JUST FYI, THE USER KNOWN AS cantonear1968 IS A KNOWN SHILL. HE'S ON THIS SITE SPREADING DISINFORMATION ABOUT THE EVENTS OF 9/11/01. HE MAY PRESENT HIMSELF AS AN "EXPERT" BUT IS 100% FULL OF SHIT. HE WILL USE DISINFORMATION TO EXPLAIN ABSURD LIES. HE WILL ATTEMPT TO DISCREDIT ANY EVIDENCE, RESEARCH & RESEARCHERS THAT DON'T SUPPORT THE OFFICIAL EXPLANATION. HE WILL ALSO ATTEMPT TO DISCREDIT THE TRUTH MOVEMENT AS A WHOLE. OBVIOUSLY, HE CAN'T BE TAKEN AT HIS WORD.
@mrh785 "JUST FYI, THE USER KNOWN AS cantonear1968 IS A KNOWN SHILL. " - Tim is right. The more you spam these posts around the more it just looks like you're a sore loser...
Still waiting for an audience with the notorious Mr Owens.
A crime to keep all that wisdom in just one brain it is
Crack your head open like a pinata, spilling your worldly insights and knowledge on us lowly troglodyte surface dwellers, that we get edumakatid, lice yu
@hashmonster2004 Mark Loizeaux's statement was NOT a first-hand account; he was not a witness. He was just repeating what he had been told. "I didn't personally see molten steel at the World Trade Center site. It was reported to me by contractors we had been working with."
#1 piece of evidence here, WHY did both towers in response to chaotic damage, "collapse" straight down and in uniform acceleration? not to mention the complete & total destruction of the buildings & contents. RULE for POLICE investigation of any disaster where there is complete & total destruction of anything.
@Denierbud11 "A newly discovered force, its called gravity" Very funny, and can gravity alone explain the fact that the twin towers BOTH completely & totally destroyed?
In the case of the north tower, we are expected to believe that the top 15% of the tower could cause the total destruction of the lower 85% by "collapsing" down onto it.
your 15% v 85 % would only be applicable if the towers were fashioned from jenga blocks or leggos -- that you think this is relevant is laughable
your understanding of building mechanics is only equaled by your understanding of physics
feel free to support your 15% v 85% with some real world evidence -- real world, not analogy, not argument from incredulity, no logical fallacies welcome
@Denierbud11 In the case of the controlled demolition model, the building would have to be started in the middle so that the floors descending down, would destroy the lower floors 1 to 1. Given that the WTC was built lighter closer to the top, than the lower structure, that top 15% would be even lighter than 15% of the total weight of the building. it is a logical fallacy to assume that the energy to pulverize the mass quantities of material, was due to that top 17 stories.
why? once the building starts and the first floor gives way, every floor below stands or fails on its own, and every floor below faces that much more mass AND momentum -- the buildings are designed to hold static loads, not moving loads
@Denierbud11 Whats Conservation of Momentum the loser says? Remember that brainiac? Whats it feel like to be THAT stupid? Listen to your talking point bullshit its not part of physical reality and you know it Oh and BTW. You make threats like a ticket writing meter maid cop CIVILIAN. I dont use peasant civilian channels. You are actively complicit in a war crime. I love it. No matter what -> You have nothing and you are a Coward.
@DeepSpace8andahalf These guys have never heard of Newton's Laws...ever action has an equal reaction. Was there an equal reaction from the solid structure below the collapse line? Was there an equal reaction when the planes entered the buildings, as they hit tons of concrete and steel? How could the plane cut through the concrete and steel like butter? Anyone with a brain knows that parts of the plane would have broken off, but, not one piece did. The entire plane 2x's...
@Denierbud11 How's your education working out for ya? All day, every day, you spend your hours trolling 9/11 vids to pay for your meth habit....hell of a life, hey Bud? While you have sold your soul, others have decided that all the lies forced on us by the media, TV, politicians and even trolls like yourself, isn't going to work anymore. That honesty and sincerity will always knock down deceit and insincerity, it's the Law of the Universe. You picked the losing side = bad choice.
@Denierbud11 In due time I will be contacting every required law enforcement agency. You are not funny, you are quite sick and your terrorist threats and hate speech are not welcome. You are very very silly tho since everything on my page roasts anything you got. You have nothing at all but childish attacks. Bottom Line. Thats all you are. Thank you for showing me what an unevolved primate you are.
Everyone who watches this video, do yourself a favour and watch this video "9/11 - The New Hiroshima - Dr Judy Wood" Its in two parts and very long but really makes you wonder what really happened and how it was all done.
Lol .... Fuck you ,and your twisted piss weak Illuminati faggot bumfucking friends .... YOUR NOT GOING TO SUCCEED , THE ''WHOLE WORLD'' HATES YOU , YOUR NOTHING , THE WORLD'S PEOPLE ARE GOING TO CRUSH YOU
How much did they pay you for this little escapade'' ?, explain the diagonal cuts in the structural beams then smart arse ?? and Tower 7 ?? and why all the Jewish people happen to call in sick that day , coincidence right
RKOwens is also a bullshit Mossad front whose mission is to disinform the US. Prosecute AIPAC & all zionists, The Mossad continues to make war on the US. Do not back down America!!
What does this video really say? No one bothered to test the hardened mass of molten "something that looks like steel and has rust stains on it" that was found at ground zero, Professor Jones used the wrong photo to make his point, steel and Aluminum have different melting points and that fires of about 1800 degrees could not melt steel, but could melt Aluminum. That people us steel and metal interchangeably, that there are many alloys of Aluminum and that we are not any closer to the truth.
Two years ago I called the New York FBI office to talk about 9/11. I was directed to the man who was familiar with the incident. I asked him directly, "Were the Black Boxes, to the planes that hit the towers on 9/11, ever found". His answer was, "that is a good question, I don't know". Put that in your pipe a smoke it. He @#$%^&* doesn't know? WTF Over!
@MCSnicks Please don't waste my time with any more of this weak ass shit. Tell me you can bring more to the table than "Free Fall" that has already been explained in a report you have obviously not read.
@cantonear1968 If NIST would have included common visual examination as a possible method in its discussion, there would have been NO WAY or NIST to argue that the paint based method was a good substitute for the common method. So it makes sense that NIST acts and writes throughout the report as if there was no method of unaided visual examination to screen columns and panels for exposure to high temperatures.
BUILDING 7 is the key *** BUILDING 7 is the key *** BUILDING 7 is the key *** BUILDING 7 is the key *** BUILDING 7 is the key *** BUILDING 7 is the key *** BUILDING 7 is the key *** BUILDING 7 is the key *** BUILDING 7 is the key *** BUILDING 7 is the key *** BUILDING 7 is the key *** BUILDING 7 is the key *** BUILDING 7 is the key *** BUILDING 7 is the key *** BUILDING 7 is the key *** BUILDING 7 is the key *** BUILDING 7 is the key *** BUILDING 7 is the key *** BUILDING 7 *** DONT FORGET
BUILDING 7 is the key *** BUILDING 7 is the key *** BUILDING 7 is the key *** BUILDING 7 is the key *** BUILDING 7 is the key *** BUILDING 7 is the key *** BUILDING 7 is the key *** BUILDING 7 is the key *** BUILDING 7 is the key *** BUILDING 7 is the key *** BUILDING 7 is the key *** BUILDING 7 is the key *** BUILDING 7 is the key *** BUILDING 7 is the key *** BUILDING 7 is the key *** BUILDING 7 is the key *** BUILDING 7 is the key *** BUILDING 7 is the key ***
Aluminum also glows when impurities are added in as it increases the temperature. Impurities such as office furniture, computers, slag formations, etc. etc.
Here's a hunk of once molten steel from ground zero, it was rusting so I guess it's not aluminum. Too bad debunkers a.k.a. shills, trolls, disinformation pushers
@mrh785 "watch?v=2wW1Wqx-ojk Here's a hunk of once molten steel from ground zero..."
The guy in that video is an architect, not a metallurgist. How does he know it's steel? How did he know it had previously melted? Did he perform a metallurgical analysis on it, or did he get his info from someone who did?
You may not think the answers to these questions are important, but any real scientist would!
@TimReed22222 there's a difference between molten steel and metal, but the fact someone said lava doesn't fucking matter you asswipe. A traditionalf ire doesn't produce ANY molten steel or metal...nor should jet fuel. And btw, most of the jet fuel was ate up by the initial explosion. IN THE FIRE FIGHTERS HANDBOOK [THE GOLD STANDARD] IF THERE IS ANY MOLTEN STEEL OR METAL AT THE SCENE, YOU NEED TO TEST FOR EXPLOSIVES. PERIOD.
"A traditionalf ire doesn't produce ANY molten steel or METAL"
Many metals melt at low temps, which are easily reached in a typical combustion fire. Aluminum, lead and babbit are 3 to get you started. So why do you blatantly lie? Is that what they tell you to do on troofer websites?
@MCSnicks "A traditionalf ire doesn't produce ANY molten steel" TRUE! "or metal" FALSE! There are *many* metals with melting points low enough to be melted by office fires. Aluminum, lead, bronze, zinc ...
"nor should jet fuel" Irrelevant; jet fuel is neither the hottest nor most abundant fuel in those towers.
