Audio of the explosives which brought down WTC 7

[LunarRay]

I'd be curious how a bullet, even a fragment sounded like a ring hitting the floor.

Their quote, not mine... 🙂 We do have evidence of the 'something' being picked up and placed into her pocket and then an envelope and nurse initialing it... (some issues there, however) and Connolly saying he was aware of that jingling sound hitting the tile floor.. Bullets don't jingle but then again 'explosions' might mean noise of great decible level... and not that C4 was ignited... His statement was that it was a bullet and it made a noise when it hit the floor... like a ring hitting the floor... what might that sound like... mine goes thud... but it is about 3/4 ounce..
I don't know!

 

[LunarRay]

i'm curious which part of the magic bullet that fragment came from...maybe someone could circle the areas on the magic bullet that is missing any sort of fragment large enough to make a ringing sound?

heh heh ....

I'll circle the entire event and say that within that circle lay the evidence and facts. But, like the braille on the drive up window at my bank... Or "Service Dogs only" at dog eye height at my Post Office's entry door... There is probably an explanation that is not evident immediately or even 47 yrs later...


I like to look at 9/11 as being just like the Official Folks say it is... and then look at what don't fit and why.

I think you really have to ask yourself the why questions... Why collapse the buildings? What is the point? Why put explosives all over the place when carting it into the basement and setting it off before the plane hits would guarantee a topple over... and then Why collapse them and then put folks in jeopardy from the air/dust just to keep Wall street open?... Ya see there are some breaks in the logic there..
I gotta figure that if there are no good answers as to why then what we see is not what is... Usually what is is consistent with why it is...

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

No kidding it's a fact normal steel doesn't melt at 1,000C, yet FEMA mentioned it because the steel still melted, and classified it as such, stating "substantially lower than would be expected for melting this steel." They also clearly stated "eutectic" over and over and over again because guess what? eutectic = lower melting point.

basic reading comprehension, kid. how does that crow taste? the steel melted, LyingChicken continues to lie.

You tell me how the crow tastes, kid. I've been force feeding it to you for a while now. You're simply too stupid to recognize that you've been gulping it down by the proverbial boatload.

Guess what. Eutectic doesn't mean "lower melting point" as you are trying to define it. You cannot introduce any composition to A36 steel or high-strength steel that will suddenly lower its melting point. It doesn't happen. For a steel to be eutectic is MUST BE formulated as a eutectic alloy in the first place. A36 steel is not a eutectic alloy. Neither is high-strength steel. The eutectic that FEMA refers to was a mixture that primarily contained iron, oxygen, and sulfur. THAT is the eutectic composition. THAT eutectic mixture caused a corrosive attack in the steel.

One more time, because you haven't shown the cranial capacity to comprehend anything the first time around (or even the second, third, or forth). The A36 steel was not a eutectic alloy. The high-strength steel was not a eutectic alloy. They do not and cannot magically melt at lower temperatures. The actual eutectic mixture came in contact with the A36 and high-strength steels and a corrosive attack commenced on the steel, primarily down the intergranular pathways. When the steel cooled below the eutectic temperature, the eutectic mix solidified in the intergranular areas where it had essentially etched its way in. That bit of intrusion, btw, only happened in the near surface microstructure.

Got it yet? Probably not, but I'm willing to take a chance that it might sink into that fat fucking head of yours.

As was clearly stated above, eutectic = lower melting point, and FEMA has consistently classified the steel as melted. Something lowered the melting point of the steel and made it melt. Get THAT through your thick head, moron. That "something" has still not been addressed by NIST or you. Go ahead and figure out what exactly melted "swiss cheese" like holes through that steel, liar.

You have already shown that you don't have a clue what is happening here and that you can't properly comprehend or interpret a scientific paper. That's becauase you're nothing more than an ignorant idiot, without sufficient scientific foundation or knowledge on this subject, who read something on a truther nutjob website and subsequently imagined he knew what he was talking about. Well you don't know what you're talking about and you're making a complete fool of yourself in the process because I'm beating you around like a red-headed stepchild on this issue.

Go get some actual scientific background on this subject before you attempt to broach it, kid, because you are way out of your knowledge zone and I will continue to own you on this argument and demonstrate how ignorant you in the process.

