Really? That OpEdNews article you posted he made it clear he was not a supporter of theories that the Twin Towers were brought down by pre-planted explosives. You don't feel the dis?
Again you exhibit the patience of Job.
Jones will now reword the same thoroughly and repeatedly debunked assumptions, bogus quotes and silly CT BS and repost it. Admitting the molten steel issue is burned out would melt his particular CT and that would end his whole reason for living.
it's called banking a fire .
Again you exhibit the patience of Job.
Jones will now reword the same thoroughly and repeatedly debunked assumptions, bogus quotes and silly CT BS and repost it. Admitting the molten steel issue is burned out would melt his particular CT and that would end his whole reason for living.
Well, Mr. Jones wants to deal in facts. trying to visually determine that a molten substance is either aluminum or steel is ridiculous. I have posted pictures of both and they look the same. Then Mr. Jones wants to try and add "oomph" to his witnesses by proclaiming them "experts". This in no way makes them "experts" in visualizing molten substances. If I presented each one of them with similar photos, there is no way that ANY of them would be able to tell me that they were 100% able to identify which was aluminum and which was steel.
What I find funny is that Mr. Jones can't understand how a pile of debris as large as the one at ground zero could have attained high temperatures. If the smoldering debris covered by further tons of debris and fed air through the porous pile wasn't enough...
Ok, so what has been occurring is that you all are dismissing whether or not the molten metal could have been steel, despite the info I posted about aluminum. NIST ignore it as well despite having several people that were contracted out to do the clean up at GZ.
By doing this you are in essence admitting that the possibility of the actual fires being hot enough to melt the steel as many experts with the help of the media first said was a real possibility.
Now we have to see if any of the assumptions by NIST coincide with their testing, regarding temps getting hot enough to actually weaken the steel load bearing members of the buildings.
Anyone want to post up anything that deals with this issue, from NIST in their reports or testing data within the reports?
BTW by ignoring the links that I post and the info within it, that shows that molten aluminum was highly improbable, is no way to continue this discussion, and shows that you all are already in a defensive posture. If you have to ignore reports of evidence how accurate and legitimate can the findings be?
No one has answered any of my questions, or posted anything that contradicts the info that I posted about aluminum, or its properties, where it got its fuel source to maintain its molten state, especially considering the fact that aluminum gets rid of its heat faster then steel, which is why it is used in heatsinks etc...
To date NIST or anyone else, has identified an energy source in the WTC capable of melting steel or metal and having a fuel source to do so for 100 days.
As I expected,
You are being cowards by ignoring this and offering no alternative rebuttal in what was posted and linked, even to the point of saying these temps were not of any importance or significance when clearly they were deemed important by those who saw it and reported it, and the others who confirmed them.
You official theory has already taken a blow, as has any sincerity or credibility regarding an honest discussion regarding the threads intention.
It's sad when you take a position that you defend and right off the bat you have to ignore and downplay parts of it to try and achieve some form of legitimacy, by ignoring things regarding it.
But then again this behavior is at the basis and is what forms the premise of your version. You pretend things that may be harmful to your versions account, do not exist and downplay, with out explanation, others....you have proven one of my points, so let's move on.
I am not ignoring anything, have provided links for your review and get nothing that can be construed as a relevant response.
Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing.-NIST
question 13, Frequently Aasked Questions, posted at WTC Disaster Study
NIST never clarifies what the certain circumstances might be. You all have at least tried to assume it might have been aluminum but I challenged that assumption, with links about aluminum...
Nist stated-long exposure to combustion regarding the hot spots, but given that there was no energy source in the pile of wreckage, that could be sustained for 100 days, that could also be capable of melting steel and sustaining aluminum in a molten form, is disingenuous and deceiving.
The hot spots were identified by the US Geological Survey at GZ. of both towers and 7. They existed. Your offer that it was aluminum has been hurt by the links I posted, as it melts faster then steel but cools faster as well.
NIST's investigation was to determine the cause of the WTC collapse, and NIST should have conducted a complete forensic examination using the full spectrum of evidence.
Concluding any investigation, and offering a theory that does not take all available evidence into account is unscientific.
Moving on, I await you postings regarding the NIST testing that legitimizes the heat temps of the fires that were high enough to cause deformation of the steel that led to the collapses.
NIST findings seem to refute the pancake theory of collapse.
Will we find favorable results? What happened with the truss assembly testing?
NIST seemed to have also found that the steel was stronger then they anticipated too.
You can start by posting any relevant testing and results of any confirmation.