The point is you cannot identify which kind of metal it is by sight! It must be analyzed by an expert. Was it?
@TimReed22222 understood, but with fires that were oxygen deprived, burning nothing but black smoke for only a and hour and change (plus a NYC firefighter in tower 1 radioed that he could "knock down the fires with two hand lines") it's very unlikely the temperature peaked anywhere close to where steel melts, b/c after all both towers were completely destroyed (which is what trolls says happened). An investigation? NOPE. The metal was exported to China & melted down within weeks.
@TimReed22222 oh PLEASE. I know some steel was examined, but 99% was removed and exported immediately. There is no precident of this. AND WHAT PLANES WERE RECONSTRUCTED? NONE. The truck drivers reported Gov agents would show up at their truck if they stopped for more than 5 minutes. There was a conceited effort to melt id own asap and get rid of the evidence. All that steel would have meant inconsistencies apparent would have been more convincing due to the sheer amount evident.
@TimReed22222 Where's the evidence to the contrary? What has the Gov absolutely disproven? I've taken the time to read the Gov's account (Com Report, NIST docs, FEMA docs, NORAD docs), and accounts/books that challenge the official story (Able Danger report, C. McKinley, NYT reporter Phillip Shenon's book, Griffin's books, Peter Lance's book, Paul Thompson's timeline) & the NON-CONSPIRACY movie PRESS FOR TRUTH re: the struggle 2get the Gov 2actually INVESTIGATE 9/11. But u dont.
BOOOOOOOOOOORRR-ING! Is that the best you can do?? Now you're not even claiming evidence of anything!
If your case is that the presence of molten steel proves the inside job, YOU HAVE TO PROVE THERE WAS MOLTEN STEEL! It really is that simple, but you don't get it; instead you cling to straw men!
I have no *proof* you're a lying truther loser - but where's the evidence to the contrary? lol
@TimReed22222 FEMA---OUR OWN GOV----ADMITS THERE WAS MOLTEN STEEL U DUMBASS....IN APPENDIX C. YOU CHOOSE TO IGNORE EVERY BIT OF TRUTH STARING YOU IN THE FACE THEN WRITE LIES AND CITE A STUPID ASS FILM THAT WAS VETTED BY THE GOVERNMENT LOL. [[[[[PROOF]]]] where's the debris from flight 93? where's the debris from flight 77? why did WTC 1&2&7 experience nearly free-fall acceleration through path of greatest resistance? how were 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking pulverized ?
@cantonear1968 "BTW, I got $1000 saus Mrsucks is about 3 posts away from accusing me and you of being the same person using multiple accounts. You on?"
It's the super secret evil organization that only truthers have been able to uncover exists who rule the world and engineered 9/11 by paying off 150,000 people to keep quiet.
@TimReed22222 how come FEMA found sulfidation, oxidation and inter-granular melting in the steel analysis? how was a hiljacker's passport found unscathed on the ground in NYC before the tower's collapsed when both planes exploded in fireballs? how was a hijacker's red bandanna found in astounding condition (according to fbi) in Pennsylvania when the entire plane "evaporated"? (gov pics of both available online) how were no pancaked floors found in 1200 ft diameter debris field?
@cantonear1968 hahaah. you are WRONG AS FUCK. molten iron is a prime indication of a thermitic reaction. The thinning of the steel occurred by high temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation. The thinning of steel is likely due to an attack of the steel by penetration of sulfur forming sulfides that contain both iron and copper...liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.
@MCSnicks "molten iron is a prime indication of a thermitic reaction."
And exactly what are you offering as an example of "molten iron"?
Again. Learn the difference between "molten iron" and "eroded from a eutectic mixture", which was the theory of the Appendix C paper and later confirmed by the authors of said paper, Profs Barnett and Sisson, released through the Worcester Polytechnic Institute.
@cantonear1968 (1) What the fuck. You keep writing outright LIES and ou don't know what you're talking about. FEMA DOESN'T KNOW WHAT CAUSED THE EUTECTIC REACTION. They say it out right on c-13: "No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings.
@MCSnicks "FEMA DOESN'T KNOW WHAT CAUSED THE EUTECTIC REACTION"
You illustrated the most important part of that quote:
"A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed"
Which I already gave to you earlier. That "detailed study" was conducted by THE VERY AUTHORS OF THE FEMA REPORT, Profs Sisson and Barnett, and released through university they work at, The Worcester Polytechnic Institute.
@MCSnicks And since you like quotes, here's another one for you:
"I don't find it very mysterious at all. That if I have steel in this sort of a high temperature atmosphere that's rich in oxygen and sulfur this would be the kind of result I would expect."
@cantonear1968 HA BITCH!!! The only thing u can fight against is the most unscientific quote from NYT that I included b/c it plainly restates own gov's admission (in AppC-13) that they don't know what happened to the steel in wtc1/2/7. I already wrote what FEMA said in C-13 word 4 word in reply(1) but again: "No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur (&thus the eutectic reaction) has been identified." And ps. Sisson?? Unqualified scientist! Shitno I'm not taking his word!
@MCSnicks "that they don't know what happened to the steel in wtc1/2/7"
Which I responded with, and which you keep ignoring, that THE VERY AUTHORS OF THIS REPORT CONDUCTED A FURTHER INVESTIGATION AND DETERMINED WHAT HAPPENED TO THE STEEL. ONE OF WHICH STATED IT'S NO GREAT MYSTERY!!
You stupid dumb ass! You keep quoting a preliminary report from 2002 and completely ignore and hand wave past the subsequent investigation which proves you don't know what you are talking about!
@cantonear1968 Ugh, no you didn't!!!! The 2nd report in 2008 carried over C! And NIST choose to not deny or debunk that entire report in their report. NOR DID NIST PROVIDE A FULL EXPLANATION OF THE COLLAPSE, only a theory that leads to "COLLAPSE INITIATION" (b/c hey....we can make up some shit about what basically made it collapse....but fuck if we can explain how the laws of physics were broken on that day...)
@MCSnicks "The 2nd report in 2008 carried over C! And NIST choose to not deny or debunk that entire report in their report"
You simply have no idea what you are talking about. It's literally a shame that you are completely incapable of knowing the level of your ignorance!
First off, the report I am talking about is not, in fact, anything to do with NIST. The report I am speaking of was published in the Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention titled.....
@MCSnicks ....."Metal removal via slag attack of the steel from building 7 of the world trade center—Some observations" by Sisson and Biederman, 2 of the 3 authors from the FEMA Appendix C report [I will correct myself; I thought it was Barnett. It's actually Biederman].
"Concurrent examination of the beam surfaces and surface layers showed evidence of extensive metal removal, and the analysis suggests that this removal occurred while the beam was exposed to the fire in the rubble pile after the building had collapsed"
Suggesting the NIST report on the WTC collapses was the "follow up" to the FEMA "C" report only illustrates the level of stupidity you wallow in!
@MCSnicks Secondly, suggesting "NIST choose to not deny or debunk that entire report in their report" again shows that you attempt to criticize a report which you have never read nor even know the contents of. Because of you did, you would have cited NCSTAR 1-3C, Section 6.3.4, Single Column K-16 (page 229) and know that they actually did examine one of the 2 samples listed in Appendix C and determined by its erosion pattern that it was in a horizontal position when the...
@cantonear1968 re: NCSTAR, many inaccuracies were ound in that report. For instance, with Sec 6, NIST doesn't have data of sufficient quality to validate the temperature models they developed and applied for the fire areas. The paint based method fails above 650C and NIST did not follow up on parts like core columns C-88a and C-88b and on all three columns of panel S-10 where the paint method yielded “no conclusion” as “results” because no paint was left!!!!!!!!!!
@MCSnicks .....sulfidation attack occurred, concluding it did not occur until AFTER the buildings had already collapsed, ergo it played no part in collapse initiation!
seriously. I didn't think this level of stupidity could exist in nature. You are walking proof it does!
@cantonear1968 This means that NIST's Twin Tower “how the point of collapse initiation was reached” computer models, which are at the core of NIST’s presented results re: the examination of the reasons for the failure of the structure of the Twin Towers, were run by NIST without any ADEQUATE validation of their temperature input-data. SECONDLY, regarding your "it didn't occur until AFTER the buildings collapsed," Mark Basile, B.S. CH.E, said that it most certainly occurred BEFORE
@cantonear1968 he's one of two and then one of three! If agency & peers agreed, they would have resolved the eutectic reaction issue. IT NEVER WAS. Period.
@MCSnicks And I'm also not oblivious to how you were completely ready to hand wave past and dismiss the comments of Sisson, knowing nothing about him! It is the standard response for any and all truthers when it comes to any information that challenges their delusions!
@cantonear1968 because there were spherical particles of iron and lead present IN dust that was produced by the tower's collapse collected from NYC apartments.
@cantonear1968 Also AzCat, I'm sure you've seen this article from the Thursday, October 22, 2009 STAR TRIBUNE regarding how carefully the parts of the 35W bridge were being preserved for examination by lawyers involved in any future lawsuits steaming from the collapse. The National Transportation Safety Board had returned the parts it had needed for its investigation where they are being preserved along with other parts of the bridge...