 

[xj0hnx]

dumbass refers to you and your jfk quote in my sig, which xjohnx called you out on an hour ago.

I didn't "call" anyone out, except you for being a complete tool that doesn't have a clue what he is talking about.

 

[al981]

You tell me how the crow tastes, kid. I've been force feeding it to you for a while now. You're simply too stupid to recognize that you've been gulping it down by the proverbial boatload.

Guess what. Eutectic doesn't mean "lower melting point" as you are trying to define it. You cannot introduce any composition to A36 steel or high-strength steel that will suddenly lower its melting point. It doesn't happen. For a steel to be eutectic is MUST BE formulated as a eutectic alloy in the first place. A36 steel is not a eutectic alloy. Neither is high-strength steel. The eutectic that FEMA refers to was a mixture that primarily contained iron, oxygen, and sulfur. THAT is the eutectic composition. THAT eutectic mixture caused a corrosive attack in the steel.

Ah good ole LyingChicken, no matter how hard you try to spin it, it is a given fact and definitive proof that WTC steel melted. Even if it melted on just a microscopic level, it melted, as admitted by FEMA. No ifs, ands, or buts. It is downright hilarious watching you deny this basic fact, because it destroys your lying claim that no wtc steel melted ... and you've been spewing this lie for several years on all 9/11 threads LOL. Just one of many buckets of crow you've had to open wide for in this thread alone.

As for "eutectic", a slight mistatement, but i've already stated and established numerous times a foreign entity attacked, caused corrosion, and subsequently melted down that steel [as admitted by fema], creating gigantic holes through that steel which you cannot deny, which has never been seen before in the history of any building fire. then again, no fires before or after 9/11 have ever caused steel framed skycrapers to collapse either. the burden of proof is now on YOU and other liars to find a natural cause for said holes and the melting down of that steel. after almost 10 years, you have nothing and have stayed deadly silent on that simple aspect of the collapse, and so has has NIST 😀 no doubt you'll continue playing the dodge game, just like how you've dodged the confirmed explosions on audio in the original post. the moment you acknowledge those explosions (whatever they may be from) on audio exist, then you have acknowledged that NIST has ignored such evidence and lied that there were no audio of explosions caught on tape.

also:

Ladies and gets, notice that once again, LyingChicken has flat out dodged and pussied out from admitting that Sunder's statement directly contradicts the national geographic claim he posted.

Here, let me post it again for you, since you continue to dodge and can't man up to admit it:

sunder is ON RECORD stating : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVE34kMwn0U#t=3m40s

"And, if you looked at the amount of thermite or thermate needed to bring this building down, you would had to place a hundred pounds of thermite right in proximity to the column ... because what thermite does is actually melt the steel."


Also, Lyingchicken, why are you completely dodging the romero response in post# 1315? because romero saying the "terrorists" planted a few well placed bombs somehow works against the case for controlled demolition??? LoL at your pathetic failed logic and continually dodging when you get served crow.

 

[al981]

I didn't "call" anyone out,

your jfk statment directly contradicts cogman's quote in my sig, and proves the us government covered up the assassination of its own president. nice job destroying cogman's pathetic explanation, kid :awe:

"spinning too fast" ..haha...still cracks me up.

 

[xj0hnx]

your jfk statment directly contradicts cogman's quote in my sig, and proves the us government covered up the assassination of its own president. nice job destroying cogman's pathetic explanation, kid :awe:

"spinning too fast" ..haha...still cracks me up.

We aren't talking about JFK, we are talking about 9/11, I know the facts in the case are contradictory to your story line, but please stop deflecting and trying to change the subject to hide your delusion.

 

[airdata]

Most people don't anything about tower 7. John Kerry is on tape talking about how they had to bring down tower 7, so are many other people.

 

[xj0hnx]

Most people don't anything about tower 7. John Kerry is on tape talking about how they had to bring down tower 7, so are many other people.

Link? Was John Kerry on the ground that day? There were a lot of firefighters there that could tell it was coming down.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

snip

I see you didn't learn your lesson last time and now your back to get owned again. Well I'm more than happy to own your ignorant ass every time you show up in here, fool.

Let me explain the paper to you in more detail so you can comprehend exactly why the steel didn't melt, even on a microscopic level. Maybe I can dumb it down enough so even YOU can grasp it?

