pathetic how you disregard such inconvenient truths if TRUTH was really what you are after, you woud admit that very few people can see a pool of melted material, and declare with certainty what its contents are. - - - Updated - - - if TRUTH was really what you are after, you woud admit that very few people can see a pool of melted material, and declare with certainty what its contents are.
The magical molten steel despite the floor not collapsing by that time. LMAO He believes only some witnesses. Those who saw the 757 crash into the pentagon of course all lied. Those in NY City are all truth tellers. And now you know the truth. That could not be a melted airplane because some fools on the sidewalk said so.
Lying again, I never dismissed any eyewitness claims as "bogus". Feel free to back that up with a link if you can. Again I don't have any "magical witnesses", this is pure garbage, stick to the facts if you can, I'm not the subject, in this case, the eyewitness claims are. If you can't, there's nothing more to discuss with you on this subject, you're way too immature for me.
I surmise the metal is aluminum based on the facts of metalurgy I have posted. If this guy believes those witnesses, crickets fly to fires. LOL We have a case of a 757 inside burning buildings. In one case, photos taken show metal pouring down. Was it steel? Nope. For the reason steel has a much higher melting temperature. Was it Aluminum? Most likely given the 65 tons of aluminum that torched the building and of course melting aluminum flows. - - - Updated - - - You keep trying to make this about me. Won't work today as it never has worked previously.
you need to admit that none of those witnesses is qualified to simply look at molten material, from 50 feet away, and declare with 100% certainty what the contents are. admit it, or its clear the Truth is not your agenda.
to prove it is molten steel as you keep wanting to claim you have to have at least a reasonable explanation where did it all come from
it doesn't matter what those so called eyewitness claimed they are woefully mistaken unless Bob can give us a reasonable explanation where did all that molten steel come from molten aluminum can easily be explained where it came from the plane
I don't need to do any such thing for any reason. It doesn't change any of the facts or the reality about the eyewitness claims. They are what they are, take it or leave it.
Jeez what a pathetic and nonsensical reach. Now I personally have to explain what the 9/11 eyewitnesses claim they saw, otherwise it's all dismissable.
reach? for that to be molten steel as you keep claiming it had to have had a source it didn't materialize out of no where now did it
and any one with any common sense takes it as a woefully mistaken account because any reasonable person would need to know where did all that molten steel come from for that to be molten steel
This explains Thermite Nolice it works in very small confined areas? Molten aluminum is gushing out of the building. So what is the supply of molten aluminum? This is so simple. It is the melting 757 Boeing aircraft. Thermite can be used to weld RR tracks. But does not melt the entire track, it puts molten metal into the small joint. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite#Ignition - - - Updated - - - What makes the witnesses experts? Maybe good old Bob can explain his reliance on them. - - - Updated - - - Yes or no. Do you accept the statements from far below eyewitnesses? If you accept them, explain why.
I admire the fact you reduced what they say to just claims. Maybe next you will actually challenge them and not we posters.
they made the claims. the claims may be wrong. why? cause they didn't test the material, and very few people can look at molten material from 50 feet away and declare with certainty what the material consists of. if they instead called it "molten aluminum", you'd be yelling and screaming that there is no way they could make such a determination simply by sight from 50 feet away.
Again for the umpteenth time, it isn't MY claim, the claim belongs to eyewitnesses. As far as a source, I posted that too. One eyewitness said he saw the "melting of girders at world trade center", so there's the source you're looking for, the GIRDER, which is of course made of steel. Others claim they saw the "ends of beams dripping". So there's yet another source, the BEAMs, which are also of course made of steel. Logically, if many eyewitnesses claim they saw molten steel, some described as rivers, well there were tons of steel girders and beams that could have melted into "rivers". So there's the "source" you're looking for. Further, none of the eyewitnesses made any claims about seeing molten aluminum, so the idea that this was all really molten aluminum is contrary to all the eyewitness claims. Quit making this about me, i wasn't there, I didn't see any of it, the eyewitnesses did and their claims are all documented. Taking out your denials on me doesn't change any of the facts, it never did and never will. If YOU don't believe ALL the eyewitnesses, contact any of them and ask them questions. Questioning me about what eyewitnesses claim they saw doesn't change anything, it's disingenuous.
No one ever said witnesses are experts, although some of them are. For the same reason the legal system, any court in the US and logic and common sense says you have to rely on eyewitnesses. Whether eyewitnesses are right or wrong is another matter, and sometimes they contradict each other, sometimes they corroborate each other. But rejecting them or their claims without investigating and/or because you don't like their claims is utter nonsense and extremely foolish. I don't know what you mean by "accept". They are what they are, REAL claims. I don't reject any eyewitness claim unless and until proven invalid by the evidence.
Absolutely, and they also may be right. What you want to believe is that they are ALL wrong even though they ALL say the same thing. That's called corroboration. Worse, you have no standing whatsoever in deciding if they are right or wrong, no one does other than investigators. Well that's true, but it doesn't make any of their corroborating claims wrong, if that's what you're hoping for. It is the job of investigators, in this case NIST, to test the material(s) based on the eyewitness claims. But NIST admits they didn't do that because John Gross LIED when he claimed he never heard of any of these eyewitness claims. Furthermore, one claim is that he saw the "melting of girders" and others saw "the ends of beams dripping". Well I don't know about you but if I saw a girder melt or a beam dripping, I wouldn't need to test it to see what it's made of. But I'm not an investigator and that's not my job, same with those eyewitnesses. However, I am not saying the evidence should not be tested, of course it should, no matter what, that is standard investigative protocol, something NIST DID NOT DO. Why do you need to invent nonsense about me? It doesn't help your argument and only makes you sound ridiculous. Stick to the facts, if you can.
Well, if they can tell the difference in the various molten metals, from 80 stories down, they are far better than metallurgists. <<< MODERATOR EDIT:FLAMEBAIT >>>