@cantonear1968 ...that are small enough to have been transported by trucks in a special warehouse where they are being protected from the weather. Bridge parts that are too large to be loaded on trucks have been left where the are by the Mississippi River since cutting them into smaller pieces would have destroyed their value as evidence.
@cantonear1968 AzCat you're a copy and pasting from a DEBUNKED report wanting me to believe it when it's 100% fallacy and speculation. NCSTAR is easily debunk able. ESPECIALLY that in it exists enough evidence in general for very high temperatures – too high to be caused by office and jet fuel fires before & during the final destruction of the WTC with “glowing carets” that glow bright white & a “metal fire”
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
FACT FACT FACT: NIST did not gather enough evidence to say how many core columns were damaged and to what degree.
FACT FACT FACT: NIST did not gather or have enough physical evidence to say how much stripping of fireproofing occurred on the columns where the fires were.
FACT FACT FACT: Since without physical evidence those points are nothing but conjecture and since the NIST story depends on those points.
@MCSnicks My dog tags wont melt when a plane crashes and they are really thin LOL and no matter how hard you try there are No Family Members of Passengers. Thats a shait load of ppl that dont exist. Enjoy. Aint my background pic cool
@Denierbud11 Legal Heresay Pup. Do you know what that is Poindexter?
Provide evidence or STFU. Your also disqualified from any intelligent discourse since you resorted to a personal attack for no reason other than you showing me your true nature. Thank You for Playing. Have a nice day.
for claiming victims are not victims, you qualify for a slow death at the hands of the NWO -- just think, if your delusions are correct, there is a warrant for you now -- and we know who you are
BTW - saying that I saw something is not hearsay moron
FACT: Two N.Y. City firefighters, Mike Bellone and Nicholas De Masi, claimed in 2004 that they had found three of the four boxes, and that Federal agents took them and told the two men not to mention having found them (FBI denies the whole story.) These devices are almost always located after crashes, even if not in useable condition (and the cleanup of the World Trade Center was meticulous, with even tiny bone fragments and bits of human tissue being discovered so victims were ultimately ID'd).
@MCSnicks Now, the ICC has adopted and implemented 25 code changes as a result of the NIST WTC reports. These changes add thousands if not millions of dollars to building construction. So there are REAL WORLD applications for REAL WORLD ENGINEERS, none of whom have challenged these code changes as a result of "shoddy" work from NIST, as you put it.
So yes. I'm perfectly accurate when I say that NIST has not suffered ANY serious criticism from their reports.
@MCSnicks Despite the musings of a few unqualified, uneducated bloggers commenting outside of their fields about subjects they have little to no understanding of and adding a few buzz words that sound "sciencey" so the gullible fools who fund their excursions will continue to donate to "find the truth", there is absolutely no serious criticism of NIST's work. Your little cut-and-paste "argument" doesn't change that!
@cantonear1968 ...and a “very bright white flame” and “molten flows” in the
vicinity of the metal fire. NIST DOCUMENTS EVIDENCE for extremely high temperatures in the still standing buildings and DOESN'T acknowledging the implication of THAT EXACT evidence through out 1-5/A. It's all bullshit. Saying one thing, acknowledging it, and then disavowing it's presence by ignoring/passing it off as inconsequential!!!!!
@cantonear1968 ...tet the steel from the World Trade Center which involved even more lives lost than the collapse of 35W, and which involved not only the likelihood of lawsuits but was also a crime scene, was of course shipped off to China & India to be melted down. More hypocrisy.
@cantonear1968 (1) You do a good job of bringing up speculative points and choosing to ignore hard science that shows the official account is false because it contravenes the known laws of nature. Take WTC7. NIST has conceded that WTC 7 did enter free-fall for 2.25secs or 8 stories(100 feet).
@cantonear1968 (2) How can a building collapse at free fall acceleration across the full length of the building? Columns, even when buckled, provide resistance > than air. To believe the official account you must believe that steel columns provided no more resistance than air. This contradicts the basic laws of physics and the government's story is false on these grounds alone. Which means the official account is false because it contravenes the known laws of nature as I said before.
@MCSnicks "Columns, even when buckled, provide resistance > than air."
Really?
Tell me: what happens to a steel I-beam when it loses vertical integrity with a 35 story building above it? Does it lower to the ground like a hydraulic lift? Or does it fail dramatically?
Before you expose even more of your ignorance, try speaking with a structural engineer first. It will save you a lot of pain.
@cantonear1968 HA. The fact that you don't even grasp what I'm saying tells me all I need to know about your lack of a brain cells. There's a big difference between something coming down like a mother fucker, and absolutely zero vertical support so freefall can initiate. We're talking about SECONDS over free fall in each building collapse. No minutes. And no, it hasn't been sufficiently explained. NIST can't even explain what lead to free fall before true initiation.
@cantonear1968 (2) cont. "It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure. A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires."
So this means they know that an eutectic reaction occurred, but they don't know what caused it, or how to explain it.
@MCSnicks "how come FEMA found sulfidation, oxidation and inter-granular melting in the steel analysis?"
I don't know & I don't care. IF and WHEN someone finds a suspicious cause - and by "they" I mean REAL scientists who observe the scientific method of peer review & lab reproduction, not clowns like Steven Jones who do not - let us know!
@TimReed22222 So congratulations! You're an idiot who just proved my point you don't know what you're talking about. (1) FEMA ADMITS THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT CAUSED THE EUTECTIC REACTION. They say it out right on c-13: "No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings.
@TimReed22222 (2) cont. "It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure. A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires."
So this means they know that an eutectic reaction occurred, but they don't know what caused it, or how to explain it.
@TimReed22222 FEMA 403-appendix D, which tells us: 350,000 tons of steel. 80% of which was NOT EVEN EXAMINED but recycled..THEN out of the "hundred of thousands of pieces" remaining only 150 pieces of steel saved...AND ONLY 41 of those 150 pieces given to NIST for "investigation." Also: "The pace of the steel's removal was very rapid...By September 29, 130,000 tons of debris -- most of it apparently steel -- had been removed." That's the Telegraph on 9/29/01. SUCK IT, JERK.
@TimReed22222 Are you just the biggest dumbfuck on planet earth? I said 80% of the steel was NOT EVEN IDENTIFIED. IT WAS SCRAPPED. So you're wrong. Secondly, the quote about removing steel was something I added b/c before I said it took months. Well, it didn't. My memory was wrong. That's why I included it. I love how you'll write all the lies you want and then when confronted with the facts take issue with the silliest bits like the correction I made that aren't consequential.
@MCSnicks Oh, I never claimed to have all the answers, far from it! I'm just pointing out that YOU have NONE!
Seriously, I've slapped down every point you've claimed in this thread, and you don't even try to defend them! You just keep changing the subject.
Let's go back to the beginning: Your references to molten steel. I asked you for proof, or at least an expert opinion, that any steel melted. Well, can you provide this or not? Not anecdotes or hearsay, but PROOF.
@TimReed22222 (1) u want proof of molten steel? FEMA APPENDIX C documented melting steel & USGS and RJ Lee Group 2003 documented spherical melted iron&lead particles. (2) That's because I'm not one my laptop all the time ass fucker. I just responded to your latest row of fallacies about the steel getting melted down and not properly investigated as it should have been (3) wtf is wrong with you claiming I don't try to defend them when u ignore points I made in 3post before this!
@MCSnicks "u want proof of molten steel? FEMA APPENDIX C documented melting steel & USGS and RJ Lee Group 2003 documented spherical melted iron&lead particles."
And did you read the part where those particles have OTHER POSSIBLE EXPLANATIONS? Welding creates them. They were present in the primer paint. The reports ABSOLUTELY DO NOT conclude steel-melting temps.
@TimReed22222 Basic facts here, thick black smoke is caused by incomplete combustion therefore, low temperature, that is lower temperatures that could be achieved by more complete combustion.
@TimReed22222 How hot is HOT? ... my point is that its not just in reference to wood fires but ANY fire ( its possible to tune a cutting torch flame so that its smoky )
and the smoke is an indication that the fire is not as hot as it would be if it were NOT producing black smoke.
@TimReed22222 I'm an EXPERT and so is everybody else who did not sleep through middle school science. This is NOT a subject that requires a PHD, GET REAL!
@TimReed22222 "You don't know SHIT and you're just repeating what you heard on Joe Blow's truther site. Got it." NO I do NOT get my facts from anybodies truther site, I KNOW that dense smoke is the product of unburned fuel, and therefore the fire is cooler than it would be if the fire could oxidize ALL of the fuel. did you sleep through middle school science? Truly the emperor is NAKED!
Black fire” is a good phrase to describe smoke that is high-volume, turbulent velocity, ultradense, and black. Black fire is a sure sign of impending autoignition and flashover. In actuality, the phrase “black fire” is accurate-the smoke itself is doing all the destruction that flames would cause-charring, heat damage to steel, content destruction, and victim death. Black fire can reach temp of more than 1,000°F!
@Denierbud11 You say "Black fire can reach temp of more than 1,000°F! "
operative term here is "CAN" this is not to say that it always is or even most of the time is,
> 1,000 F ..... The official explanation depends on a lot of ...