Here is the important statement in the paper:

Evidence of a severe high-temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranualar melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure.

First some definitions are in order:

Oxidation - In the case of steel this simply means rusting.

Sulfidation - This is an accelerated oxidation process caused by the presence of sulfide and/or sulfate compounds. Salt is a common compound that causes sulfidation. That's why cars that are exposed to salted roads during wintertime in the north tend to rust faster than cars that are not exposed to such conditions.

Intergranular melting - All formed steel has a grain structure of which there are various types. This structure is determined by the alloy composition, the production process (like forging, hot rolling, cold rolling, etc), and subsequent post-treatments such as quenching and various heat treatments. The actual steel is contained in the grains of the structure. Between the grains (intergranular) there are various elements (carbon, copper, manganese, etc.) that help to hold the steel grains together and impart specific properties to the steel alloy as a whole.

So what happened to the steel?

First the beam oxidized. iow, it rusted. Then there was a sulfidation attack which accelerated the rusting process. After that there was intergranular melting. The compounds between the steel grains liquified, likely due to contact with the eutectic compound, which was a formation between the sulfur salts (sufides and sulfates), rust (iron oxide), and the high-temperatures.

No actual steel melted in this process. Of course, you have to understand the mechanisms and processes in the first place to comprehend that fact and clearly neither you or the rest of the truther dumbasses seem to have that capability.

btw, I'd like to mention another issue. If you concede that the "melting" only happened in the near surface microstructure, and on microscopic levels, how do you now explain where all that "molten steel" came from? Microscopic amounts of melting surely couldn't account for pools and rivers of molten steel. So where did it come from? Do tell?

Additionally, if thermite was used, as you claim, why was no post-reaction residue detected in the FEMA tests? There should have been copious amounts of aluminum oxide. Where is it?

Face it kid. You're way out of your element because you have no critical thinking skills and you don't have the knowledge or education to employ critical thinking on this subject in the first place. That why you have to use deception and dishonesty, along with exhibiting the behaviour of a grade-school child, when you post your truther bs.

Feel free to keep it up though. Folks like you are the best advertising to demonstrate why truthers are so full of shit.

 

[LunarRay]

(...) Ah good ole LyingChicken, no matter how hard you try to spin it, it is a given fact and definitive proof that WTC steel melted. Even if it melted on just a microscopic level, it melted, as admitted by FEMA. No ifs, ands, or buts. It is downright hilarious watching you deny this basic fact, because it destroys your lying claim that no wtc steel melted ... and you've been spewing this lie for several years on all 9/11 threads LOL. Just one of many buckets of crow you've had to open wide for in this thread alone.
(...)

'Melted' in the context of my usage is a lot more melting than needing a stereo microscope to see.

The gizmo in the sky taking thermal images of the site did show surface hot spots in a few locations that had to have significant temperatures down the 70' or so that these 'furnaces' lived.
I don't know what might have caused that but it is a reality. Some say it was due to the way oxygen was funneled to the sites... Whatever it was it was seen by folks and depicted in recovered steel columns, the so called meteor, two of the four crosses or X's they found... and more than enough credible commentary describing '... like molten lave...', etc...

I don't know what was dripping from the 80th floor... maybe aluminium or what ever...

There are probably more than many possible scenario that can account for the hot spots and molten metal but it is a reality and of that I'm convinced...

On another topic... the roof of just about every vehicle in that area suffered 'Abnormal rusting'... Or 'burning' or what ever it is... Something caused that rusting, etc. to occur. And it was not the Hudson or East Rivers... (salt). Something from the buildings settled on the cars and destroyed them, well... and the emergency vehicles too. Anything metal and subject to rusting was rusted... or what ever it is that occurred to those vehicles. So FEMA's incomprehensible findings in the columns seems in sync with the cars/trucks and etc. The hood of my cousin's patrol car and roof had holes right on through it. It was, according to him, parked 'blocks away'.

 

[al981]

snip

Notice how the LyingChicken still won't address Sunder's direct contradiction that destroys national geographic's pathetic argument, nor does he address his pathetic argument regarding romero 😀😀 How many dodges is this? going on month #2. pussy.

