9/11-WILLFULL IGNORANCE- Molten Steel [HQ]

[donnietodd89]

This video is a favorite on Chad

[chris11sholtz]

you see children, the color a metal glows is indicative of it's temperature, and it is almost exactly the same with all metals because the wavelength of light produced is caused by the energy level of the atoms. that bright white-orange color you see is hotter than 1200 C. 1200C is much hotter than jet fuel can burn. where did that energy come from? nothing in the OS can account for it. *cough*thermate*cough*

[chrisramse493]

not arguing but just stating wat i feel just like everyone else does

[chrisramse493]

i dont believe in the controlled demolition of the twin towers but i do believe in the controlled demolition of solomons brothers building also known as 7 world trade center and i believe they were jet airliners and terrorists i believe that truthers dont look at all the evidence but from what the see on a screen, they have nno proof and they need to look further and know that the "TRUTH" is that it was a terror attack not planned by the government but planned by home grown and legal aliens

[FacelesswithEyesOpen]

watch?v=3WCcSHpvAJ8

[FacelesswithEyesOpen]

To shield the reader from the evidence of controlled demolition, NIST fills hundreds of pages with amazingly realistic plane crash simulations, tedious details about fire tests and simulations, and long lists of recommendations for improving building safety. It calls its event narrative of each Tower, which starts with the jet impact and ends at the point that "collapse ensued," the "probable collapse sequence," but it is neither probable nor a collapse sequence.

[FacelesswithEyesOpen]

Previous government reports have minimized, hidden, or denied the existence of the Towers' core columns. The FEMA report contained misleading descriptions and illustrations minimizing and hiding the core columns, and it made no mention of beams connecting the core columns. The 9/11 Commission Report denied their existence entirely, claiming that "the interior core of the [Twin Towers] was a hollow steel shaft, in which the elevators and stairwells were grouped."

[FacelesswithEyesOpen]

Finding NIST's theory of the collapse takes some work because of the size of the Report. As I note above, NIST does not actually provide a complete theory of the collapse, only a theory of events that led up to "collapse initiation." However, the casual reader may conclude that NIST does provide a complete theory from phrases in section titles such as "Collapse Analysis," "Global Analysis," and "Probable Collapse Sequences."

[FacelesswithEyesOpen]

Assuming the premise of the official explanation, the total collapses of the Twin Towers and Building 7 were the largest, most unexpected, and least understood failures of engineered steel structures in the history of the world.

NIST's Report states that its first objective is to "determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed." The Report does not fulfill that objective, and hides that failure with misleading headings and disproportionate, misapplied technical detail.

[FacelesswithEyesOpen]

* Most of the rubble appears to fall outside of the Towers' footprint, thus being unavailable to crush the intact structure.

* Rubble falls through the air outside of the Towers' profiles at about the same speed it falls through their profiles, showing that the structures below provided little to no more resistance than air.

[FacelesswithEyesOpen]

* No column failure theory excluding demolition can account for the top suddenly starting to fall freely.

* Photographs and videos show the top of both Towers breaking up before reaching the crash zone, disproving the existence of the supposed pile drivers.

[ppwalk05]

@FacelesswithEyesOpen Phd in what and from where?

[ppwalk05]

@FacelesswithEyesOpen PHd in what and from where.

[FacelesswithEyesOpen]

@ppwalk05 If I tell you I have a bunch of initials behind my name it will support the logic of my arguement? Time to attack my credibility now since you have yet to counter me adequately. Try clapping your hands 10 times in 10 seconds... that is how fast the floors "collapsed" due to "structural failure." The failure was caused simultaneously in all massive 4 inch thick steel columns in order to cause the free fall collapse of THREE buildings. You dont want 2 C it or you have an agenda.

[ppwalk05]

@FacelesswithEyesOpen no, I want the credentials of people you link to. "Try clapping your hands 10 times in 10 seconds... that is how fast the floors "collapsed" due to "structural failure." False WTC 1 and WTC 2 took more than 15 seconds each to collapse. At 417m free fall would require 9.22s. The collapsing of the towers are in line with the predictions of the computational modeling.

[FacelesswithEyesOpen]

@ppwalk05 You are reaching for the SLIGHTEST HOPE to say the buildings took a second more than FREE FALL SPEED. FREE FALL SPEED FREE FALL SPEED.

The collapsing building almost reached TERMINAL VELOCITY.

Where do I get the stats? NIST report... take the numbers and do the math. Or watch the videos and see if you can count the floors as they collapse. You can't. They disintegrated before our eyes WITH A LOT OF HELP from nanothermite.

[ppwalk05]

@FacelesswithEyesOpen LOL terminal velocity. Lets do some physics:

d=1/2at^2

v=at => t=v/a

d=1/2at^2=1/2 (v^2)/(a) => v^2 = 2da

solve for v = (2 * 417m * 9.81m/s^2)^1/2 = 90m/s = 325 km/h.