Aluminum melts slightly faster then steel but gets rid of its heat faster as well, therefore for aluminum to remain in a molten state, a constant source of extreme temps would be necessary for it to perform this rapid heat transfer, and STILL remain molten.
just as predicted, sister jones spun this to appear as if nist did not do their job...and feign superiority..Ok, so what has been occurring is that you all are dismissing whether or not the molten metal could have been steel, despite the info I posted about aluminum. NIST ignore it as well despite having several people that were contracted out to do the clean up at GZ.
By doing this you are in essence admitting that the possibility of the actual fires being hot enough to melt the steel as many experts with the help of the media first said was a real possibility.
Now we have to see if any of the assumptions by NIST coincide with their testing, regarding temps getting hot enough to actually weaken the steel load bearing members of the buildings.
Anyone want to post up anything that deals with this issue, from NIST in their reports or testing data within the reports?
BTW by ignoring the links that I post and the info within it, that shows that molten aluminum was highly improbable, is no way to continue this discussion, and shows that you all are already in a defensive posture. If you have to ignore reports of evidence how accurate and legitimate can the findings be?
No one has answered any of my questions, or posted anything that contradicts the info that I posted about aluminum, or its properties, where it got its fuel source to maintain its molten state, especially considering the fact that aluminum gets rid of its heat faster then steel, which is why it is used in heatsinks etc...
To date NIST or anyone else, has identified an energy source in the WTC capable of melting steel or metal and having a fuel source to do so for 100 days.
As I expected,
You are being cowards by ignoring this and offering no alternative rebuttal in what was posted and linked, even to the point of saying these temps were not of any importance or significance when clearly they were deemed important by those who saw it and reported it, and the others who confirmed them.
You official theory has already taken a blow, as has any sincerity or credibility regarding an honest discussion regarding the threads intention.
It's sad when you take a position that you defend and right off the bat you have to ignore and downplay parts of it to try and achieve some form of legitimacy, by ignoring things regarding it.
But then again this behavior is at the basis and is what forms the premise of your version. You pretend things that may be harmful to your versions account, do not exist and downplay, with out explanation, others....you have proven one of my points, so let's move on.
I am not ignoring anything, have provided links for your review and get nothing that can be construed as a relevant response.
Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing.-NIST
question 13, Frequently Aasked Questions, posted at WTC Disaster Study
NIST never clarifies what the certain circumstances might be. You all have at least tried to assume it might have been aluminum but I challenged that assumption, with links about aluminum...
Nist stated-long exposure to combustion regarding the hot spots, but given that there was no energy source in the pile of wreckage, that could be sustained for 100 days, that could also be capable of melting steel and sustaining aluminum in a molten form, is disingenuous and deceiving.
The hot spots were identified by the US Geological Survey at GZ. of both towers and 7. They existed. Your offer that it was aluminum has been hurt by the links I posted, as it melts faster then steel but cools faster as well.
NIST's investigation was to determine the cause of the WTC collapse, and NIST should have conducted a complete forensic examination using the full spectrum of evidence.
Concluding any investigation, and offering a theory that does not take all available evidence into account is unscientific.
Moving on, I await you postings regarding the NIST testing that legitimizes the heat temps of the fires that were high enough to cause deformation of the steel that led to the collapses.
NIST findings seem to refute the pancake theory of collapse.
Will we find favorable results? What happened with the truss assembly testing?
NIST seemed to have also found that the steel was stronger then they anticipated too.
You can start by posting any relevant testing and results of any confirmation.
Ok, so what has been occurring is that you all are dismissing whether or not the molten metal could have been steel, despite the info I posted about aluminum. NIST ignore it as well despite having several people that were contracted out to do the clean up at GZ.
By doing this you are in essence admitting that the possibility of the actual fires being hot enough to melt the steel as many experts with the help of the media first said was a real possibility.
Now we have to see if any of the assumptions by NIST coincide with their testing, regarding temps getting hot enough to actually weaken the steel load bearing members of the buildings.
Anyone want to post up anything that deals with this issue, from NIST in their reports or testing data within the reports?
BTW by ignoring the links that I post and the info within it, that shows that molten aluminum was highly improbable, is no way to continue this discussion, and shows that you all are already in a defensive posture. If you have to ignore reports of evidence how accurate and legitimate can the findings be?
No one has answered any of my questions, or posted anything that contradicts the info that I posted about aluminum, or its properties, where it got its fuel source to maintain its molten state, especially considering the fact that aluminum gets rid of its heat faster then steel, which is why it is used in heatsinks etc...
To date NIST or anyone else, has identified an energy source in the WTC capable of melting steel or metal and having a fuel source to do so for 100 days.
As I expected,
You are being cowards by ignoring this and offering no alternative rebuttal in what was posted and linked, even to the point of saying these temps were not of any importance or significance when clearly they were deemed important by those who saw it and reported it, and the others who confirmed them.