It's a given fact the steel melted, and was acknowledged by FEMA. Your continual denials are pathetic, and shows you will lie through your teeth and not admit this basic fact. no ifs ands or buts. The steel was melted, and gigantic holes are visible right through steel. The numerous corroborated witnesses who saw "molten" steel are not lying, including those who specifically stated steel beams were dripping with molten metal. Your only defense is calling them liars 😀 or lying that no steel melted, contrary to the facts stated by FEMA. wtc7 steel has proven to be melted by an entity which you still cannot explain, a non natural foreign entity. funny how you still won't offer an answer to what caused gigantic holes through certified steel. science has proven natural office materials cannot melt the steel you lie about 🙂 continue to dodge, you lying pussy.


edit#1: month #2 the lying pussy has dodged the simple jfk challenge about my sig 🙂. in fact, you've dodged 90% of all my points in this thread, including the simple fact that pre collapse explosions and rumblings are confirmed on audio and by eyewitnesses. dodge dodge dodge you pussy.

edit#2: LyingChicken, I want you to acknowledge for a fact that pre collapse explosions of wtc7 are caught on audio, which NIST did not ackowledge or consider into their collapse theory. Go ahead pussy, admit it.

 

[al981]

There are probably more than many possible scenario that can account for the hot spots and molten metal but it is a reality and of that I'm convinced...

reality.. you might want to introduce it to LyingChicken. he offers no scientific / plausible explanation for such thermal images, and lies through his teeth that the wtc7 steel did not melt 🙂

 

[LunarRay]

reality.. you might want to introduce it to LyingChicken. he offers no scientific / plausible explanation for such thermal images, and lies through his teeth that the wtc7 steel did not melt 🙂

IF a person ignores or treats as biased or inaccurate an unbiased and scientifically sound source of information - the thermal images - then the discussion ends for me with that person. We simply see the same thing but very differently and I have no way to sway that person's position toward mine. The images are axiomatic.
The thermal images are not proof beyond doubt of anything other than what they purport to be and that is the existence of substantial heat locations at the WTC site and very substantial heat in three locations which happen to be where the towers and WTC7 once stood. And that since they are surface readings one can extrapolate to a reasonable degree of accuracy what the originating temperatures (70' or so from the surface under the rubble) have to be at the time the images were produced. Those extrapolations by knowledgeable folks indicate temps capable of melting many metals.
The point, as I see it, is; what made the hot spots that hot. Sooooo, how can one pursue the logical next step if the premise for that next step is not accepted?
I see this and any thread in P&N as being an exchange of ideas relative to a premise. It is fine to deny the premise but that then ought to deny the discussion because the next step are the name calling and worse comments that serve no purpose relative to supposed objective...

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

snip

Your crap about Sunder was already addressed previously in this thread. The fact that you cannot comprehend why Sunder's statement does not contradict the test documented by National Geographic (which shows that thermite can't even cut through a column SMALLER than the ones used in the WTC buildings) is your problem of denial, not mine, foolish one.

You also can't seem to comprehend why the steel didn't actually melt. I've dumbed it down as much as possible and you still don't grasp it. Again, that is your failing, not mine.

Last of all, I don't care about your JFK hangup. It has nothing to do with this thread and to imagine that someone must respond to any ridiculous challenge you throw at them shows how certifiably out of your fucking mind you are.

Come up with some new material, kiddy. The same old crap coming out of your jackhole has long become stale and boring. I doubt you have anything else besides text that you can copy and paste from some lunatic's website or your gradeschool taunts though so I don't really expect anything new from you. You're typical truther trash.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

'Melted' in the context of my usage is a lot more melting than needing a stereo microscope to see.

Seems like algae ran away from responding to that "reality."

On another topic... the roof of just about every vehicle in that area suffered 'Abnormal rusting'... Or 'burning' or what ever it is... Something caused that rusting, etc. to occur. And it was not the Hudson or East Rivers... (salt). Something from the buildings settled on the cars and destroyed them, well... and the emergency vehicles too. Anything metal and subject to rusting was rusted... or what ever it is that occurred to those vehicles. So FEMA's incomprehensible findings in the columns seems in sync with the cars/trucks and etc. The hood of my cousin's patrol car and roof had holes right on through it. It was, according to him, parked 'blocks away'.

There's a simple answer. All the super-stealthy ninjas that planted the thermite in the buildings snuck around while people were preoccupied watching the buildings collapse and planted thermite on all the cars in the area too. Just ask algae. He probably has audio of their footsteps.