325km/h is not the terminal velocity for dense objects made of concrete and steel. A human can reach a terminal velocity of easily 300+km/h when tucked. Concrete is more than 2x denser than a human. Steel is 8x denser than human.

[FacelesswithEyesOpen]

@ppwalk05 watch?v=FRyp21s0Rko

[ppwalk05]

@FacelesswithEyesOpen ROLF (density of steel)/(density of apple) = 20

(density of concrete)/(density of apple) = 5

[FacelesswithEyesOpen]

@ppwalk05 What part of the FREE FALL SPEED of THREE BUILDINGS is it that you don't understand?

What part of NO RESISTANCE in order to reach the speeds of FREE FALL do you not understand?

The laws of physics and understanding of steel changed on 9/11.

[ppwalk05]

@FacelesswithEyesOpen I understand but you do not. The buildings would of had to come down from top to bottom in 9.22 seconds for it to be free fall. The buildings took more than 15 seconds to fall about 90% of their height. The building were not in free fall, they nearly took twice as long to collapse.

[FacelesswithEyesOpen]

@ppwalk05 FREE FALL DEMOLITION: watch?v=CpAp8eCEqNA

[FacelesswithEyesOpen]

@ppwalk05 Even if it took 20 seconds to collapse; you are obviously missing the point that the building should not have collapsed to begin with. It was designed NOT TO COLLAPSE. It was not a faulty design at all it was designed to take MULTIPLE airliner impacts. The steel beams were 4 INCHES THICK. The force required to demolish those THREE BUILDINGS SYMMETRICALLY AS THE FELL, was not caused by TWO airliner impacts.

You are right thermite burns/melts.

[FacelesswithEyesOpen]

watch this video here: watch?v=AaLAloHfUyI ...safe to say the columns of the WTC towers were constructed just as well..... how is that anyone has been convinced that this much structural support can just disintegrate from a gravity driven collapse is simply illogical. The fire was many floors above, how does the entire building give way? It didn't. It was exploded by nanothermite.

[ppwalk05]

@FacelesswithEyesOpen no it collapsed upon itself, the core of the building stayed intact longer during the collapse. This can be seen on video and is in the NIST report. Nanothermite does not explode, it burns.

[FacelesswithEyesOpen]

@ppwalk05 E V I D E N C E: w w w . ae911truth. org/en/ evidence.h t m l

UNEXPLODED NANO THERMITE FOUND IN DEBRIS: 911research.wtc7.net/essays/th­ermite/explosive_residues. h t m l

SCIENTIFIC PAPER: w w w . bentham -open. org/pages/content.p h p?TO C P J/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCP­J. S G M

[FacelesswithEyesOpen]

@ppwalk05 you will have to remove all the spaces to follow those links only way I could post them

[ppwalk05]

@FacelesswithEyesOpen lol the journal where the editor resigned after that Steve Jones article was published. The impact factor of that journal is way below 1 (this means the number of papers published in the journal are far greater than the number of papers citing the works in the journal, basically the journal is not creditable).

[FacelesswithEyesOpen]

@ppwalk05 you can flash as many ratios and impact factors as much as you want. THEY ARE IRRELEVANT when it comes to dealing with issues in which there is a CONCERTED EFFORT to thwart the truth from coming out. And if you seriously think that is not the case, it is no wonder you still believe the official version of LIES that has had numerous holes ripped through the credibility of the NIST report, which is NOT SCIENTIFIC and is GARBAGE.

[ppwalk05]

@FacelesswithEyesOpen yes I guess math, logic, and science are irrelevant to an irrational person.

[FacelesswithEyesOpen]

@ppwalk05 I am not irrational. Tell me what benefit do you think I get from argueing on a daily basis with people like you? What do you think I could possibly get out of this? Especially since I am Canadian.

Realize why the movement is STRONG, will continue and some day you will feel like a fool when you decide to look at ALL OF THE EVIDENCE and not just the filtered lens of information the government sanctions.

[ppwalk05]

@FacelesswithEyesOpen You are irrational if you refuse to learn basic physics and not do the calculations that would refute your claims. You are irrational if do not impose the same burden of proof on the information you believe in versus the information that others put forward. As for what you get out of it, I do not know. Maybe you genuinely believe your stories and believe you are force for good in this world. What I do know is that your belief do not stand up to scientific scrutiny.

[FacelesswithEyesOpen]

@ppwalk05 I'm spreading a needed message at a time when our governments are continuing to colonize the rest of the world in the name of "freedom and democracy" which really only means the genocide of those people who stand in the way under the guise of whatever lies the government sees fit to play out on the TV.

