Nutty 9-11 Physics

Submitted just to share that one line. I lol'd.

Also this:

Jonah Goldberg: "I distrust the government but as a realistic conservative I think government is staffed with mostly well-intentioned but incompetent people - not because they're dumb, but because bureaucracies are dumb. These conspiracy theorists reverse this entirely. They think government is evil-intentioned but supremely, even divinely, competent. That's crazy-talk, Count Chocula. "

We live in a universe of patterns. Once a pattern is established, the burden of proof is on people who claim the pattern does not hold.

Indeed, let's look at the pattern:
-The Lusitania
-Pearl Harbor
-Gulf of Tonkin
-9/11 ?

So the burden of proof is on the people who claim this pattern of false flag attacks does not include 9/11.

Ok, let's look at some of this evidence: "For the umpteenth time, nobody ever claimed the steel melted. It got hot enough to lose its strength".

Hmmm. Seems like he's just spouting bullmeep as fact, but I can see how appealing this article would be to people who've clung to the official story for the last decade.

^135% ultimate strength meep YEAH.

@meeproach

meeproach: "We live in a universe of patterns. Once a pattern is established, the burden of proof is on people who claim the pattern does not hold. "
Indeed, let's look at the pattern:
-The Lusitania
-Pearl Harbor
-Gulf of Tonkin
-9/11 ?
So the burden of proof is on the people who claim this pattern of false flag attacks does not include 9/11.

meeproach: Ok, let's look at some of this evidence: "For the umpteenth time, nobody ever claimed the steel melted. It got hot enough to lose its strength".

Hmmm. Seems like he's just spouting bullmeep as fact, ...

meeproach: ... but I can see how appealing this article would be to people who've clung to the official story for the last decade.

crazy talk, eh?

See, in light of such unwillingness to accept that some people are totally cool with getting a bunch of fellow countrymen killed in order to steer public opinion into supporting a war to boost their own wealth, it's no surprise the same cynical tactic would be considered again and again each time with growing confidence.

As far as the fireman claiming he was there as a witness, I know he can't tell what metal was "flowing", but iron slag WAS found, so your point is moot unless you can dream up a chain of combustion using materials in-situ that would produce the required heat. The magnesium computer components perhaps?

Anyway, I call bullmeep on his statement "For the umpteenth time, nobody ever claimed the steel melted. It got hot enough to lose its strength". He's not big on sources but he does use 911research where you can see umpteen reports contradicting him on that point. So, what we have is an exaggeration downwards from umpteen to "nobody". I will not waste my time fact checking his other assertions.

@meeproach

crazy talk, eh?

See, in light of such unwillingness to accept that some people are totally cool with getting a bunch of fellow countrymen killed in order to steer public opinion into supporting a war to boost their own wealth, it's no surprise the same cynical tactic would be considered again and again each time with growing confidence.

As far as the fireman claiming he was there as a witness, I know he can't tell what metal was "flowing",...

... but iron slag WAS found, so your point is moot unless you can dream up a chain of combustion using materials in-situ that would produce the required heat. The magnesium computer components perhaps?

Anyway, I call bullmeep on his statement "For the umpteenth time, nobody ever claimed the steel melted. It got hot enough to lose its strength". He's not big on sources but he does use 911research where you can see umpteen reports contradicting him on that point. So, what we have is an exaggeration downwards from umpteen to "nobody". I will not waste my time fact checking his other assertions.

@L0ki

"Crazy talk Count Chocula! Yes.

Well if you read that link, then by all means, lets have your scholarly critique.

So then what was the meeping point of introducing him as though he could (by virtue of being a hero, thus unimpeachable) if not to make an appeal to emotion rather than reason?

His status as "hero" is unkown to me, other than being a first responder. I selected that short clip because it directly refutes your authors claim with video in under 10 seconds. I thought it was a slam dunk. That clip just came to mind when I read the line I quoted. It matters not if he's right about what the liquid metal it is, he said the line that your author says was never said by "anybody" and so did many others. I'm pointing out here that your author is making gross exaggerations boarding on outright falsehoods la revisionist, rationalizing, whitewash crazy talk variety. If his points were so patently valid, such tactics would be unnecessary. Count Chocula!

Welcome to hypocrisy son, you've caught it.

As for the rest of your balanced breakfast, is it your position then that there was or was not iron slag found in the rubble, and if there was, what's your theory on how it melted?

@meeproach

Can't even discuss any of this with you because you refuse to read the parts that refute your accusations.