 

[xj0hnx]

notice how the lyingchicken still won't address sunder's direct contradiction that destroys national geographic's pathetic argument, nor does he address his pathetic argument regarding romero :d:d how many dodges is this? Going on month #2. Pussy.

There is no contradiction you dumb fuck that's what he is trying to get through your dense, helmet wearing head.

 

[al981]

Your crap about Sunder was already addressed previously in this thread. The fact that you cannot comprehend why Sunder's statement does not contradict the test documented by National Geographic (which shows that thermite can't even cut through a column SMALLER than the ones used in the WTC buildings) is your problem of denial, not mine, foolish one.

It is a direct contradiction, and if sunder is correct, then it means the experiment that national geographic referenced was either a lie or flawed. if the experiment is correct, then sunder is full of shit with his claim. you have yet to choose one. dodge more, lying pussy.

You also can't seem to comprehend why the steel didn't actually melt. I've dumbed it down as much as possible and you still don't grasp it. Again, that is your failing, not mine.

The steel melted, as classified and admitted by FEMA. Notice how you dodged 90% of the material related to that melted steel, including acknowledging gigantic holes are visible, and you have dodged from stating what foreign entity caused such damage.

Last of all, I don't care about your JFK hangup. It has nothing to do with this thread and to imagine that someone must respond to any ridiculous challenge you throw at them shows how certifiably out of your fucking mind you are.

another pussy dodge from the liar. it's a simple challenge thrown to your face since you decided to mouth off and continually back government lies. funny how you can't even man up and respond about the jfk issue in my sig, or have the guts to post in the jfk thread. keep dodging, pussy.

Come up with some new material, kiddy. The same old crap coming out of your jackhole has long become stale and boring. I doubt you have anything else besides text that you can copy and paste from some lunatic's website or your gradeschool taunts though so I don't really expect anything new from you. You're typical truther trash.

LoL! same old pathetic dodging from the proven liar. say chicken, why is it you continue dodging romero, sunder, and flat out refusing to acknowledge pre collapse explosions caught on audio for wtc7 destroys NIST's claim that no audio exists? haha.

 

[al981]

There is no contradiction you dumb fuck that's what he is trying to get through your dense, helmet wearing head.

sure there is. as posted before:

It is a direct contradiction, and if sunder is correct, then it means the experiment that national geographic referenced was either a lie or flawed. if the experiment is correct, then sunder is full of shit with his claim. you have yet to choose one. dodge more, lying pussy.

 

[xj0hnx]

more dumb shit from al981

You only think it's a "contradiction" because you don't have the mental faculties to grasp what is said. You are like child asking why, why, why even though it's be explained to you ad nauseum.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

It is a direct contradiction, and if sunder is correct, then it means the experiment that national geographic referenced was either a lie or flawed. if the experiment is correct, then sunder is full of shit with his claim. you have yet to choose one. dodge more, lying pussy.

False, dumbass. Sunder only claimed that thermite would melt steel. If it just melted the near surface, it still melted, right (Your own statement)? Sunder never claimed the steel would melt ALL OF THE WAY THROUGH. In fact, NG showed that it wouldn't melt all of the way through.

See no contradiciton whatsoever, except in your ignorant head.

The steel melted, as classified and admitted by FEMA. Notice how you dodged 90% of the material related to that melted steel, including acknowledging gigantic holes are visible, and you have dodged from stating what foreign entity caused such damage.

Gigantic holes are visible? Are you assuming the steel was in perfectly fine condition prior to 9/11? It seems you are, and that's an assumption for which you have no proof whatsoever. But it wouldn't be the first conclusion you jumped to in this thread and likely won't be the last either.

It's not even known where this steel came from. Was it exposed to weathering or conditions that would cause it to corrode long before the 9/11 attack? But why would I assume a truther is actually looking at all the possibilities? They only look for whatever they can shoehorn into their dogma and discard or ignore the rest.

another pussy dodge from the liar. it's a simple challenge thrown to your face since you decided to mouth off and continually back government lies. funny how you can't even man up and respond about the jfk issue in my sig, or have the guts to post in the jfk thread. keep dodging, pussy.

And around and around. I don't care about your JFK obsession, jackass. Get that through your thick skull.