Ya, it could happen like that ...... However, what are the odds that ALL of the variables will stack up in just the right direction to create the event that was 9/11/2001?
"Basic facts here, thick black smoke is caused by incomplete combustion therefore, low temperature, that is lower temperatures that could be achieved by more complete combustion"
now, I have cited a professional fire engineering article that proves you dead ass wrong
dead wrong, hand in the cookie jar wrong
reverse your statement or support it with FACT and CITATION
@TimReed22222 Of course 9/11 was an inside job you knucklehead. Stop spreading DISINFORMATION for the sake of your soul, your family & your countrymen.
is this an oxygen starved fire?
watch?v=3V9TrY5cf_Q
Denierbud11 3 days ago
fireengineering ,dot>com
research for truthers is limited to what other truthers say
Denierbud11 3 days ago
JUST FYI, THE USER KNOWN AS cantonear1968 IS A KNOWN SHILL. HE'S ON THIS SITE SPREADING DISINFORMATION ABOUT THE EVENTS OF 9/11/01. HE MAY PRESENT HIMSELF AS AN "EXPERT" BUT IS 100% FULL OF SHIT. HE WILL USE DISINFORMATION TO EXPLAIN ABSURD LIES. HE WILL ATTEMPT TO DISCREDIT ANY EVIDENCE, RESEARCH & RESEARCHERS THAT DON'T SUPPORT THE OFFICIAL EXPLANATION. HE WILL ALSO ATTEMPT TO DISCREDIT THE TRUTH MOVEMENT AS A WHOLE. OBVIOUSLY, HE CAN'T BE TAKEN AT HIS WORD.
mrh785 4 days ago
@mrh785 Translation: He whips your ass every time you tussle & you are unable to defend yourself using logic and facts. :-)
TimReed22222 4 days ago
@mrh785 "JUST FYI, THE USER KNOWN AS cantonear1968 IS A KNOWN SHILL. " - Tim is right. The more you spam these posts around the more it just looks like you're a sore loser...
markh1011 4 days ago
@markh1011 I consider it a public service.
mrh785 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mrh785 "I consider it a public service." - Looking like a loser is a public service?
markh1011 2 days ago
I THINK MUSLIMS HAD A SECRET BAD HISTORY WITH NEGROES, SO THEY WERE HOPING THE PLANE WOULD ONLY KILL NEGROS SO WE WOULD ALL BENEFIT
DeadlyFUCKINGzebra 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Still waiting for an audience with the notorious Mr Owens.
A crime to keep all that wisdom in just one brain it is
Crack your head open like a pinata, spilling your worldly insights and knowledge on us lowly troglodyte surface dwellers, that we get edumakatid, lice yu
Disdain4Lies 5 days ago
watch?v=elwaX63SBVc
Psy0psAgent 1 week ago
mark loizeauz of controlled demolition inc. spoke about the pools of molten metal under the twin towers and wtc7
the facts are in 911 was a inside job carried out by criminals in government.
hashmonster2004 1 week ago
@hashmonster2004 Mark Loizeaux's statement was NOT a first-hand account; he was not a witness. He was just repeating what he had been told. "I didn't personally see molten steel at the World Trade Center site. It was reported to me by contractors we had been working with."
TimReed22222 1 week ago
#1 piece of evidence here, WHY did both towers in response to chaotic damage, "collapse" straight down and in uniform acceleration? not to mention the complete & total destruction of the buildings & contents. RULE for POLICE investigation of any disaster where there is complete & total destruction of anything.
DeepSpace8andahalf 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DeepSpace8andahalf "WHY did both towers .... "collapse" straight down"
Because that's the direction gravity goes!
cantonear1968 1 week ago
@DeepSpace8andahalf
"WHY did both towers in response to chaotic damage, "collapse" straight down and in uniform acceleration?"
A newly discovered force, its called gravity
Denierbud11 1 week ago
@Denierbud11 "A newly discovered force, its called gravity" Very funny, and can gravity alone explain the fact that the twin towers BOTH completely & totally destroyed?
In the case of the north tower, we are expected to believe that the top 15% of the tower could cause the total destruction of the lower 85% by "collapsing" down onto it.
DeepSpace8andahalf 1 week ago
@DeepSpace8andahalf
your 15% v 85 % would only be applicable if the towers were fashioned from jenga blocks or leggos -- that you think this is relevant is laughable
your understanding of building mechanics is only equaled by your understanding of physics
feel free to support your 15% v 85% with some real world evidence -- real world, not analogy, not argument from incredulity, no logical fallacies welcome
Denierbud11 1 week ago
@Denierbud11 In the case of the controlled demolition model, the building would have to be started in the middle so that the floors descending down, would destroy the lower floors 1 to 1. Given that the WTC was built lighter closer to the top, than the lower structure, that top 15% would be even lighter than 15% of the total weight of the building. it is a logical fallacy to assume that the energy to pulverize the mass quantities of material, was due to that top 17 stories.
DeepSpace8andahalf 1 week ago
@DeepSpace8andahalf
why? once the building starts and the first floor gives way, every floor below stands or fails on its own, and every floor below faces that much more mass AND momentum -- the buildings are designed to hold static loads, not moving loads
Denierbud11 1 week ago
@Denierbud11 Whats Conservation of Momentum the loser says? Remember that brainiac? Whats it feel like to be THAT stupid? Listen to your talking point bullshit its not part of physical reality and you know it Oh and BTW. You make threats like a ticket writing meter maid cop CIVILIAN. I dont use peasant civilian channels. You are actively complicit in a war crime. I love it. No matter what -> You have nothing and you are a Coward.
Psy0psAgent 1 week ago
@Psy0psAgent
I know what it is fuck face, but you sure as hell don't
its just a matter of time, the NWO is comming
Denierbud11 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DeepSpace8andahalf
"it is a logical fallacy to assume that the energy to pulverize the mass quantities of material, was due to that top 17 stories. "
that's not true -- again, its all the above against one floor at a time -- once the motion starts and the first floor fails, all others are doomed
Denierbud11 5 days ago
@DeepSpace8andahalf These guys have never heard of Newton's Laws...ever action has an equal reaction. Was there an equal reaction from the solid structure below the collapse line? Was there an equal reaction when the planes entered the buildings, as they hit tons of concrete and steel? How could the plane cut through the concrete and steel like butter? Anyone with a brain knows that parts of the plane would have broken off, but, not one piece did. The entire plane 2x's...
blite13 1 week ago
@blite13
you have a fundemental missunderstanding of newton's laws -- go back to high school
Denierbud11 1 week ago
@Denierbud11 Gee, great deflunking job, denier, you really put me in my place.
blite13 1 week ago
@blite13
until you are educated -- not much can be done over youtube
Denierbud11 1 week ago
@Denierbud11 How's your education working out for ya? All day, every day, you spend your hours trolling 9/11 vids to pay for your meth habit....hell of a life, hey Bud? While you have sold your soul, others have decided that all the lies forced on us by the media, TV, politicians and even trolls like yourself, isn't going to work anymore. That honesty and sincerity will always knock down deceit and insincerity, it's the Law of the Universe. You picked the losing side = bad choice.
blite13 1 week ago
@blite13
you spend your days trolling 911 boards to spew stupidity
Denierbud11 1 week ago
@Denierbud11 Law of Conservation of Momentum. but hey Im too busy now taking screenshots of your death threat.
Psy0psAgent 1 week ago
@Psy0psAgent
I did not threaten you moron, read closely
Denierbud11 1 week ago
@Psy0psAgent
and what the hell does law of concervation of motion mean?
Denierbud11 1 week ago
@Denierbud11 ROFLMFAO.
Psy0psAgent 1 week ago
@Psy0psAgent
we know who you are -- take a good screen shot
we know who you are
Denierbud11 1 week ago
@Denierbud11 You dont know fuck all little terrorist boy.
Psy0psAgent 1 week ago
@Psy0psAgent
its what you don't know that can hurt you
sleep well, and make sure that aluminum foil hat fits
Denierbud11 1 week ago
Comment removed
Psy0psAgent 1 week ago
@Denierbud11 In due time I will be contacting every required law enforcement agency. You are not funny, you are quite sick and your terrorist threats and hate speech are not welcome. You are very very silly tho since everything on my page roasts anything you got. You have nothing at all but childish attacks. Bottom Line. Thats all you are. Thank you for showing me what an unevolved primate you are.
Psy0psAgent 1 week ago
@Psy0psAgent
be sure you leave your name as the complaining witness
Denierbud11 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Denierbud11 "and what the hell does law of concervation of motion mean? "
If you have to ask ...
what more can I say?
DeepSpace8andahalf 1 week ago
Everyone who watches this video, do yourself a favour and watch this video "9/11 - The New Hiroshima - Dr Judy Wood" Its in two parts and very long but really makes you wonder what really happened and how it was all done.
benjyboba 1 week ago
Lol .... Fuck you ,and your twisted piss weak Illuminati faggot bumfucking friends .... YOUR NOT GOING TO SUCCEED , THE ''WHOLE WORLD'' HATES YOU , YOUR NOTHING , THE WORLD'S PEOPLE ARE GOING TO CRUSH YOU
discobiscuitKO 1 week ago
How much did they pay you for this little escapade'' ?, explain the diagonal cuts in the structural beams then smart arse ?? and Tower 7 ?? and why all the Jewish people happen to call in sick that day , coincidence right
discobiscuitKO 1 week ago
@discobiscuitKO "explain the diagonal cuts in the structural beams"
watch?v=ySHgiUxnLC0
"and Tower 7 ??"
