Loose Change 911

Do you mean to say that GTech has a hard time convincing you too?!?!?

 

I already did. Was it not you that said you were unsubcribing from the thread, but then came back to view my comments anyway? Remember?

 

Response to Molten Steel:

The argument itself is lack of any hard evidence that molten steel was found. It suggests that *some* say molten steel was found, but there is no report of any kind that I can find that notes that samples were taken to conclusively prove what was supposedly found, is actually steel and not another form of metal, such as aluminum. There is simply an assumption that it is steel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories

This assumption has long since debunked, as have many of the conspiracy theories by a well respected Magazine, Popular Mechanics:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=4&c=y

Jet fuel was not the only source of combustable material to burn. Therefore an assumption based on how hot *only* jet fuel can burn is void.

Steel does not need to melt in order to lose it's structural integrity. This claim suggests that in order for the towers to collapse, the steel must have melted. This is false. That steel is melted at 2800 degrees seems to counter the claim below that it must be 5000 degrees. If steel is melted, it is liquid. 2800 or 5000 doesn't matter though, as there is absolutely no evidence to support the second hand accounts of a few people that anything melted was found, let alone that it was in fact steel.

Fires are typically "pretty hot." The presumption that only the jet fuel was what was burning is inaccurate.

There is no reference for [12] in this argument on the page. It either does not exist or was removed. It reads simply as opinion.

Photographs are not used to measure the heat of a fire. Steel does not need to melt to lose it's structural integrity. More importantly, is the lack of any real or perceived information about the weight of an airplane in a building or the shock factor that was created from an airplaine crashing into a building.

This was not a controlled burn. It was the opposite...an uncontrolled burn with far more than jet fuel burning.

There is no conclusive evidence that *any* molten metal was found, other than second hand accounts from a few people. Let alone, that what they say was molten steel was actually steel and not aluminum or any other metal. It's purely assumption and speculation with no substance. There is no information regarding the impact or the weight of the plane and how that would impact the integrity loss of the building.

In summary, there's no proof to back anything up, other than speculation. Until tests can conclusively prove that molten metal that was claimed to have been seen can in fact prove it was steel, the argument is void and based purely on speculation.

 

4 Things:

1. The exact response I knew I would get
2. You've debunked nothing.
3. I listed the credible witnesses (some are experts) who say they saw molten steel.
4. There would be perfect evidence, if the government didn't have the remains of the building under armed gaurd until they could destroy and ship it all to china AND ban any photographs or video being taken of it.

 

Great, this one's debunked. That there would be (presumed) perfect evidence is not evidence. Saying I've not debunked something isn't an argument. It's a feeling.

Out of thousands and thousands that were there, there are just a handful that actually say they saw molten steel (if you even lend credibility to those saying they said it). However, there is no evidence of any tests on anything molten to prove the existence of molten steel or other molten metal materials. It is simply assumed.

If there is nothing further to support this theory, such as tests conducted on the supposed molten steel, then let's move forward to the next one.

Will seo-guru or tesla be next?

 

Thanks Rob. It's always a pleasure to read your honest, objective and non-partisan feedback on important matters.

 

BWHAAAAAT....????


What are you talking about GFunk?

 

Slick. Lesson learned...always quote someone. Never expected it from you though.

 

where is the smoking gun?

 

I honestly deleted it before you responded. I didn't feel like getting involved in this "discussion" tonight.

You and lorien are always too fast!

 

Cool, no harm, no foul. Thanks for clearing it up.

 

You obviously didn't read the sources of information I provided...

That is 2 very credible (no reason to lie, and are both experts) witnesses who know what they saw.