[FacelesswithEyesOpen]

@ppwalk05 1,487 verified architectural and engineering professionals and 11,799 other supporters have signed the petition demanding of Congress a truly independent investigation. This is not inconsequential or anything to be discredited. Look at the evidence: w w w . ae911truth . org / en / evidence . h t m l

[FacelesswithEyesOpen]

@ppwalk05 A million people the majority being women and children are dead. We continue to drop bombs and bust down doors into peoples lives killing the males and abusing WOMEN AND CHILDREN with continuous occupation and war. 9/11 was the vehicle. This is evil. This is absolutely wrong. I am choosing the side of humanity and choose not to allow the propaganda and junk science of NIST allow me to participate by way of DECEPTION.

[ppwalk05]

@FacelesswithEyesOpen Do not assume because I reject the stories of truthers that I believe the wars were justified. You are making a false choice if you believe the choice is between believing the official explanation or choosing the side of humanity. You are making a choice between believing the official explanation or not believing the official explanation. One can believe the official story and not support the wars.

[FacelesswithEyesOpen]

@ppwalk05 Just explaining my motivation. The wars were/are NOT justified. The official explanation has a large amount missing and it does not explain adequately the collapse. They did not even look for explosive residue and they did not even treat the debris like a crime scene. The amount of evidence surrounding the 9/11 pointing towards a cover up is enormous. The facts of the collapse are being looked at through the lens of NIST

[ppwalk05]

@FacelesswithEyesOpen the official explanation is thorough and is based on science. It more than adequately explains the collapse. In fact can one use the NIST report to create highly accurate models of the collapse. How do you know that the did not treat the debris like a crime scene? The facts of the collapse are being looked through the lens of the principals of science and engineering.

[FacelesswithEyesOpen]

@ppwalk05 NIST simply avoids these troublesome issues by placing them outside the scope of its investigation, claiming that "global collapse" was "inevitable" after the "initiation of collapse."  * Its theory about the effects of crash and fire damage is deeply flawed. * Its presumption that "collapse initiation" will automatically lead to "global collapse" is unfounded.

[FacelesswithEyesOpen]

@ppwalk05 * The buildings collapsed straight down, and at virtually free-fall speed, as in controlled demolitions, and then the rubble smoldered for months. * Many people in the buildings said that they heard or felt explosions.  * Virtually all the concrete of these enormous structures was pulverized into very fine dust. * Much of this dust, along with pieces of steel and aluminum, was blown out horizontally several hundred feet.

[FacelesswithEyesOpen]

@ppwalk05 * It truncates the timelines of the collapses at the point of "collapse initiation." * It ignores the history of steel-framed buildings in regard to total collapse. * Its numerous mentions of 'progressive collapse' conceal the fact that the Twin Towers are the only alleged examples of top-down total progressive collapse.

[FacelesswithEyesOpen]

@ppwalk05 NIST's investigation is being presented as the presumptive last word on the collapses of the Twin Towers and Building 7. The collapse of each of the Twin Towers was the last of three events:

[FacelesswithEyesOpen]

@ppwalk05 1. A jetliner collides with the Tower, punching a gaping hole and producing a giant fireball.  2. The jet fuel ignites fires on multiple floors, producing thick smoke and heating and possibly deforming some structures. 3. The Tower collapses totally, from top to bottom, leaving virtually no recognizable pieces except fragments of its steel skeleton and aluminum cladding.

[FacelesswithEyesOpen]

@ppwalk05 NIST's team labored mightily to make its new theory seem plausible. Their Report: * Presents simulations of the crashing aircraft so detailed that they include the planes' turbine blades, helping the reader to overlook the lack of detail in its vague description of "column instability" leading to "global collapse."

[FacelesswithEyesOpen]

@ppwalk05 # Mixes observation-based details with pure speculation, making it easy for the reader to miss the lack of evidence for severe core damage and high core temperatures in its models.

# Uses repetition and dramatic writing to convince the reader that steel will succumb quickly to fires.

# Exaggerates the extent and intensity of the fires, assuming temperatures more than 300 ºC (572 ºF) higher than are supported by any evidence.

[FacelesswithEyesOpen]

@ppwalk05

# Ignores properties of steel that make it resistant to fire damage, such as its thermal conductivity.

# Asserts that perimeter columns bowed inward on the basis of their distorted appearance in certain photographs, ignoring other plausible explanations. 

[FacelesswithEyesOpen]

@ppwalk05 NIST apparently ignored thermal conduction within its model of the steel structure. Since steel is a good conductor of heat, and the steel in the Twin Towers' structures was well connected, their massive steel structures would have drawn heat away from the parts that were exposed to fire.

[ppwalk05]

@FacelesswithEyesOpen Every single of the items you bring up can be explained away. You are dire need of reading outside of what you currently accept. You need to learn what passes off for science, and the rigor required in science. It is clear you do not have a rudimentary understanding of science. Nor do you have perspective of what Government are and are not capable of. Go to your library and take some books out on science and civics. Do not go for books that are about conspiracy theory's.

