911 WTC World Trade Towers, Did Thermate do This?

You can drop the name calling.

In the higher resolution pictures that I posted, you can see the debris of WTC 1 and where it crushed sections of WTC 6. A 105 story steel framed building collapsing down onto an 8 story building in close proximity. That's not 'light debris'.

Want to see down in the hole? Ok.



Note that this is already into the cleanup, as evidenced by the trucks and cleanup gear. Can you see the beams, facade and other debris from WTC 1 now?

 

as usual with you people, because its blown out and because it has a little debris in it you will claim that little debris cause the building to collapse regardless. There was much less damage to other buildings with much larger chunks. Anyway that is not the topic of this thread.

Lets get this back on course.


What turned the steel to dust.

 

As usual, you dismiss what you can't refute.

Sounds like another killtown sock on here.

The steel did not turn to dust.

 

Regardless of what? Do you have some other evidence that the collapse was caused in some other fashion?

By all means, present it.

Also, how have you measured the quantity of debris? Are you simply taking a guess based on what you can see? After all, the debris is in a pile, and the pile extends down into the foundation of the building.

In the picture right in your previous post, how large is the pile of debris inside the building? Do you have any idea? How tall is the pile? How far below ground does it extend? What is the mass of the pile? What part of the WTC did the debris come from? Can you answer any of these questions or are you just going to prattle on about Godzilla and dust?

 

its off topic if you want to start a thread be my guest

 

you do not seem to get it.

you tried with epic fail I might add to make a case that the steel would have burst into flames.

I have asked repeatedly now for you to demonstrate a case where this has happened unless you think hi power flints from space were aimed at the columns LOL

btw demolitions collapse buildings too.

 

You want me to demonstrate a case where something I'm telling you hasn't happened has happened? What kind of nonsense is that?

Steel wasn't turned to dust.

If it was rapidly turned to dust in the way you claim it would rapidly oxidize and release a burst of light and heat.

You can witness this process yourself every single time you expose Fe to O at room temperature.

So far the score here is:

Me: science

You: But it looks like steel turns to dust in a video.

Do you care to refute the science or are you just going to cling to your video and ignore the science?

 

so light it up bubba!

dont delay!

light that baby UP!

 

He's told you it can't happen, so you ask him to demonstrate it happening? How is that in the least bit logical?

 

huh?

you mean he shot his whole argument down?

ok

you wanna take his place be my guest!

he is claiming that iron powder goes poof into flames and has been dancing ever since I demanded some kind of proof.

flint from alien moon bases scratching the columns do not cut it.

He should be able to light it up just like he claims would have happened on the the towers.

I am laughing watching him dance and repeat ad homenen the same loser argument with no demonstration what so ever that it is plausible much less likely or even less possible.

go for it!

 

He never once said iron powder goes 'poof into flames'. You are completely misrepresenting his argument.

It has been shown by Fangbeer that steel cannot be turned to dust in the manner you are claiming happens in the posted pictures. You have yet to present any sort of explination as to how you believe it to be possible.

The steel at the WTC did not turn into dust.

 

nah, shown is your word to sweep and real demonstration under the carpet.

Try "claimed". LOL

I dont recall the TOS requiring me to make a claim now does it.

I simply am making an observation, a very simple one that truly is a no brainer for an iq of 22 LOL

He and you make the claim it cannot happen, you and he are epic failures in DEMONSTRATING your claims.

 

Your topic is idiotic. The steel did not turn to dust. Therefore it is senseless to argue what could turn steel to dust.

It's like arguing about what kind of cheese the moon is made of.

 

[ame="http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7eT-buIKUpY"]http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7eT-buIKUpY[/ame]

 

I never denied that under specific and proper conditions that you could not get steel to burn.

I mean like its a given.

You people still do not get it.

You made the claim now put up what the proper elements and conditions are to have that happen with the WTC.

Just showing steel wool burning thinking it somehow applies is infantile and frankly funny as hell.

Oh wait maybe you are claiming that the columns were really steel wool? LOL

 

yeh it gets a little bit rough trying to refute a slap in the face dunit LOL

even a 5 year old can see a slap in the face. rough very rough

 

You would think Jojo would get tired of being slapped.

 

The claim is that it didn't happen at the WTC. Steel did not turn to dust, nor burst into flame. This is exactly what we have been saying all along: 'dustification' is impossible.

 

People with a higher functioning IQ realize that this simple observation is false. You are not witnessing steel turn to dust. Steel is pyrophoric. That means the iron content in the steel will rapidly combine with the oxygen in the atmosphere and release a large amount of energy. We don't see this happen in your video, so we can be sure we don't see steel turning to dust.

If you were honest about learning about this process you would know that there are plenty of YouTube videos showing this reaction taking place. All you have to do to get steel to combust is eliminate the passivation layer, and expose the steel to oxygen.

The passivation layer on a steel beam is on the outside of the beam, the parts that are exposed to oxygen. If you rapidly turn the beam to dust all of the unoxidized iron from the middle of the beam will rapidly oxidize. This is the science. You can't refute it, and you look silly calling people unintelligent when you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

I said dust not molecularized

How rapid is rapid

yeh and what your are claiming amounts to the same intelligence is "water is liquid: therefore it cannot be a solid.

If you were honest about your claims you would post those you tube vids since you claim there are so many but we all know why you dont LOL

What the other guy posted does not even apply and I have not seen ONE youtube video that applies, so by all means POST IT!

another epic fail for you

 

Who are you arguing with? What do you think molecularized means? Clearly you think it means something different then another word you made up: "dustified"

Rapid enough to create visible light that could be seen in video.

I didn't realize you needed me to hold your hand.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAC3l9cclNI"]Pyrophoric Iron - YouTube[/ame]

If you had looked into this yourself you would have found this video very quickly. I would be embarrassed if I were you. Instead you chose to argue from a position of ignorance. That's never a good idea.

That's even sadder...

Now you have at least.

 

Dance truthers, DANCE!!! The last hopes of the truther bowel movement, and these guys can't even come close to putting up a good argument.

Here's another question Koko can't answer about his crap theory. Wouldn't it take massive amounts of energy to "dustify" that much steel? If so, where did the energy come from and how do you get 100% energy efficiency? I say that because there is absolutely no wasted energy. There is no light. No apparent heat. No wind. NOTHING.

Have fun dancing as you run away yet again, Koko!

 

In fact you might even go so far as to laugh if I said I can get water to burn, and that is easy! LOL

but water is wet it cant burn right?

 

wasted words, it falls on deaf ears. I am not the one dancing, your pal fang is dancing.

Its doubtful you know anything what so ever about energy unless you have studied and fully understand the work of this man.

You have the same invitation, get behind fang and help him find something to show his theory is even plausible much less probable, much less possible in terms of the observations regarding the wtc LOL


Now before you really stick your foot in your mouth, Tesla is the guy that designed the ac system used throughout the world that powers your house, and the ac polyphase motors etc. and had remote controlled boats that had NO on board power source and not only were remotely controlled as steering etc but also remotely powered as well that he drove around in new york harbor in 1900. 1900 is not a typo. LOL Far more credible than einfraud.

 

Are those the ramblings of someone who can't directly respond to my post?

I say yes.