So, iron slag or no?

Steven Dutch said: "Apparently, the melting of steel signifies the use of explosives or thermite cutting charges. But the purpose of either is to cut steel, not melt it. A controlled demolition simply does not produce large amounts of molten steel. You might as well argue that all the concrete dust shows the buildings were taken down by an army of gnomes armed with grinding wheels.

If the World Trade Center was hot enough to melt steel, where's all the molten concrete? Iron melts around 1500o C but so do many of the silicate minerals in concrete, and a mixture of silicate minerals would melt at a temperature lower than any of the individual minerals (I'm a geologist - I get paid to know about stuff like that). The fine particle size of the concrete dust would facilitate melting. So why wasn't there a huge puddle of molten concrete at Ground Zero? (There was some, but about what you'd expect from a large fire; certainly not what you'd expect from something hot enough to melt large amounts of steel.)"

@meeproach

So, iron slag or no?

The bait always taste good.

In WWII, when we were bombing Germany & Japan (cities in "firestorms"), the engineers came in after and found just exactly the same results from standard fires. With a large-scale fire, acting like a blast furnace, you will indeed reach temps that will melt steel, and with the mixtures of metals inside (aluminum ceiling frames, rusted iron girders) you have all the chemical elements to leave the "evidence" of a thermite reaction. You can accept this, reject this, or follow whatever theory you wish.

I choose to go weld up some handrailings next to the beach, and have a sandwich & a beer. Not my biggest worry in life.

Love & Hugs

Goat

So Steven Dutch (and you) dismiss the possibility that explosives were used on the strength of the following rationalization:

If the World Trade Center was hot enough to melt steel there must also be melted concrete.

There wasn't a huge puddle of molten concrete at Ground Zero, therefore it was not hot enough to melt steel.
(He's a geologist - he gets paid to know about stuff like that).

For the umpteenth time, nobody ever claimed the steel melted. It got hot enough to lose its strength.

I guess Steven Dutch needs to get paid a little more to acknowledge that there was lots of melted steel found, you can see a picture of the rusting "meterorite" at 4:49 in this video, as well as umpteen more people saying the "steel melted".

Maybe you could prop up the credibility of your rationalizing, reverse engineering, author at this point, since he seems to be spouting revisionist bullmeep.

@LOki

PRO TIP: don't refer me to his other work "Conspiracies" To Be Thankful For where he just happens to write a piece "FDR Knew About Pearl Harbor" which he introduces with "..I'd like to propose that there were some events that, if they were conspiracies, we should be glad for them" - since it suggests his approval of false flag attacks in such cirmeepstances.

@meeproach

Seriously. There's just no point in pointing anything out to you. You just ignore it.

No, LOki. You're wrong again. I carefully re-read the entire article and I can tell you a response came to mind for every idiotic red-herring rhetorical question he asked. I ignored nothing. I just think his logic is fundamentally flawed and his assumptions are false. Here's a good example:

Why Did WTC 7 Collapse?

Good question. The investigators were baffled. But the conspiracy theory doesn't explain anything. Why bring down an empty building hours after the main attack?

To ensure the evidence there was well hidden is a plausible answer.

Photos published to support the claim of a controlled demolition show puffs emerging from the top of the building. These could be explosives. Or they could be concrete suddenly failing, or windows shattering. But again we have the irritating question, why start a collapse from the top, completely at odds with the way all controlled demolitions are done, especially if you want the building to fall onto its own footprint?

Because it's supposed to look like an accident?

If it was actually a controlled demolition by the Fire Department or the building owner, or both, as some people allege, so what? The remains of the World Trade Center itself were brought down in controlled demolitions after 9-11. What does that have to do with the collapse of the Twin Towers? It seems unlikely that a demolition crew would enter a burning building and install charges to bring down something 15 stories taller than any other recorded controlled demolition, all in the space of a few hours, but if the building was brought down by the owners or the Fire Department, what's the connection to the Twin Towers? How does a planned demolition of one building prove the Twin Towers were deliberately brought down?

This is all kinds of dumb. I re-read this meep essay, now do me the courtesy of watching Architects & Engineers - Solving the Mystery of WTC 7 (15 minutes), or if you want to continue being hypocritical you can ignore it.

And if you have 30 minutes the implications of this information should make you blow a meeping gasket.

There's also a 1 hour and 2 hour version for the fanatically skeptical, cupcake.

@LOki