[FacelesswithEyesOpen]

@ppwalk05 Once again instead of countering any of the facts and points I make you simply dismiss it all by saying the problem lies within my scope of understanding of science. 1,487 verified architectural and engineering professionals and 11,804 other supporters state the exact same arguments that I have made; I guess every one of us is wrong. Your head is up your ass.

[ppwalk05]

@FacelesswithEyesOpen there are over 1.3 million licensed engineers in the U.S., having 1,487 cranks means nothing. I have counter your claims you will not accept. Yes I believe everyone of the 11,804 supporters is a wrong. You do not debate the facts, every time I counter one of your claims you bring up another issues. You are incapable of debate the facts, you have shown this clearly. You are do not critically analyze the information you spout, you simply parrot what others says.

[FacelesswithEyesOpen]

@ppwalk05 I did respond to all your tangent arguements. You did not touch 1) the thermal conductivity of steel and now the building itself would have drawn the heat away from the fire. 2) the question on whether you listened to the eye witness testimony which you clearly dispute, which I quoted 3) Nanothermite 4) Melted and perfectly formed 4-6 inch thick steel beams.... there are numerous credible arguements you ignored. You clearly have the agenda or you are that afraid of the truth yourself.

[FacelesswithEyesOpen]

@ppwalk05 the fact that millions of engineers exist means nothing. Like many weak minded people in the public many people do not care to look at 9/11 or bother to take a stance on it or want to risk their reputation aligning themselves against the status quo. Your arguements are ridiculous side tracks to the facts and arguements I presented. You have presented NOTHING but beating the official story's credibility drum which has been proven to be worth shit.

[ppwalk05]

@FacelesswithEyesOpen then why did you bring it up?

[FacelesswithEyesOpen]

@ppwalk05 Why are you here spending ridiculous amounts of time arguing what is according to you all disproven and not acceptable? What do you have to worry about if everything I say is so illogical? My motivations are clear and have been stated, what are yours? You care about the error of my ways?

[ppwalk05]

@FacelesswithEyesOpen why are you spending time arguing with me?

[FacelesswithEyesOpen]

@ppwalk05 I argue this and challenge people on it daily. Because I know I am right and the wars are dead wrong. I do it for the disgusting human atrocities that are taking place in the names of our governments. It is a big ugly story and 9/11 is just the rabbit hole... some day you will fall in.

[ppwalk05]

@FacelesswithEyesOpen how do you know you are right?

[FacelesswithEyesOpen]

@ppwalk05 I am of a logical sound mind that is quite perceptive. I reviewed ALL of the evidence and it is clear, the government is lieing and there is a massive concerted effort on behalf of many organizations to deceive the public on 9/11.

Explain the fact that WTC 7 was reported as fallen on live TV with it in the background on BBC 20 minutes before the building actually collapsed? Explain that amazing ESP on behalf of BBC.

[ppwalk05]

@FacelesswithEyesOpen prove to me you are logical.

[FacelesswithEyesOpen]

@ppwalk05 If I haven't already then too bad. I do not feel the slightest obligation to prove shit to someone who stubbornly beats the government agenda drum like you do.

[ppwalk05]

@FacelesswithEyesOpen well you certainly act like you have an obligation with your persistence.

[FacelesswithEyesOpen]

@ppwalk05 I do have an obligation.  It is to humanity and to this earth. I am a Sundancer. What do you know about that?

[ppwalk05]

@FacelesswithEyesOpen that is a grandiose obligation, do you have a messiah complex?

[FacelesswithEyesOpen]

@ppwalk05 not in the slightest. Sacrifice is not something you would understand is it?

[ppwalk05]

@FacelesswithEyesOpen how would you know that?

[FacelesswithEyesOpen]

@ppwalk05 Again, I do not care about the propaganda swallowing personality type that you are. Unless you start replying to any one of the points or questions I made... I am losing interest in your games. And I will get to deleting the worthless ones and keep the logical arguement with all the facts.

[ppwalk05]

@FacelesswithEyesOpen that is convenient attitude to have, is that not the same attitude you claim the government has?

[FacelesswithEyesOpen]

@ppwalk05 Convenient? My lack of compassion or care towards government agenda pushing people? It is clearly more logical to conserve my patience and efforts for those willing to discuss with an open mind or actually "debate"; you've dodged the specifics of every argument I made by attacking credibility.

[ppwalk05]

@FacelesswithEyesOpen Why do wish to shutdown discussion by deleting posts, I have not dodged any of the specifics. I have provide you with scientific and logical reasons why you are wrong. All you have done is bring up a bunch of inane questions. You have scientific proof, and you currently are incapable of determining what would be scientific proof.