It's ironic that after I've proven you to be knowingly deceptive and dishonest that you go around calling others "liars." But you're probably too stupid to know what irony is as well since you seem to have the comprehension skills of a retarded slug.

LoL! same old pathetic dodging from the proven liar. say chicken, why is it you continue dodging romero, sunder, and flat out refusing to acknowledge pre collapse explosions caught on audio for wtc7 destroys NIST's claim that no audio exists? haha.

You are so delusional it's not even funny.

 

[LunarRay]

I'm probably confused a bit here... But:

It seems to me that you can provide all the ingredients for 'Thermate' (or what ever the appropriate term is) in the natural order of things from those buildings... All you need are the constituent bits... They'd not probably be all mixed together on the nano scale but you do have enough heat to start the reaction if you can get the aluminium and rust and what not to be in very proximate locations to each other... That might produce the 'hot spots', the vehicle destruction, the oddity of steel FEMA found and perhaps the bits found in the dust...
Which brings me to what I still find odd... but odd from the pov of the finders of Super Thermate... What is this grey substance that is on the other side of the red stuff... the supposed Super Thermate? It is bonded together and they said there are layers found ... sorta like paint over paint over paint in my mind's eye...

Something really did a job on the the metal parts of the vehicles... leaving the seats and non metal stuff alone... I know the tires on some were something'ed but think that to be separate cuz it was not universal. And the metal in the rubble also suffered (in some areas) from a similar event... it seems.

The faces of the towers were coated in aluminum, I think... or read that.

I can't imagine the steel inside the buildings being in pristine condition and not rusted a bit anyhow... I mean NYC is sorta near the ocean... and suspect the Hudson has salt in it too... and bits of all sorts of stuff... or did when I was a kid...

 

[LunarRay]

Also, pictures of the steel hauled to Staten Island does not show the 'tell tale' signs of cutting nor explosive events having occurred to them... not one picture reflects this and for me that is evidence that can't be simply ignored... IF the towers were exploded floor by floor or even every few floors the steel would reflect this... At least in my universe it would.

I do realize some structures were cut by torches... but I never saw that either.... maybe the pictures that did show that were stolen by the FBI and reside in a box in the corner of some office.

Folks say the interior columns were MASSIVE... ok... that is nice... and I think it would take a MASSIVE amount of explosives to cut or melt them... and all the eye balls watching the trucks go back and forth didn't relate anything about "Look Charlie... that was blown up... "... and if you know New Yorkers... We love a conspiracy...

 

[al981]

False, dumbass. Sunder only claimed that thermite would melt steel. If it just melted the near surface, it still melted, right (Your own statement)? Sunder never claimed the steel would melt ALL OF THE WAY THROUGH. In fact, NG showed that it wouldn't melt all of the way through.

See no contradiciton whatsoever, except in your ignorant head.

Oh, there exists a contradiction, but you will just continue to lie as you've been doing for years. LyingChicken, proven lying pussy.

Let's go through this one more time, because i enjoy serving crow down your throat every single post (also, why do you continue to dodge 90% of the facts i point out? pussy.)

Originally Posted by TastesLikeChicken , post #920:

"See bolded part above. It's been tested and shown that thermite could not have done the job. Nano-thermite does not have properties that makes it any more efficient at cutting massive beams and/or columns."



Now, let's go through this again. You and national geographic just claimed that thermite/nano are not able to do the job to melt steel and bring a building down. Yet Sunder blows away your bullshit lie by stating:

Sunder: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVE34kMwn0U#t=3m40s

".. and if you looked at the amount of thermite or thermate needed to bring this building down, you would have needed to place 100 pounds of thermite right in proximity to the column ... because what thermite does is melt the steel.

Now, Sunder just contradicted national geographic twice. One in stating that thermite can in fact do the job in bringing that building down, and stating for a fact that thermite does indeed melt the steel. Now you pos liar, acknowledge there is a contradiction. Once you man up and admit that basic fact, pick who is lying: is national geographic lying its ass off? or is sunder lying his ass off? whoever you pick, enjoy that crow, you proven liar. inc dodge!

Gigantic holes are visible? Are you assuming the steel was in perfectly fine condition prior to 9/11? It seems you are, and that's an assumption for which you have no proof whatsoever. But it wouldn't be the first conclusion you jumped to in this thread and likely won't be the last either.

