and never strayed from that aspect of incandescence. You started out with glowing and color ("glowing orange") and then quickly dropped color like a red-hot potato, most likely hoping nobody'd notice. Watching as your subconscious tattles on your conscious behavior (by way of accusing me of your own goal-post-switching M.O.)...would be a lot funnier...if it weren't such a sad indication of your desperation.

The thrust of my argument, which has been perfectly congruent with my observations on any side issues (such as the empirical presence of strange reddish/orange halos around visible light sources in the video you posted), is that the conditions required for molten aluminum to attain the color exhibited by the material seen pouring from WTC2...could not have been met under those circumstances. In other words, while it's possible to continue heating aluminum way past its melting point (at 1,220°F) into the yellow-white temperature range (Correct me if I'm wrong here, but didn't the guys in your video mention something about 2,900°F?), the officially reported max. temperatures of the fires that burned in the South Tower weren't high enough to do so, especially minus the aid of a crucible for concentrated heating. Without such a mechanism in place, it's highly likely that the unrestrained aluminum would have trickled away before it could have reached/sustained a sufficiently high temperature for an adequate length of time. Most damning of all to the offical explanation, is that even if aluminum from the airplane's fuselage could have somehow met the neccessary conditions to exhibit the proper color during the melting phase, it still would have appeared silvery within the first two meters of falling through the open air in broad daylight, primarily because of its extremely high reflectivity and low emissivity.

As my position has remained consistent and unwavering, I have nothing to be desperate about. You, on the other hand, reveal desperation in your ever shifting claims as well as your lies.

Lie #1: that I switched my argument because I didn't repeat myself when I said the molten aluminum was glowing orange. In reality, I switched nothing as I still maintain that. Repeating it is not necessary and I gave no other description.
To dumb this down to terms you may possibly comprehend, you earlier mentioned the planes but didn't repeat that you believed they were drones. Applying your brain-dead [il]logic to that would mean you abandoned your ridiculous claim that drones were used.

Lie #2: that you never changed your excuses for the incandescence of the molten aluminum. Again, your initial knee-jerk reaction was to claim the molten aluminum was "silvery-white" in color and reflected its color from the crucible. After I suggested you actually watch the video, you shifted your claim to the molten aluminum reflecting its color from other sources of light. You also suggested the video had been "tampered" with. And your position shifted from denying the molten aluminum produced its own glow to finally admitting it can if heated enough. You have almost as many positions on that video as the Yankees do on the field.

 

[Faun]

someone farted in here.^

Suuure, you're not insane ... you just smell bad.

 

[n0spam4me]

Personal attacks aside, What temperature is indicated by a metal object ( that is ANY metal ) heated to the point where it glows red/orange?

 

[Capstone]

...your initial knee-jerk reaction was to claim the molten aluminum was "silvery-white" in color and reflected its color from the crucible. After I suggested you actually watch the video, you shifted your claim to the molten aluminum reflecting its color from other sources of light. You also suggested the video had been "tampered" with. And your position shifted from denying the molten aluminum produced its own glow to finally admitting it can if heated enough.

First of all, the post in which I characterized the molten aluminum from your video as "silvery-white" came immediately after your suggestion that I watch the video I'd already watched. At least try to keep the chronology of your appeals to silence in order.

Secondly, my mentioning two possible sources of reflected light in separate posts didn't amount to a change of position, which has remained to this very moment that molten aluminum is highly reflective and therefore may have been reflecting the reddish-orange lighting that's visible from more than one source in your video -- the operative notion being that of reflectivity, not the number of prospective sources of reflected light.

Third and most importantly, since the equally true facts, that liquid aluminum is highly reflective and that it can be heated beyond its melting point into the yellow/white color range (albeit under conditions that couldn't have been present inside/outside of the South Tower), aren't mutually exclusive, your accusation that I shifted positions by affirming both of them simultaneously (after the unfounded allegation that I denied the latter) could only be based on my previous silence,...which, as you pointed out about my sardonic charge that you shifted positions, would make it fallacious.

...You have almost as many positions on that video as the Yankees do on the field.

My single take on that video is that it's unreliable, for all of the reasons/possibilities I've mentioned (and some I haven't). Moreover, should I choose to bring up any of those previously unmentioned reasons, it certainly wouldn't constitute a change of position on my part.

So, now that it's clear the allegations that either of us changed our positions would both constitute appeals to silence, maybe you'd care to address the thrust of my steadfast argument, which remains that the conditions both inside and outside of WTC2 could not have met the requirements of orange/yellow/white-hot aluminum...

 

[daws101]

The fact that the color of the incandescence is a function of the temperature of the material is one factor, and additionally the fact that the scenes have been recorded on video is rather problematic because video cameras can be adjusted to record color in all sorts of different ways. It would be difficult if not impossible to get a truly accurate reading on the temperature from a video especially in the orange/red region of the spectrum. What is extreamly telling, is the fact of total demolition of not only the towers but WTC7. My point being that total destruction of anything is indicative of an engineered event.

it's bullshit too.

HEAT-COLORS-for-Blacksmiths


and as 4 "bullshit" Please elaborate as to exactly what it is about my post that you disagree with.

AS BEFORE It's based on a false assumption. so any conclusion or observation based on that false assumption is also false..
yes there was a small amount of melted metal at the wtc site...my post explains it all...

My sense of fair play would normally prevent me from responding to individuals who aren't here to defend themselves, but it really should be said: that the only thing proven by the wall of text copied and pasted by Daws (without explicitly crediting the original author, as usual) is that the NIST group had ample cause to test for explosives, which only deepens the mystery as to why they chose not to do so.

total bullshit......if you'd bothered to click on the red highlighted wtc molten metal
0n post #776 you would have seen this WTC Molten Steel
but being far too busy attempting and failing to patch the gaping rents in your bullshit you missed that detail...