[FacelesswithEyesOpen]

@ppwalk05 because you are a waste of time. You clearly choose the opposing side. I do not give a shit about you or others like you because it is people like you that allow this to continue. So either you are that convinced you are right, and I suspect this may be the case since credibility is so high on your honour scale; or you are fully aware you are pushing lies.

[ppwalk05]

@FacelesswithEyesOpen I believe what I do because I can reason and think for myself. I am capable of understanding scientific information. I am capable of critical reasoning. I am capable of ignoring red herrings. All of these things your side is incapable of.

[FacelesswithEyesOpen]

@ppwalk05 and yes you have dodged many specifics, I numbered and marked several points.

[ppwalk05]

@FacelesswithEyesOpen and none the points are worthy of debate. I have debated the ones worth of debate. I have debated the towers were not in free fall, that pancaking can and has happened, that the steel was not molten, that the claims of nanothermite are not scientifically valid and have not been peer reviewed. Maybe if you actually debated what I said instead of spouting off more inane questions in every comment we could get somewhere.

[FacelesswithEyesOpen]

@ppwalk05 No you simply stated that papers were not credible.

FACT - UNREACTED NANOTHERMITE WAS FOUND IN THE DUST

MOLTEN STEEL WAS THERE IN MASS AMOUNTS AND BURNED FOR SEVERAL WEEKS.

So what, you think different. Now what? You still do not matter to me or any viewer of this channel.

Any person interested in this video who reads the comments can see my sincerity and your obvious game of pushing the credibility of the government story.

Get somewhere? I choose not to go with you, pointless.

[FacelesswithEyesOpen]

@ppwalk05 watch?v=3WCcSHpvAJ8

[FacelesswithEyesOpen]

@ppwalk05 9/11 kicked off ten years of wars in two countries and they lied to get into the wrong country to begin with. The military industrial complex bloodlust for money continues, and you defend it. Have a nice life.

[ppwalk05]

@FacelesswithEyesOpen why do you believe lies?

[FacelesswithEyesOpen]

@ppwalk05 the official story are the lies. Why do you refuse to look at the alternative evidence and just accept the official version at face value when there is so much obvious dispute about all of it?

[ppwalk05]

@FacelesswithEyesOpen why do refuse to critically analyze your information?

[FacelesswithEyesOpen]

@ppwalk05 Why are you asking me questions you should be asking yourself? Just to annoy me? You are certainly not going to convince me or any of the people who subscribe to my channel that the information I present is false, inaccurate or even misleading. The world knows 9/11 was an inside job. Stupid North Americans and especially Americans are the last to shake their heads because you still tune into CNN. Wake up.

[ppwalk05]

@FacelesswithEyesOpen do you ever question yourself?

[FacelesswithEyesOpen]

@ppwalk05 consistently my entire life.

[ppwalk05]

@FacelesswithEyesOpen prove it?

[FacelesswithEyesOpen]

@ppwalk05 Prove what? Why are you asking so many personal irrelevant questions? Just to bury all the good arguement in the comments? I'll just delete all this nonsense this is turning into and band you. You are not important to me at all. I do this to inform and educate others of the truth. Not the propaganda bullshit you willingly accept for whatever cowardly reason; just do not call it logical or logic because in the end of it all; you certainly will find out.

[FacelesswithEyesOpen]

@ppwalk05 did you even watch the video? What do you have to say about the numerous eye witnesses who describe the molten steel and what is your understanding/explanation for the amount of molten steel and the duration that it burned? Are these firefighters in the video lying? You ignore them like the NIST investigators I guess. NEVER BEFORE IN THE HISTORY OF FIRES HAS THIS HAPPENED YET YOU ACCEPT IT NOW.

[ppwalk05]

@FacelesswithEyesOpen molten steel is a loose term, people saw metal at high temperatures when it was glowing but not fluid and called it molten steel. (look up Blackbody radiation, an object need only be 1000 degrees Celsius to glow yellow-red ~600nm) There were no reports of liquid steel flowing. "NEVER BEFORE IN THE HISTORY OF FIRES HAS THIS HAPPENED YET YOU ACCEPT IT NOW" do all you truthers use this line?

[FacelesswithEyesOpen]

@ppwalk05 stating it only takes a certain temperature to "turn colour" is pretty inconsequential when the REALITY of what we are discussing is the energetic reaction required to crush/collapse 2/3 of the building with just 1/3 of the building. Chuck all the theories and equations you want at it... I am sure being the scientist that you are by looking at the BIG PICTURE... that 1/3 of a building cannot crush 2/3rds of a building designed to NOT COLLAPSE and to take multiple airliner impacts.