It's not even known where this steel came from. Was it exposed to weathering or conditions that would cause it to corrode long before the 9/11 attack? But why would I assume a truther is actually looking at all the possibilities? They only look for whatever they can shoehorn into their dogma and discard or ignore the rest.

LOL. ok... so you refuse admit the fact that steel melted despite FEMA confirming it, so now you're dodging by claiming it was damaged before 9/11. dodge dodge dodge he goes! ok, go find another piece of steel in the history of a fire collapse that was melted and had gigantic holes through it. it is your claim that weathering conditions damaged it, so provide evidence.

And around and around. I don't care about your JFK obsession, jackass. Get that through your thick skull.

hahaha. round and round the dodging pussy goes again! i just threw a simple challenge in your face, and you have chosen to dodge it for months. just like how you dodged the simple acknowledgements that the pre collapse explosions caught on audio in kyle's original post directly contradict NISTs claims that no explosions on audio exist. dodge more. pussy.

edit: another week goes by, another dodge of my response regarding romero. like i said, you dodge 90% of the facts i post because you don't have a clue what you're talking about, and can't face facts that destroy blatant government lies 🙂

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Oh, there exists a contradiction, but you will just continue to lie as you've been doing for years. LyingChicken, proven lying pussy.

Let's go through this one more time, because i enjoy serving crow down your throat every single post (also, why do you continue to dodge 90% of the facts i point out? pussy.)

Originally Posted by TastesLikeChicken , post #920:

"See bolded part above. It's been tested and shown that thermite could not have done the job. Nano-thermite does not have properties that makes it any more efficient at cutting massive beams and/or columns."



Now, let's go through this again. You and national geographic just claimed that thermite/nano are not able to do the job to melt steel and bring a building down. Yet Sunder blows away your bullshit lie by stating:

Sunder: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVE34kMwn0U#t=3m40s

".. and if you looked at the amount of thermite or thermate needed to bring this building down, you would have needed to place 100 pounds of thermite right in proximity to the column ... because what thermite does is melt the steel.

Now, Sunder just contradicted national geographic twice. One in stating that thermite can in fact do the job in bringing that building down, and stating for a fact that thermite does indeed melt the steel. Now you pos liar, acknowledge there is a contradiction. Once you man up and admit that basic fact, pick who is lying: is national geographic lying its ass off? or is sunder lying his ass off? whoever you pick, enjoy that crow, you proven liar. inc dodge!

Another of your quote bastardizations?

Why do you omit the part where sunder talks about how there must be a constant inward force on that thermite to maintain contact with the steel? Why do you feel the need to be deceptive and selectively quote him?

It's because you're a dishonest tool. That's why. That's also why you can't seem to comprehend why what Sunder is saying and the test documented by National Geographic are not in conflict.

Maybe I should begin selectively quoting your tripe? I bet I can distort the holy hell out of what you are actually saying.

LOL. ok... so you refuse admit the fact that steel melted despite FEMA confirming it, so now you're dodging by claiming it was damaged before 9/11. dodge dodge dodge he goes! ok, go find another piece of steel in the history of a fire collapse that was melted and had gigantic holes through it. it is your claim that weathering conditions damaged it, so provide evidence.

Are you some kind of new moron? I've already explained to you that FEMA did not confirm any melting of the steel. We've been over this and yet you STILL don't fucking get it. What is your major malfunction boy?

hahaha. round and round the dodging pussy goes again! i just threw a simple challenge in your face, and you have chosen to dodge it for months. just like how you dodged the simple acknowledgements that the pre collapse explosions caught on audio in kyle's original post directly contradict NISTs claims that no explosions on audio exist. dodge more. pussy.

edit: another week goes by, another dodge of my response regarding romero. like i said, you dodge 90% of the facts i post because you don't have a clue what you're talking about, and can't face facts that destroy blatant government lies 🙂

And another week goes by and you're still the same ignorant fool making specious claims that you can't back up and don't even comprehend in the first place. Go figure.

This is going nowhere. You're so thoroughly drunk on the truther kool-aid you can't even recognize reality any longer. Bring something new to the table, like actual evidence, but stop wasting my time with crap such as "sounds like" or he said-she said bullshit.