Okay.
"and why all the Jewish people happen to call in sick that day"
What have you seen that makes you believe this is true?
TimReed22222 1 week ago
@discobiscuitKO
what a piece of shit you are
Denierbud11 1 week ago
RKOwens is also a bullshit Mossad front whose mission is to disinform the US. Prosecute AIPAC & all zionists, The Mossad continues to make war on the US. Do not back down America!!
ZEDSTODT 1 week ago
What does this video really say? No one bothered to test the hardened mass of molten "something that looks like steel and has rust stains on it" that was found at ground zero, Professor Jones used the wrong photo to make his point, steel and Aluminum have different melting points and that fires of about 1800 degrees could not melt steel, but could melt Aluminum. That people us steel and metal interchangeably, that there are many alloys of Aluminum and that we are not any closer to the truth.
lizardfirefighter110 1 week ago
Two years ago I called the New York FBI office to talk about 9/11. I was directed to the man who was familiar with the incident. I asked him directly, "Were the Black Boxes, to the planes that hit the towers on 9/11, ever found". His answer was, "that is a good question, I don't know". Put that in your pipe a smoke it. He @#$%^&* doesn't know? WTF Over!
lizardfirefighter110 1 week ago
more disinformation, that's all this video is. 9/11 was an inside job.
mrh785 1 week ago
@cantonear1968 aup! Look who's also been here for three months. someone else doesn't have any pussy to F.
Dantink.
MCSnicks 1 week ago
@MCSnicks Please don't waste my time with any more of this weak ass shit. Tell me you can bring more to the table than "Free Fall" that has already been explained in a report you have obviously not read.
cantonear1968 1 week ago
@cantonear1968 If NIST would have included common visual examination as a possible method in its discussion, there would have been NO WAY or NIST to argue that the paint based method was a good substitute for the common method. So it makes sense that NIST acts and writes throughout the report as if there was no method of unaided visual examination to screen columns and panels for exposure to high temperatures.
MCSnicks 1 week ago
9/11 denier trolls: OWNED BY THE FACTS THEY CHOOSE TO IGNORE.
MCSnicks 1 week ago
@MCSnicks Truthers: GETTING EVERYTHING WRONG SINCE 2001!
cantonear1968 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cantonear1968
9/11 Debunkers:
GETTING FUCKED IN THE ASS SINCE 2001 AND LOVING IT.
MCSnicks 1 week ago
BUILDING 7 is the key *** BUILDING 7 is the key *** BUILDING 7 is the key *** BUILDING 7 is the key *** BUILDING 7 is the key *** BUILDING 7 is the key *** BUILDING 7 is the key *** BUILDING 7 is the key *** BUILDING 7 is the key *** BUILDING 7 is the key *** BUILDING 7 is the key *** BUILDING 7 is the key *** BUILDING 7 is the key *** BUILDING 7 is the key *** BUILDING 7 is the key *** BUILDING 7 is the key *** BUILDING 7 is the key *** BUILDING 7 is the key *** BUILDING 7 *** DONT FORGET
MCSnicks 1 week ago
BUILDING 7 is the key *** BUILDING 7 is the key *** BUILDING 7 is the key *** BUILDING 7 is the key *** BUILDING 7 is the key *** BUILDING 7 is the key *** BUILDING 7 is the key *** BUILDING 7 is the key *** BUILDING 7 is the key *** BUILDING 7 is the key *** BUILDING 7 is the key *** BUILDING 7 is the key *** BUILDING 7 is the key *** BUILDING 7 is the key *** BUILDING 7 is the key *** BUILDING 7 is the key *** BUILDING 7 is the key *** BUILDING 7 is the key ***
MCSnicks 1 week ago
I'm seeing vids and other testimony that melted aluminum does not glow Dude.
parbitor 2 weeks ago
@parbitor "I'm seeing vids and other testimony that melted aluminum does not glow Dude."
Sorry to inform you, then, aluminum DOES glow - if it's hot enough. Here's the proof: watch?v=A796N_YZTm8
TimReed22222 1 week ago
@TimReed22222
Aluminum also glows when impurities are added in as it increases the temperature. Impurities such as office furniture, computers, slag formations, etc. etc.
ExposeTheTwooferCult 1 week ago
watch?v=2wW1Wqx-ojk
Here's a hunk of once molten steel from ground zero, it was rusting so I guess it's not aluminum. Too bad debunkers a.k.a. shills, trolls, disinformation pushers
mrh785 2 weeks ago
@mrh785 "watch?v=2wW1Wqx-ojk Here's a hunk of once molten steel from ground zero..."
The guy in that video is an architect, not a metallurgist. How does he know it's steel? How did he know it had previously melted? Did he perform a metallurgical analysis on it, or did he get his info from someone who did?
You may not think the answers to these questions are important, but any real scientist would!
TimReed22222 2 weeks ago
watch?v=cCdRA09pztM
Here's some NYC firefighters who saw molten steel.
mrh785 2 weeks ago
@mrh785 "watch?v=cCdRA09pztM Here's some NYC firefighters who saw molten steel."
Yes, one says "molten steel." But some said "molten METAL." And another says "lava."
So which is correct? How do you know?
TimReed22222 2 weeks ago
@TimReed22222 there's a difference between molten steel and metal, but the fact someone said lava doesn't fucking matter you asswipe. A traditionalf ire doesn't produce ANY molten steel or metal...nor should jet fuel. And btw, most of the jet fuel was ate up by the initial explosion. IN THE FIRE FIGHTERS HANDBOOK [THE GOLD STANDARD] IF THERE IS ANY MOLTEN STEEL OR METAL AT THE SCENE, YOU NEED TO TEST FOR EXPLOSIVES. PERIOD.
MCSnicks 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MCSnicks
"A traditionalf ire doesn't produce ANY molten steel or METAL"
Many metals melt at low temps, which are easily reached in a typical combustion fire. Aluminum, lead and babbit are 3 to get you started. So why do you blatantly lie? Is that what they tell you to do on troofer websites?
ExposeTheTwooferCult 1 week ago
@MCSnicks "A traditionalf ire doesn't produce ANY molten steel" TRUE! "or metal" FALSE! There are *many* metals with melting points low enough to be melted by office fires. Aluminum, lead, bronze, zinc ...
"nor should jet fuel" Irrelevant; jet fuel is neither the hottest nor most abundant fuel in those towers.
The point is you cannot identify which kind of metal it is by sight! It must be analyzed by an expert. Was it?
TimReed22222 1 week ago
@TimReed22222 understood, but with fires that were oxygen deprived, burning nothing but black smoke for only a and hour and change (plus a NYC firefighter in tower 1 radioed that he could "knock down the fires with two hand lines") it's very unlikely the temperature peaked anywhere close to where steel melts, b/c after all both towers were completely destroyed (which is what trolls says happened). An investigation? NOPE. The metal was exported to China & melted down within weeks.
MCSnicks 1 week ago
@MCSnicks "but with fires that were oxygen deprived, burning nothing but black smoke"
WRONG! That's a misconception. Petroleum-based fires burn black. You're thinking of wood fires!
"plus a NYC firefighter in tower 1 radioed that he could "knock down the fires with two hand lines"
LIAR! He wasn't saying he could put out ALL the fires, just the ones that were in the room with him.
TimReed22222 1 week ago
cont'd
"it's very unlikely the temperature peaked anywhere close to where steel melts"
True, but so what? NO EVIDENCE STEEL MELTED on 9/11.
"The metal was exported to China & melted down within weeks."
LIAR! The metal was MOVED to nearby yards and was examined for MONTHS. watch?v=SyRw7gEKpBQ
TimReed22222 1 week ago
@TimReed22222 oh PLEASE. I know some steel was examined, but 99% was removed and exported immediately. There is no precident of this. AND WHAT PLANES WERE RECONSTRUCTED? NONE. The truck drivers reported Gov agents would show up at their truck if they stopped for more than 5 minutes. There was a conceited effort to melt id own asap and get rid of the evidence. All that steel would have meant inconsistencies apparent would have been more convincing due to the sheer amount evident.
MCSnicks 1 week ago
@MCSnicks "I know some steel was examined, but 99% was removed and exported immediately"
What is your source for this figure, please? I'm not trying to be jerk here, I really want to know: Why do you believe this?
TimReed22222 1 week ago
@TimReed22222 Where's the evidence to the contrary? What has the Gov absolutely disproven? I've taken the time to read the Gov's account (Com Report, NIST docs, FEMA docs, NORAD docs), and accounts/books that challenge the official story (Able Danger report, C. McKinley, NYT reporter Phillip Shenon's book, Griffin's books, Peter Lance's book, Paul Thompson's timeline) & the NON-CONSPIRACY movie PRESS FOR TRUTH re: the struggle 2get the Gov 2actually INVESTIGATE 9/11. But u dont.
MCSnicks 1 week ago
@MCSnicks "Where's the evidence to the contrary?"