[ppwalk05]

@FacelesswithEyesOpen it debunks your idea that the steel was molten, instead the steel was only hot. Steel at high temperatures is not as rigid as steel at low temp (weaker). 1/3 of a building can crush the rest of the building when the bottom 2/3s is structurally compromised and when that top third has momentum and energy from gravitational acceleration.

[FacelesswithEyesOpen]

@ppwalk05 it is not my idea the steel was molten. You just have to watch the eye witness testimony in this video, the satellite imagery and temperature readings MONTHS AFTER.

Explain the perfect horseshoe like bends of massive steel beams with no snapping or breaking of the beam? Like it was made in the heat of a foundry. Nanothermite. Look it up.

[ppwalk05]

@FacelesswithEyesOpen the steel was not molten, it was not in a liquid state. People see steel glowing yellow red and will call that molten, it is misnomer. There was satellite imagery and the upper limit on the temperature read by the satellites was 850 degrees Celsius, they did not read high temperature months after, days after yes, months no.

[FacelesswithEyesOpen]

@ppwalk05 yes it was in liquid state LISTEN TO THE EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY.

[FacelesswithEyesOpen]

@ppwalk05 available on the evidence link I gave you

• Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center destruction

Steven E. Jones, Jeffrey Farrer, Gregory S. Jenkins, Frank Legge, James Gourley, Kevin Ryan, Danial Farnsworth, and Crockett Grabbe

January 2007

[ppwalk05]

@FacelesswithEyesOpen that paper is worth less, it has not been vetted by the scientific or engineering community. Any paper published in any Bentham Open Journal is worthless. No one will cite those papers.

[FacelesswithEyesOpen]

@ppwalk05 I realize all you scientific professional types throw EVERYTHING into initials and credibility... if it does not stand up to the slicing and dicing of government sanctioned officials; then you have permission to dismiss it. So that is exactly what someone like you does instead of actually reviewing the evidence and forming your own opinion based on the evidence. The equivalent of saying "I only agree if they do" pathetic.

[FacelesswithEyesOpen]

@ppwalk05 To quote the firefighter eye witness "you get down below and you see molten steel. Molten steel running down the channels like you are in a foundry.... like lava"

"the fires got very intense down there [in the debris] and actually melted beams"

6 inch thick I beam formed perfect horseshoe... how? by debris falling on it?

[FacelesswithEyesOpen]

@ppwalk05 • Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center destruction

• Engineer Sees Evidence of Extreme Temperatures in WTC Steel

Submitted by Shoestring on Mon, 02/25/2008

• The Sustainability of the Controlled Demolition Hypothesis for the Destruction of the Twin Towers

Tony Szamboti, ME --- May, 2007

• The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermites

[FacelesswithEyesOpen]

@ppwalk05 The scientific paper Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe conclusively shows the presence of unignited aluminothermic explosives in dust samples from the Twin Towers, whose chemical signature matches previously documented aluminothermic residues found in the same dust samples. w w w . bentham-open . org/pages/content . php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/000000­01/7TOCPJ . SGM

[ppwalk05]

@FacelesswithEyesOpen give me a paper out of a real Science or Engineering journal. Impact Factor of 2.0 or more.

[FacelesswithEyesOpen]

@12Weasel No actually they haven't and they are not MY arguements. They are the FACTS and scientific principles applied to the evidence of that day. The only thing you have to offer is insult for the purpose of pissing me off, So I will gladly ban your ass MORON.

[Oceanno69]

It is fun how sheep can follow without one brain cell. I guess ignore is bliss for what I have see shows how far the nwo will go to get the mass scared to death. Fear is our biggest enemy.

[Oceanno69]

I see you have not got one debunking person in here! I guess they can't say any thing about the info you got going on here! Thank YOU So much for your GREAT Vid!

[FacelesswithEyesOpen]

@Oceanno69 ha ha I love this video, debunkers have met their match on this one.... I can't see how anyone can discredit the testimony in this video, anyone who tries has an obvious agenda. Thanks ;)

[itzahazylife]

@FacelesswithEyesOpen

the molten "steel" is actually molten aluminum. it has a much lower melting point than steel. NASA thermal readings reported temperatures of greater than 800F, the USGS reports max temperatures of 134F. these temperatures are consistent with a smoldering fire that originally burned at 1800 degrees. also, thermate burns out quickly..once the thermate burned out,the molten steel would have immediately started solidifiying. it wouldn't have kept the steel molten for 6 weeks.

[FacelesswithEyesOpen]

@itzahazylife where do you get your junk science from?

[itzahazylife]

@FacelesswithEyesOpen

steel melts at over 2500 degrees..there is no way temperatures could have reached that point with jet fuel. so, u claim thermate must have been used..but, if thermate was used, it would have quickly burned out, like thermate does, and the steel would have began solidifying..molten steel wouldn't have stayed above 2500 degrees for 6 weeks after..that's why the molten metal was more than likely aluminum..molten aluminum perfectly explains the molten metal.