Further witness corroborating:

Yes, you are right... there's clearly numerous credible publications, witnesses and reports all saying there was molten steel everywhere, yet we have no reason to believe any of it, because the government destroyed it and sent it to china

Hmm a little study:

Clearly no reason to believe anything but what the government tells you to believe

 

I'm about 1/2 way through and I must say it is one of the more interesting works of fiction I have seen to date. That Mikey Moore flick was better produced. I mean the out of context quotes, fabricated dates, screen shots of liberal news web sites and other internet sites as the basis for supporting references is laughable at best. I got a kick out of the stock footage of a B-720 crash test the FAA conducted to test crash survivability, not terrorist plots. While the crash test did occur on December 1, 1984, it was not done for the reasons they suggest in that video. It was actually done to test the effectiveness of anti-misting kerosene in a "survivable impact" scenario. The AMK, as it was called was added with jet fuel in the hopes of minimizing the ensuing fireball that results on such an impact. Some positives results of the testing can be seen in the fire retardant seats and interior used on commercial airliners today.

Just this one misuse of footage and reality is enough to make me quite suspect of the authors intent. There are several other inaccuracies, which go without saying if you live in the here and now (reality) that make this "documentary", nothing other than a good college/hack try at fiction. It's not the fictional work that disturbs me, but the fact that many who have posted here believe it is reality. Imagine if Orson Wells were still here today, what fun he would have with such feeble and naive minds.

I cite as a small sideline the following quote from the documentary:

"The aircraft was remotely flown by NASA research pilot Fitzhugh (Fitz) Fulton from the NASA Dryden Remotely Controlled Vehicle Facility. Previously, the Boeing 720 had been flown on 14 practice flights with safety pilots onboard. During the 14 flights, there were 16 hours and 22 minutes of remotely piloted vehicle control, including 10 remotely piloted takeoffs, 69 remotely piloted vehicle controlled approaches, and 13 remotely piloted vehicle landings on abort runway."

Visit the following page and see where the quote came from: http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/movie/CID/index.html

There are several other instances where a mix of words taken out of context and used to support luancy are used throughout this entire video. Frankly, I see no point in wasting more time documenting each one. You cannot argue with those whose deranged minds are already set.

 

Yeah, that Jersey landfill where my cousins helped haul all the debris to is China... This thread is silly.

 

I took into account the witnesses you introduced and did read the information you provided. It was based on the information you provided that I as able to conclude there is no evidence of any molten steel, or any other molten metal, barring the "supposed" claims of a few people.

As I stated, of thousands and thousands that were there there for months on end, there are but a few people that have "supposedly" made claim to "seeing" molten steel.

Absent from the information provided, as I've noted twice now, is any real evidence that anything molten existed at all, let alone was actually steel and not another form of metal. A few people *supposedly* claiming they saw molten steel does not prove what they *saw* was actually steel. It could have been aluminum or any other metal.

This should be questioned. If it is the duty (as some describe) of people to question claims, it should surely be the duty to examine why such claims are being put forward with no supporting evidence. There are no tests, no reports or anything else that exists of *anything* molten, other than a handful of people who "supposedly" claim such existed.

A sampling of the supposed molten material would determine that what a few people *claim* to have seen was actually steel and not another form of metal, such as aluminum. There is no such sampling to determine what, if any, molten material actually existed. There is no foundation. It is simply speculative.

As such, there is no basis to support this theory. It is speculative and void of information that conclusively proves that any molten material *claimed* to exist was actually steel.

 

This one, like the "Magic Bullet", will no doubt quench the thirst of idiocy laden conspiracy supporter whackos for years to come.

 

Gtech, you ignore the test results?

 

I am half through the video and im already speachless. Sadly my pC froze so im using some more google bandwidth to redownload it.

 

Not at all. I took them into consideration, both times you posted them. The results presented are not on molten metal samples. The results serve no purpose to prove molten metal of any kind was actually found, whether it be steel, aluminum or other metal.

Unless you are aware of any study that used a sample of the alleged molten *metal* saying it was indeed steel, then the argument is and always will be nothing more than speculation from second hand accounts. That alone deserves the same "fact questioning" as some suggest 9/11 deserves.

 

It is important that the video is sparking debate, as I believe it motivates all of us to do our own research and take sides on this very important matter. Whatever your belief it is important to be opinionated and take a stand. If nobody cares than we have no purpose.