BOOOOOOOOOOORRR-ING! Is that the best you can do?? Now you're not even claiming evidence of anything!
If your case is that the presence of molten steel proves the inside job, YOU HAVE TO PROVE THERE WAS MOLTEN STEEL! It really is that simple, but you don't get it; instead you cling to straw men!
I have no *proof* you're a lying truther loser - but where's the evidence to the contrary? lol
TimReed22222 1 week ago
@TimReed22222 FEMA---OUR OWN GOV----ADMITS THERE WAS MOLTEN STEEL U DUMBASS....IN APPENDIX C. YOU CHOOSE TO IGNORE EVERY BIT OF TRUTH STARING YOU IN THE FACE THEN WRITE LIES AND CITE A STUPID ASS FILM THAT WAS VETTED BY THE GOVERNMENT LOL. [[[[[PROOF]]]] where's the debris from flight 93? where's the debris from flight 77? why did WTC 1&2&7 experience nearly free-fall acceleration through path of greatest resistance? how were 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking pulverized ?
MCSnicks 1 week ago
@MCSnicks "ADMITS THERE WAS MOLTEN STEEL U DUMBASS....IN APPENDIX C"
LOL!
You dumb ass fucking loser!
Go learn the difference between "molten steel" and "erosion from a eutectic mixture".
Fucking dumb asses!
cantonear1968 1 week ago
@MCSnicks Maybe I *am* a dumbass, but I can't find where it says "molten steel". Can you be more precise about where I can find that passage?
Appendix C is about ERODED steel; it says nothing about it being molten. Do you understand the difference?
TimReed22222 1 week ago
@TimReed22222 "Do you understand the difference?"
Nope. He thinks they're the same. Just wait. He's going to bring up the word "melting" in a minute!
cantonear1968 1 week ago
@TimReed22222 BTW, I got $1000 saus Mrsucks is about 3 posts away from accusing me and you of being the same person using multiple accounts.
You on?
cantonear1968 1 week ago
@cantonear1968 oh cmon. you're both lying cunts!
MCSnicks 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MCSnicks "oh cmon. you're both lying cunts!"
Oh, so your going to go with the "Liar. Liar. Pants on fire!" rebuttal!
Well, when run out of truther talking points, I guess it's all you got.
cantonear1968 1 week ago
@cantonear1968 "BTW, I got $1000 saus Mrsucks is about 3 posts away from accusing me and you of being the same person using multiple accounts. You on?"
Why not? Either way, I win!
:-)
TimReed22222 1 week ago
@TimReed22222 Shoot! That's 3 posts and no accusation.
I guess I owe you $1000.
Get you at the next NWO office party?
cantonear1968 1 week ago
@cantonear1968 @TimReed22222 what a NWO office party?
MCSnicks 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MCSnicks "what a NWO office party?"
It's the super secret evil organization that only truthers have been able to uncover exists who rule the world and engineered 9/11 by paying off 150,000 people to keep quiet.
cantonear1968 1 week ago
@TimReed22222 how come FEMA found sulfidation, oxidation and inter-granular melting in the steel analysis? how was a hiljacker's passport found unscathed on the ground in NYC before the tower's collapsed when both planes exploded in fireballs? how was a hijacker's red bandanna found in astounding condition (according to fbi) in Pennsylvania when the entire plane "evaporated"? (gov pics of both available online) how were no pancaked floors found in 1200 ft diameter debris field?
MCSnicks 1 week ago
@MCSnicks "how come FEMA found sulfidation, oxidation and inter-granular melting in the steel analysis?"
Because that's what happens in a high temperature, high oxygen, sulfur rich environment you dumb ass!
cantonear1968 1 week ago
@cantonear1968 hahaah. you are WRONG AS FUCK. molten iron is a prime indication of a thermitic reaction. The thinning of the steel occurred by high temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation. The thinning of steel is likely due to an attack of the steel by penetration of sulfur forming sulfides that contain both iron and copper...liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.
MCSnicks 1 week ago
@MCSnicks "molten iron is a prime indication of a thermitic reaction."
And exactly what are you offering as an example of "molten iron"?
Again. Learn the difference between "molten iron" and "eroded from a eutectic mixture", which was the theory of the Appendix C paper and later confirmed by the authors of said paper, Profs Barnett and Sisson, released through the Worcester Polytechnic Institute.
cantonear1968 1 week ago
@cantonear1968 (1) What the fuck. You keep writing outright LIES and ou don't know what you're talking about. FEMA DOESN'T KNOW WHAT CAUSED THE EUTECTIC REACTION. They say it out right on c-13: "No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings.
MCSnicks 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MCSnicks "FEMA DOESN'T KNOW WHAT CAUSED THE EUTECTIC REACTION"
You illustrated the most important part of that quote:
"A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed"
Which I already gave to you earlier. That "detailed study" was conducted by THE VERY AUTHORS OF THE FEMA REPORT, Profs Sisson and Barnett, and released through university they work at, The Worcester Polytechnic Institute.
cantonear1968 1 week ago 2
@MCSnicks And since you like quotes, here's another one for you:
"I don't find it very mysterious at all. That if I have steel in this sort of a high temperature atmosphere that's rich in oxygen and sulfur this would be the kind of result I would expect."
Prof Sisson
49:00
watch?v=P6FOhGUZaG0
You should try quoting the actual persons involved in the investigation. Not a reporter writing a story on a subject he's not qualified for.
cantonear1968 1 week ago 2
@cantonear1968 HA BITCH!!! The only thing u can fight against is the most unscientific quote from NYT that I included b/c it plainly restates own gov's admission (in AppC-13) that they don't know what happened to the steel in wtc1/2/7. I already wrote what FEMA said in C-13 word 4 word in reply(1) but again: "No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur (&thus the eutectic reaction) has been identified." And ps. Sisson?? Unqualified scientist! Shitno I'm not taking his word!
MCSnicks 1 week ago
@MCSnicks "that they don't know what happened to the steel in wtc1/2/7"
Which I responded with, and which you keep ignoring, that THE VERY AUTHORS OF THIS REPORT CONDUCTED A FURTHER INVESTIGATION AND DETERMINED WHAT HAPPENED TO THE STEEL. ONE OF WHICH STATED IT'S NO GREAT MYSTERY!!
You stupid dumb ass! You keep quoting a preliminary report from 2002 and completely ignore and hand wave past the subsequent investigation which proves you don't know what you are talking about!
cantonear1968 1 week ago
@cantonear1968 Ugh, no you didn't!!!! The 2nd report in 2008 carried over C! And NIST choose to not deny or debunk that entire report in their report. NOR DID NIST PROVIDE A FULL EXPLANATION OF THE COLLAPSE, only a theory that leads to "COLLAPSE INITIATION" (b/c hey....we can make up some shit about what basically made it collapse....but fuck if we can explain how the laws of physics were broken on that day...)
MCSnicks 1 week ago
@MCSnicks "The 2nd report in 2008 carried over C! And NIST choose to not deny or debunk that entire report in their report"
You simply have no idea what you are talking about. It's literally a shame that you are completely incapable of knowing the level of your ignorance!
First off, the report I am talking about is not, in fact, anything to do with NIST. The report I am speaking of was published in the Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention titled.....
cantonear1968 1 week ago
@MCSnicks ....."Metal removal via slag attack of the steel from building 7 of the world trade center—Some observations" by Sisson and Biederman, 2 of the 3 authors from the FEMA Appendix C report [I will correct myself; I thought it was Barnett. It's actually Biederman].
cantonear1968 1 week ago
@MCSnicks It offers the following observation:
"Concurrent examination of the beam surfaces and surface layers showed evidence of extensive metal removal, and the analysis suggests that this removal occurred while the beam was exposed to the fire in the rubble pile after the building had collapsed"
Suggesting the NIST report on the WTC collapses was the "follow up" to the FEMA "C" report only illustrates the level of stupidity you wallow in!
cantonear1968 1 week ago
@MCSnicks Secondly, suggesting "NIST choose to not deny or debunk that entire report in their report" again shows that you attempt to criticize a report which you have never read nor even know the contents of. Because of you did, you would have cited NCSTAR 1-3C, Section 6.3.4, Single Column K-16 (page 229) and know that they actually did examine one of the 2 samples listed in Appendix C and determined by its erosion pattern that it was in a horizontal position when the...
cantonear1968 1 week ago
@cantonear1968 re: NCSTAR, many inaccuracies were ound in that report. For instance, with Sec 6, NIST doesn't have data of sufficient quality to validate the temperature models they developed and applied for the fire areas. The paint based method fails above 650C and NIST did not follow up on parts like core columns C-88a and C-88b and on all three columns of panel S-10 where the paint method yielded “no conclusion” as “results” because no paint was left!!!!!!!!!!
MCSnicks 1 week ago
@MCSnicks .....sulfidation attack occurred, concluding it did not occur until AFTER the buildings had already collapsed, ergo it played no part in collapse initiation!
seriously. I didn't think this level of stupidity could exist in nature. You are walking proof it does!
cantonear1968 1 week ago
@cantonear1968 This means that NIST's Twin Tower “how the point of collapse initiation was reached” computer models, which are at the core of NIST’s presented results re: the examination of the reasons for the failure of the structure of the Twin Towers, were run by NIST without any ADEQUATE validation of their temperature input-data. SECONDLY, regarding your "it didn't occur until AFTER the buildings collapsed," Mark Basile, B.S. CH.E, said that it most certainly occurred BEFORE
MCSnicks 1 week ago
@MCSnicks "And ps. Sisson?? Unqualified scientist! Shitno I'm not taking his word! "
Are you honestly this stupid?