[FacelesswithEyesOpen]

@itzahazylife There are many possible thermodynamically stable fuel-oxidizer combinations. Some of them are: * Aluminium-molybdenum(VI) oxide * Aluminium-copper(II) oxide * Aluminium-iron(II,III) oxide * Antimony-potassium permanganate * Aluminium-potassium permanganate * Aluminium-bismuth(III) oxide * Aluminium-tungsten(VI) oxide hydrate * Aluminium-fluoropolymer (typically Viton) * Titanium-boron (burns to titanium diboride)

[FacelesswithEyesOpen]

@itzahazylife In military research, aluminium-molybdenum oxide, aluminium-Teflon and aluminium-copper(II) oxide have received considerable attention.[4] Other compositions tested were based on nanosized RDX and with thermoplastic elastomers. PTFE or other fluoropolymer can be used as a binder for the composition. Its reaction with the aluminium, similar to magnesium/teflon/viton thermite, adds energy to the reaction. [5]

[FacelesswithEyesOpen]

@itzahazylife Of the listed compositions, the Al-KMnO4 one shows the highest pressurization rates, followed by orders of magnitude slower Al-MoO3 and Al-CuO, followed by yet slower Al-Fe2O3.

Nanoparticles can be prepared by spray drying from a solution, or in case of insoluble oxides, spray pyrolysis of solutions of suitable precursors. The composite materials can be prepared by sol-gel techniques or by conventional wet mixing and pressing.

[FacelesswithEyesOpen]

@itzahazylife Better yet though, WATCH THE VIDEO and take the fire fighter's eye witness testimony for what they say that MOLTEN STEEL remained there like a foundry for months. NANOTHERMITE.

[itzahazylife]

@FacelesswithEyesOpen

tell me, how would fire fighters know the difference between molten steel, and molten aluminum?

and nanothermite?..the USGS dust samples DID contain iron, sulfur, aluminum, potassium, manganese, fluorine, and titanium. but, could these metals be accounted for by something other than thermite?..yes! steven jones says finding these things in the dust is uncommon..but, he is wrong.

[FacelesswithEyesOpen]

@itzahazylife keep your head buried in the sand then.  You are refusing to see logic.

[FacelesswithEyesOpen]

@itzahazylife keep your head buried in the sand then. You are refusing to see logic. The OBVIOUS.

[itzahazylife]

@Oceanno69

the molten "steel" is actually molten aluminum. it has a much lower melting point than steel. NASA thermal readings reported temperatures of greater than 800F, the USGS reports max temperatures of 134F. these temperatures are consistent with a smoldering fire that originally burned at 1800 degrees. also, thermate burns out quickly..once the thermate burned out, the molten steel would have immediately started solidifiying. it wouldn't have kept the steel molten for 6 weeks.

[FacelesswithEyesOpen]

The Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all of the characteristics of destruction by explosives: (and some non-standard characteristics)

1. Destruction proceeds through the path of greatest resistance at nearly free-fall acceleration

2. Improbable symmetry of debris distribution

3. Extremely rapid onset of destruction

4. Over 100 first responders reported explosions and flashes

5. Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally 600 ft at 60 mph

[FacelesswithEyesOpen]

@itzahazylife

6. Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking

7. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds

8. 1200-foot-dia. debris field: no "pancaked" floors found

9. Isolated explosive ejections 20 40 stories below demolition front

10. Total building destruction: dismemberment of steel frame

11. Several tons of molten metal found under all 3 high-rises

12. Evidence of thermite incendiaries found by FEMA in steel samples

[FacelesswithEyesOpen]

@itzahazylife

12. Evidence of thermite incendiaries found by FEMA in steel samples

13. Evidence of explosives found in dust samples

14. No precedent for steel-framed high-rise collapse due to fire

[FacelesswithEyesOpen]

@itzahazylife

And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.

1. Slow onset with large visible deformations

2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires)

3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel

4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never collapsed

[itzahazylife]

@FacelesswithEyesOpen

yes, the fires could have softened steel. and they did. u can see in many pictures the perimeter columns bowing inward due to the heated horizontal trusses bending..the fire proofing was most definitely destroyed by the plane flying thru.

other high rise buildings didn't have a 757 fly straight thru them, significantly damaging them structurally.

[FacelesswithEyesOpen]

@itzahazylife common sense states the building would have collapsed or fell towards the impact site. Fire may have weakened the impact site but the building fell 10floors/sec. It fell symmetrically into it's own footprint at free fall speed. Just like a controlled demolition. Never in the history of steel frame high rise buildings has it ever happened before but it happened THREE times that day all in roughly 10 seconds. TEN FLOORS PER SECOND. Think about it; or is that just too obvious?