You official theory has already taken a blow, as has any sincerity or credibility regarding an honest discussion regarding the threads intention.
It's sad when you take a position that you defend and right off the bat you have to ignore and downplay parts of it to try and achieve some form of legitimacy, by ignoring things regarding it.
But then again this behavior is at the basis and is what forms the premise of your version. You pretend things that may be harmful to your versions account, do not exist and downplay, with out explanation, others....you have proven one of my points, so let's move on.
I am not ignoring anything, have provided links for your review and get nothing that can be construed as a relevant response.
Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing.-NIST
question 13, Frequently Aasked Questions, posted at WTC Disaster Study
NIST never clarifies what the certain circumstances might be. You all have at least tried to assume it might have been aluminum but I challenged that assumption, with links about aluminum...
Nist stated-long exposure to combustion regarding the hot spots, but given that there was no energy source in the pile of wreckage, that could be sustained for 100 days, that could also be capable of melting steel and sustaining aluminum in a molten form, is disingenuous and deceiving.
The hot spots were identified by the US Geological Survey at GZ. of both towers and 7. They existed. Your offer that it was aluminum has been hurt by the links I posted, as it melts faster then steel but cools faster as well.
NIST's investigation was to determine the cause of the WTC collapse, and NIST should have conducted a complete forensic examination using the full spectrum of evidence.
Concluding any investigation, and offering a theory that does not take all available evidence into account is unscientific.
Ok, so what has been occurring is that you all are dismissing whether or not the molten metal could have been steel, despite the info I posted about aluminum. NIST ignore it as well despite having several people that were contracted out to do the clean up at GZ.
By doing this you are in essence admitting that the possibility of the actual fires being hot enough to melt the steel as many experts with the help of the media first said was a real possibility.
Now we have to see if any of the assumptions by NIST coincide with their testing, regarding temps getting hot enough to actually weaken the steel load bearing members of the buildings.
Anyone want to post up anything that deals with this issue, from NIST in their reports or testing data within the reports?
BTW by ignoring the links that I post and the info within it, that shows that molten aluminum was highly improbable, is no way to continue this discussion, and shows that you all are already in a defensive posture. If you have to ignore reports of evidence how accurate and legitimate can the findings be?
No one has answered any of my questions, or posted anything that contradicts the info that I posted about aluminum, or its properties, where it got its fuel source to maintain its molten state, especially considering the fact that aluminum gets rid of its heat faster then steel, which is why it is used in heatsinks etc...
To date NIST or anyone else, has identified an energy source in the WTC capable of melting steel or metal and having a fuel source to do so for 100 days.
As I expected,
You are being cowards by ignoring this and offering no alternative rebuttal in what was posted and linked, even to the point of saying these temps were not of any importance or significance when clearly they were deemed important by those who saw it and reported it, and the others who confirmed them.
You official theory has already taken a blow, as has any sincerity or credibility regarding an honest discussion regarding the threads intention.
It's sad when you take a position that you defend and right off the bat you have to ignore and downplay parts of it to try and achieve some form of legitimacy, by ignoring things regarding it.
But then again this behavior is at the basis and is what forms the premise of your version. You pretend things that may be harmful to your versions account, do not exist and downplay, with out explanation, others....you have proven one of my points, so let's move on.
I am not ignoring anything, have provided links for your review and get nothing that can be construed as a relevant response.
Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing.-NIST
question 13, Frequently Aasked Questions, posted at WTC Disaster Study
NIST never clarifies what the certain circumstances might be. You all have at least tried to assume it might have been aluminum but I challenged that assumption, with links about aluminum...
Nist stated-long exposure to combustion regarding the hot spots, but given that there was no energy source in the pile of wreckage, that could be sustained for 100 days, that could also be capable of melting steel and sustaining aluminum in a molten form, is disingenuous and deceiving.
The hot spots were identified by the US Geological Survey at GZ. of both towers and 7. They existed. Your offer that it was aluminum has been hurt by the links I posted, as it melts faster then steel but cools faster as well.
NIST's investigation was to determine the cause of the WTC collapse, and NIST should have conducted a complete forensic examination using the full spectrum of evidence.
Concluding any investigation, and offering a theory that does not take all available evidence into account is unscientific.
I disagree.
NIST was provided with limited resources and time (everybody wanted answers yesterday) and charged with explaining what happened on 9/11, not what didn't happen.
They did that, just not to your satisfaction.
There are always CTs - see the Sandy Hook thread - who believe EVERYTHING is a nefarious gov't conspiracy.
Reynolds wrap is best!