SISSON WAS ONE OF THE AUTHORS OF THE FEMA REPORT. YOU SEEMED PRETTY READY TO TAKE HIS WORD BEFORE!!
cantonear1968 1 week ago
@cantonear1968 he's one of two and then one of three! If agency & peers agreed, they would have resolved the eutectic reaction issue. IT NEVER WAS. Period.
MCSnicks 1 week ago
@MCSnicks And I'm also not oblivious to how you were completely ready to hand wave past and dismiss the comments of Sisson, knowing nothing about him! It is the standard response for any and all truthers when it comes to any information that challenges their delusions!
cantonear1968 1 week ago
@cantonear1968 because there were spherical particles of iron and lead present IN dust that was produced by the tower's collapse collected from NYC apartments.
MCSnicks 1 week ago
@cantonear1968 Also AzCat, I'm sure you've seen this article from the Thursday, October 22, 2009 STAR TRIBUNE regarding how carefully the parts of the 35W bridge were being preserved for examination by lawyers involved in any future lawsuits steaming from the collapse. The National Transportation Safety Board had returned the parts it had needed for its investigation where they are being preserved along with other parts of the bridge...
MCSnicks 1 week ago
@cantonear1968 ...that are small enough to have been transported by trucks in a special warehouse where they are being protected from the weather. Bridge parts that are too large to be loaded on trucks have been left where the are by the Mississippi River since cutting them into smaller pieces would have destroyed their value as evidence.
MCSnicks 1 week ago
@MCSnicks No, no Snickers bar!
You don't just get to cut and paste a response!
"How NIST Avoided a Real Analysis of the Physical Evidence of WTC Steel"
From AE911Truth.
Don't you dare try and state I "don't even grasp what I'm saying" when you can't even say it in your own words!
cantonear1968 1 week ago 2
@cantonear1968 AzCat you're a copy and pasting from a DEBUNKED report wanting me to believe it when it's 100% fallacy and speculation. NCSTAR is easily debunk able. ESPECIALLY that in it exists enough evidence in general for very high temperatures – too high to be caused by office and jet fuel fires before & during the final destruction of the WTC with “glowing carets” that glow bright white & a “metal fire”
MCSnicks 1 week ago
@MCSnicks "you're a copy and pasting from a DEBUNKED report"
But I'm not presenting as my own!
And to date, NIST has not suffered ANY serious criticism.
Your truther protests notwithstanding!
LOL!
cantonear1968 1 week ago
@cantonear1968 HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA.
NOT SUFFERED ANY SERIOUS CRITICISM????
YEAH. YOU THINK THAT B/C UR HEADS UP UR ASS.
MCSnicks 1 week ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
FACT FACT FACT: NIST did not gather enough evidence to say how many core columns were damaged and to what degree.
FACT FACT FACT: NIST did not gather or have enough physical evidence to say how much stripping of fireproofing occurred on the columns where the fires were.
FACT FACT FACT: Since without physical evidence those points are nothing but conjecture and since the NIST story depends on those points.
SPIN IT ALL U WANT.
MCSnicks 1 week ago
@MCSnicks My dog tags wont melt when a plane crashes and they are really thin LOL and no matter how hard you try there are No Family Members of Passengers. Thats a shait load of ppl that dont exist. Enjoy. Aint my background pic cool
abel danger
Psy0psAgent 1 week ago
@Psy0psAgent
no family members of passengers? I saw several hundred at Shanksville for the 10th anniversary, were they all paid actors?
truthers like you should crawl back under your rock
Denierbud11 1 week ago
@Denierbud11 Legal Heresay Pup. Do you know what that is Poindexter?
Provide evidence or STFU. Your also disqualified from any intelligent discourse since you resorted to a personal attack for no reason other than you showing me your true nature. Thank You for Playing. Have a nice day.
Psy0psAgent 1 week ago
@Psy0psAgent
for claiming victims are not victims, you qualify for a slow death at the hands of the NWO -- just think, if your delusions are correct, there is a warrant for you now -- and we know who you are
BTW - saying that I saw something is not hearsay moron
Denierbud11 1 week ago
@Denierbud11 Thanks for the death threat posted on the internet.
Psy0psAgent 1 week ago
FACT: Two N.Y. City firefighters, Mike Bellone and Nicholas De Masi, claimed in 2004 that they had found three of the four boxes, and that Federal agents took them and told the two men not to mention having found them (FBI denies the whole story.) These devices are almost always located after crashes, even if not in useable condition (and the cleanup of the World Trade Center was meticulous, with even tiny bone fragments and bits of human tissue being discovered so victims were ultimately ID'd).
MCSnicks 1 week ago
@MCSnicks "HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA.
NOT SUFFERED ANY SERIOUS CRITICISM????"
Yes! Exactly. Because outside your little world of trutherism, there is no discussion of "thermite" or "free fall" amoung serious engineers!
Do you know what they talk about? The endorsements NIST have received for their WTC reports. Most notably the NFPA and the ICC!
Do you know who the ICC are? The International Code Council! The organization that determines the safety codes for building construction!
cantonear1968 1 week ago
@MCSnicks Now, the ICC has adopted and implemented 25 code changes as a result of the NIST WTC reports. These changes add thousands if not millions of dollars to building construction. So there are REAL WORLD applications for REAL WORLD ENGINEERS, none of whom have challenged these code changes as a result of "shoddy" work from NIST, as you put it.
So yes. I'm perfectly accurate when I say that NIST has not suffered ANY serious criticism from their reports.
cantonear1968 1 week ago 7
Comment removed
cantonear1968 1 week ago
@MCSnicks Despite the musings of a few unqualified, uneducated bloggers commenting outside of their fields about subjects they have little to no understanding of and adding a few buzz words that sound "sciencey" so the gullible fools who fund their excursions will continue to donate to "find the truth", there is absolutely no serious criticism of NIST's work. Your little cut-and-paste "argument" doesn't change that!
cantonear1968 1 week ago 19
@cantonear1968 ...and a “very bright white flame” and “molten flows” in the
vicinity of the metal fire. NIST DOCUMENTS EVIDENCE for extremely high temperatures in the still standing buildings and DOESN'T acknowledging the implication of THAT EXACT evidence through out 1-5/A. It's all bullshit. Saying one thing, acknowledging it, and then disavowing it's presence by ignoring/passing it off as inconsequential!!!!!
MCSnicks 1 week ago
@MCSnicks HaHa!
Fucking busted!
You brain dead fucking moron who can't even conduct his own debate!
cantonear1968 1 week ago
@cantonear1968 ...tet the steel from the World Trade Center which involved even more lives lost than the collapse of 35W, and which involved not only the likelihood of lawsuits but was also a crime scene, was of course shipped off to China & India to be melted down. More hypocrisy.
MCSnicks 1 week ago
@MCSnicks Stay down, Snickers! You're up past your bed time and simply not ready for the big leagues!
cantonear1968 1 week ago
@cantonear1968 (1) You do a good job of bringing up speculative points and choosing to ignore hard science that shows the official account is false because it contravenes the known laws of nature. Take WTC7. NIST has conceded that WTC 7 did enter free-fall for 2.25secs or 8 stories(100 feet).
MCSnicks 1 week ago
@cantonear1968 (2) How can a building collapse at free fall acceleration across the full length of the building? Columns, even when buckled, provide resistance > than air. To believe the official account you must believe that steel columns provided no more resistance than air. This contradicts the basic laws of physics and the government's story is false on these grounds alone. Which means the official account is false because it contravenes the known laws of nature as I said before.
MCSnicks 1 week ago
@MCSnicks "Columns, even when buckled, provide resistance > than air."
Really?
Tell me: what happens to a steel I-beam when it loses vertical integrity with a 35 story building above it? Does it lower to the ground like a hydraulic lift? Or does it fail dramatically?
Before you expose even more of your ignorance, try speaking with a structural engineer first. It will save you a lot of pain.
cantonear1968 1 week ago
@cantonear1968 HA. The fact that you don't even grasp what I'm saying tells me all I need to know about your lack of a brain cells. There's a big difference between something coming down like a mother fucker, and absolutely zero vertical support so freefall can initiate. We're talking about SECONDS over free fall in each building collapse. No minutes. And no, it hasn't been sufficiently explained. NIST can't even explain what lead to free fall before true initiation.
MCSnicks 1 week ago
@cantonear1968 awe, you named your cock snicker. how cute.
MCSnicks 1 week ago
@cantonear1968 (2) cont. "It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure. A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires."
So this means they know that an eutectic reaction occurred, but they don't know what caused it, or how to explain it.
MCSnicks 1 week ago
@cantonear1968 (3) It's not fire. They would have stated it. So...what does this mean all together? IT MEANS:
(1) A EUTECTIC reaction is a phenomenon never before observed in building fires
(2) it caused "intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese." And,
(3) as The New York Times said: "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation."