[FacelesswithEyesOpen]

@itzahazylife Do this: Clap your hands 10 times in one second. That is how fast the structure "weakened and collapsed". Think about that, 10 floors of PEOPLE, office furniture, elevator shafts, stairwells, walls, concrete, steel beams TEN FLOORS OF THAT PER SECOND CRUSHED. That is IMPOSSIBLE with a gravity driven collapse, without the use of explosives to SIMULTANEOUSLY cut ALL SUPPORT AT ONCE for the building to fall symmetrically with NO RESISTANCE at free fall speed.

[ppwalk05]

@FacelesswithEyesOpen you an engineer? Look up progressive collapse, pancake collapsing has occurred before in structures. See "civil.northwestern.edu/people­/bazant/PDFs/Papers/466.pdf". Also you see that article, that is what Engineering/Scientific research looks like.

[FacelesswithEyesOpen]

@ppwalk05 I do not have to be an engineer to quote engineers. 29 Structural/Civil Engineers Cite Evidence for Controlled Explosive Demolition in Destruction of All 3 W.T.C. High-Rises on 9/11, June '09 www2 .ae911truth . org/downloads/29_Structural-Ci­vil_Engineers_2009-06-17.pdf read that and see what evidence looks like.

[ppwalk05]

@FacelesswithEyesOpen Wow 29 engineers out of 1.3+ million (1999 number, number is higher today) professional engineers in the united states alone. Also none of those 29 engineers have any experience in high rise structural engineering according to the bios given.

[FacelesswithEyesOpen]

@ppwalk05 Prior to 9/11 (or since) no steel-frame highrise has ever collapsed from fire. There have been numerous cases of high-rise fires far more severe than those observed on 9/11. Here's a few examples:

[FacelesswithEyesOpen]

@ppwalk05 • Caracas, Venezuela, Oct, 2004, 56 story building burned for 17 hours over 26 floors

• LA, May 1988, 1st Interstate Bank, 62 stories, 5 floors burned for 3.5 hours

• Philadelphia, Feb, 1991, Meridian Plaza, 38 stories, 8 floors burned for 18 hours

• New York, Aug, 1970, New York Plaza, 50 stories, burned for six hours

• Madrid, February 2005, Windsor Bldg, 32 stories, burned for 24 hours, total loss

[FacelesswithEyesOpen]

@ppwalk05 All of these fires were true "towering infernos" with dramatic, raging emergent flames bursting out from entire floors of the building through shattered windows. None of these buildings collapsed.

[ppwalk05]

@FacelesswithEyesOpen Windsor Tower in Madrid was not?

[ppwalk05]

@FacelesswithEyesOpen Ronan Point occurred in minutes.

[FacelesswithEyesOpen]

@ppwalk05 A detailed critique of the NIST Report can be found here:

//911research.wtc7.net/essays/­nist/index_0.98.html

[FacelesswithEyesOpen]

@ppwalk05 A detailed critique of the NIST Report can be found here:

911research.wtc7.net/essays/ni­st/index_0.98.html

[ppwalk05]

@FacelesswithEyesOpen it has not been published in peer reviewed Engineering or Scientific journal with an impact factor above 2.0, so it is garbage.

[FacelesswithEyesOpen]

@ppwalk05 LOL yes because the veil of propaganda and conditioning has been so thick for 10 years that because the "impact factor" is not above 2.0... it is safe to put aside all that logic and sound, verifiable evidence that has been published in scientific journals. Isn't that how the system works just perfectly for itself.

[ppwalk05]

@FacelesswithEyesOpen no because the value of the information would be incredibly high if such information could withstand scientific scrutiny that it would be publishable in any Journal in the world, let alone a journal with an impact factor of 2.0

[FacelesswithEyesOpen]

@ppwalk05 "Pancaking" collapses are sometimes seen in Third World countries where badly designed and poorly reinforced structures with heavy concrete floors are subjected to earthquakes. Modern American buildings (including the WTC Towers) are designed and built according to robust standards and specifications that require structural unification of horizontal and vertical assemblies. This is done specifically to prevent pancaking floor collapses under any circumstances.

[ppwalk05]

@FacelesswithEyesOpen no Pancaking has occured in First World countries: Britain, Spain, Taiwan. "structural unification of horizontal and vertical assemblies" Completely untrue now and in the past. If this was the case then all building would symmetrical cube shaped buildings. See the Trans-America building in San Fransisco.

[FacelesswithEyesOpen]

@ppwalk05 These theoretical "pancaking" scenarios do not take into account the strength of specific structural features like the continuous verticality of the core column assemblies or the fact that much stronger and heavier materials were used in the lower part of the building. They also employ the entire mass of the structure to drive the process while ignoring the fact that most of this mass is actually landing outside of the original footprint and would therefore be unavailable.