Bill Maher thinks you're a fucking loony

RolandTD20Kdrummer

69charger wrote:

Fucking liar...

13. Why did the NIST investigation not consider reports of molten steel in the wreckage
from the WTC towers?

NIST investigators and experts from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEONY)—who inspected the WTC steel at the WTC site and the salvage yards—found no evidence that would support the melting of steel in a jet-fuel ignited fire in the towers prior to collapse. The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing.

NIST considered the damage to the steel structure and its fireproofing caused by the aircraft impact and the subsequent fires when the buildings were still standing since that damage was responsible for initiating the collapse of the WTC towers.

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.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

This dude:

http://wtc.nist.gov/pi/wtc_profiles.asp?lastname=gross

on the record....denies it ...no melted steel.

MakingWaves

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Still no explanation for the melted the steel.

Anyone care to add anything rather than more opinion and random guesswork?

Anyone have any factual information to offer?

heat and pressure can melt steel. heat alone can melt steel.

both facts.

and the conditions do not have to be "perfect" for this to happen.

Again, just ignore that bridge collapsing because fire melted the steel. I don't know how much more proof you need that fire can melt steel.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

jlew24asu wrote:

zinnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnngggg

69charger and makingwaves have owned you too.

And what do you have to say for your accomplishments and providing information?

zeeeeeeeeeeeeeeerrrro! hehe

jlew24asu

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

This dude:

http://wtc.nist.gov/pi/wtc_profiles.asp?lastname=gross

on the record....denies it ...no melted steel.

where in this link does it say no melted steel?

RolandTD20Kdrummer

MakingWaves wrote:

heat and pressure can melt steel. heat alone can melt steel.

both facts.

and the conditions do not have to be "perfect" for this to happen.

Again, just ignore that bridge collapsing because fire melted the steel. I don't know how much more proof you need that fire can melt steel.

http://www.findinternettv.com/Video,item,2750089321.aspx

MakingWaves

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

This dude:

http://wtc.nist.gov/pi/wtc_profiles.asp?lastname=gross

on the record....denies it ...no melted steel.

Ok, I don't see anywhere on here where it says he denies it. But so what if he denies it? Why does it matter if in this guys opinion there wasn't melted steel at the sight? Maybe he personally didn't see any or maybe he couldn't find anyone who could testify to there being melted steel.

Again, another example of raising suspiciouns but proves nothing.

MakingWaves

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

http://www.findinternettv.com/Video,item,2750089321.aspx

Ok, so this guy in the audience says there are "huge pools of molten steel beneath the towers". WTF ever. Yeah, I am sure there were these huge pools of it. Just because this guy in the audience says it you think it is true.
Like I said, they could probably not find anyone to testify to it who personally saw it. The best evidence that could probably be found is second hand accounts. Again, just a guess here but I would bet I am pretty close to being right.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

MakingWaves wrote:

Ok, I don't see anywhere on here where it says he denies it. But so what if he denies it? Why does it matter if in this guys opinion there wasn't melted steel at the sight? Maybe he personally didn't see any or maybe he couldn't find anyone who could testify to there being melted steel.

Again, another example of raising suspiciouns but proves nothing.

He is speaking for NIST on their behalf. They don't let their lead engineers walk around speaking for the organization uninformed. Again, it's their job to know about it.

They better know about it...don't you think?

RolandTD20Kdrummer

MakingWaves wrote:

Ok, so this guy in the audience says there are "huge pools of molten steel beneath the towers". WTF ever. Yeah, I am sure there were these huge pools of it. Just because this guy in the audience says it you think it is true.
Like I said, they could probably not find anyone to testify to it who personally saw it. The best evidence that could probably be found is second hand accounts. Again, just a guess here but I would bet I am pretty close to being right.

The firemen?...Did they look like they were joking to you? Watch and listen to all three of them respond in unison.

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

i think i psycho welder went apeshit in the basement.

MakingWaves

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

How many time has this been said in this thread four...five...six times?

Ok now finish the sentence...and the the melting occurred because of _____?

The precipitated iron in the dust samples came from _____?

The official report was a half baked piece of _____!!

Here is a good sight to read about the dust samples. Yet another example of asking well versed questions and only giving the explanations that support your claim. Meanwhile, many of the other examples make so much more sense that you would be foolish not to believe them.

http://www.911myths.com/html/traces_of_thermate_at_the_wtc.html

MakingWaves

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

The firemen?...Did they look like they were joking to you? Watch and listen to all three of them respond in unison.

Honestly, I am not going to waste my time watching videos like this. So what if the firemen say there was molten steel. It proves nothing except that there were high temperatures and high pressure being exerted on the steel which would have caused this to happen.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

MakingWaves wrote:

Here is a good sight to read about the dust samples. Yet another example of asking well versed questions and only giving the explanations that support your claim. Meanwhile, many of the other examples make so much more sense that you would be foolish not to believe them.

http://www.911myths.com/html/traces_of_thermate_at_the_wtc.html

I listed 4 other credible sources (organizations) that found the iron pellets in dust samples collected. Way back in this thread.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

MakingWaves wrote:

Honestly, I am not going to waste my time watching videos like this. So what if the firemen say there was molten steel. It proves nothing except that there were high temperatures and high pressure being exerted on the steel which would have caused this to happen.

Maybe you should apply for a job at NIST...they haven't thought of that apparently.

69charger

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

This dude:

http://wtc.nist.gov/pi/wtc_profiles.asp?lastname=gross

on the record....denies it ...no melted steel.

One dude is does not the NIST make. Where can I find his statement?

jlew24asu

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

I listed 4 other credible sources (organizations) that found the iron pellets in dust samples collected. Way back in this thread.

4? I found one. neither being credible or proof....

http://www.ae911truth.org/images/gallery/dust.jpg

69charger

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Maybe you should apply for a job at NIST...they haven't thought of that apparently.

On with it...

So I'll ask you. How did the towers fall? Please explain in the kind of detail that is provided in the NIST report. That means you have to explain, with proof, how explosives were planted and how they managed to set off these charges in the exact location that the planes hit as this was the point of initiation of collapse.

I await your answer.

Lack of a complete answer will be taken as an admission that your position lacks merit.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

69charger wrote:

One dude is does not the NIST make. Where can I find his statement?

as per the NIST website

"7a. How could the steel have melted if the fires in the WTC towers weren’t hot enough to do so?

In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36). "

MakingWaves

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

I listed 4 other credible sources (organizations) that found the iron pellets in dust samples collected. Way back in this thread.

So.
And that sight i posted gives explanations that could describe them.

MakingWaves

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

as per the NIST website

"7a. How could the steel have melted if the fires in the WTC towers weren’t hot enough to do so?

In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36). "

Ok, and i read this as the NIST stating that no steel melted during the fire prior to collapse. We can all agree on that.
So you have proven nothing.