MCSnicks 1 week ago
@cantonear1968 You don't know what the fuck ur talking about. so you should do the world a favor and STFU!
CUNT!
MCSnicks 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MCSnicks "You don't know what the fuck ur talking about"
Do not let yourself for a microsecond get semi-hard thinking you know more about this than me!
cantonear1968 1 week ago
@MCSnicks "how come FEMA found sulfidation, oxidation and inter-granular melting in the steel analysis?"
I don't know & I don't care. IF and WHEN someone finds a suspicious cause - and by "they" I mean REAL scientists who observe the scientific method of peer review & lab reproduction, not clowns like Steven Jones who do not - let us know!
TimReed22222 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TimReed22222 So congratulations! You're an idiot who just proved my point you don't know what you're talking about. (1) FEMA ADMITS THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT CAUSED THE EUTECTIC REACTION. They say it out right on c-13: "No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings.
MCSnicks 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TimReed22222 (2) cont. "It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure. A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires."
So this means they know that an eutectic reaction occurred, but they don't know what caused it, or how to explain it.
MCSnicks 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TimReed22222 (3) It's not fire. They would have stated it. So...what does this mean alltogether?
(1) A EUTECTIC reaction is a phenomenon never before observed in building fires
(2) it caused "intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese." And,
(3) as The New York Times said: "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation."
But, of course, these ARE scientific characteristics of a thermitic reaction. God forbid FEMA wld look 4explo
MCSnicks 1 week ago
@TimReed22222 FEMA 403-appendix D, which tells us: 350,000 tons of steel. 80% of which was NOT EVEN EXAMINED but recycled..THEN out of the "hundred of thousands of pieces" remaining only 150 pieces of steel saved...AND ONLY 41 of those 150 pieces given to NIST for "investigation." Also: "The pace of the steel's removal was very rapid...By September 29, 130,000 tons of debris -- most of it apparently steel -- had been removed." That's the Telegraph on 9/29/01. SUCK IT, JERK.
MCSnicks 1 week ago
@MCSnicks Yes. The investigators identified the steel they wanted to study further & set it aside. That's how investigators WORK.
"By September 29, 130,000 tons of debris -- most of it apparently steel -- had been removed."
Yes, removed - from ground zero to yards in NEW JERSEY and STATEN ISLAND, where it was studied. It was not exported for MONTHS.
Did you watch that video of engineers examining the steel? Here it is again: watch?v=SyRw7gEKpBQ
TimReed22222 1 week ago
@TimReed22222 Are you just the biggest dumbfuck on planet earth? I said 80% of the steel was NOT EVEN IDENTIFIED. IT WAS SCRAPPED. So you're wrong. Secondly, the quote about removing steel was something I added b/c before I said it took months. Well, it didn't. My memory was wrong. That's why I included it. I love how you'll write all the lies you want and then when confronted with the facts take issue with the silliest bits like the correction I made that aren't consequential.
MCSnicks 1 week ago
@MCSnicks "but 99% was removed and exported immediately."
You're an idiot.
You're just simply an idiot.
cantonear1968 1 week ago
@cantonear1968
FEMA APPENDIX'S C & D PROVE EVERYTHING I SAID.
Too bad ur too dumb to read.
MCSnicks 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MCSnicks "FEMA APPENDIX'S C & D PROVE EVERYTHING I SAID."
Just answered.
Go learn something.
Anything!
cantonear1968 1 week ago 2
@TimReed22222 and btw...have you heard of PROPAGANDA? Tell me alllll about building 7! I sure you have ALL the ANSWERS :)))))))
MCSnicks 1 week ago
@MCSnicks Oh, I never claimed to have all the answers, far from it! I'm just pointing out that YOU have NONE!
Seriously, I've slapped down every point you've claimed in this thread, and you don't even try to defend them! You just keep changing the subject.
Let's go back to the beginning: Your references to molten steel. I asked you for proof, or at least an expert opinion, that any steel melted. Well, can you provide this or not? Not anecdotes or hearsay, but PROOF.
TimReed22222 1 week ago
@TimReed22222 (1) u want proof of molten steel? FEMA APPENDIX C documented melting steel & USGS and RJ Lee Group 2003 documented spherical melted iron&lead particles. (2) That's because I'm not one my laptop all the time ass fucker. I just responded to your latest row of fallacies about the steel getting melted down and not properly investigated as it should have been (3) wtf is wrong with you claiming I don't try to defend them when u ignore points I made in 3post before this!
MCSnicks 1 week ago
@MCSnicks "u want proof of molten steel? FEMA APPENDIX C documented melting steel & USGS and RJ Lee Group 2003 documented spherical melted iron&lead particles."
And did you read the part where those particles have OTHER POSSIBLE EXPLANATIONS? Welding creates them. They were present in the primer paint. The reports ABSOLUTELY DO NOT conclude steel-melting temps.
TimReed22222 1 week ago
@TimReed22222 Then WHY is there not BLACK SMOKE pouring out of the jet engines of aircraft?
n0spam4me 6 days ago
@n0spam4me Because a jet engine is optimized for a clean, controlled burn - it's not just an open pit of burning kerosene.
TimReed22222 5 days ago
@TimReed22222 Basic facts here, thick black smoke is caused by incomplete combustion therefore, low temperature, that is lower temperatures that could be achieved by more complete combustion.
DeepSpace8andahalf 5 days ago
@DeepSpace8andahalf That refers to WOOD fires. Smoke from petroleum fires is black.
Does THIS fire look low-temperature? watch?v=xsKaD169y90
TimReed22222 5 days ago
@TimReed22222 How hot is HOT? ... my point is that its not just in reference to wood fires but ANY fire ( its possible to tune a cutting torch flame so that its smoky )
and the smoke is an indication that the fire is not as hot as it would be if it were NOT producing black smoke.
DeepSpace8andahalf 5 days ago
@DeepSpace8andahalf How do you know this? Are you an expert on the subject? If not, what is your source?
TimReed22222 4 days ago
@TimReed22222 I'm an EXPERT and so is everybody else who did not sleep through middle school science. This is NOT a subject that requires a PHD, GET REAL!
DeepSpace8andahalf 4 days ago
@DeepSpace8andahalf "I'm an EXPERT and so is everybody else who did not sleep through middle school science"
LOL! So the answer is: You don't know SHIT and you're just repeating what you heard on Joe Blow's truther site. Got it.
You truthers may not think scientific expertise is required to prove the inside job but the rest of us do!
TimReed22222 4 days ago
@TimReed22222 "You don't know SHIT and you're just repeating what you heard on Joe Blow's truther site. Got it." NO I do NOT get my facts from anybodies truther site, I KNOW that dense smoke is the product of unburned fuel, and therefore the fire is cooler than it would be if the fire could oxidize ALL of the fuel. did you sleep through middle school science? Truly the emperor is NAKED!
DeepSpace8andahalf 4 days ago
@DeepSpace8andahalf All I'm asking for is a reference for your claim that black smoke ALWAYS indicates a cooler fire, regardless of what the fuel is.
Can you provide this or not?
TimReed22222 3 days ago
@TimReed22222
He can't provide a citation because his premise is false - color alone is not an indication of fire temperature
one a truther utters a lie, it will live for ever in truther world
Denierbud11 3 days ago
@DeepSpace8andahalf
"the art of reading smoke"
Black fire” is a good phrase to describe smoke that is high-volume, turbulent velocity, ultradense, and black. Black fire is a sure sign of impending autoignition and flashover. In actuality, the phrase “black fire” is accurate-the smoke itself is doing all the destruction that flames would cause-charring, heat damage to steel, content destruction, and victim death. Black fire can reach temp of more than 1,000°F!
Denierbud11 3 days ago
@Denierbud11 You say "Black fire can reach temp of more than 1,000°F! "
operative term here is "CAN" this is not to say that it always is or even most of the time is,
> 1,000 F ..... The official explanation depends on a lot of ...
Ya, it could happen like that ...... However, what are the odds that ALL of the variables will stack up in just the right direction to create the event that was 9/11/2001?
DeepSpace8andahalf 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DeepSpace8andahalf
First I do not sya it -- fire engineers say this
second -- this was your claim
"Basic facts here, thick black smoke is caused by incomplete combustion therefore, low temperature, that is lower temperatures that could be achieved by more complete combustion"
now, I have cited a professional fire engineering article that proves you dead ass wrong
dead wrong, hand in the cookie jar wrong
reverse your statement or support it with FACT and CITATION
Denierbud11 3 days ago
@TimReed22222 Of course 9/11 was an inside job you knucklehead. Stop spreading DISINFORMATION for the sake of your soul, your family & your countrymen.
mrh785 3 days ago
@MCSnicks "A traditionalf ire doesn't produce ANY molten steel or metal"
LOL!
Yeah! Because all the Blacksmiths 300 years ago used thermite!
LOL!
Truthers are so stupid!
cantonear1968 1 week ago
@cantonear1968 NOT STEEL GOV SHRILL
MCSnicks 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MCSnicks "NOT STEEL GOV SHRILL"
Whatever the fuck that means!
Go spam some more. It's all you losers have left!
cantonear1968 1 week ago