Dylan Avery, Pat Curley Debate, Pt. 2

Dylan Avery and Pat Curley debate 9/11 truth on The Rob Breakenridge Show, AM 770 CHQR, Cargary, Alberta, on Sept. 10, 2009. Part two of three.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• dylan avery
• pat curley
• rob breakenridge
• CHQR
• 9/11
• 9/11 truth
• loose change
• screw loose change
• an american coup

[ScholarVisual]

The mediator sucks. Hes so bias. This is 2 vs 1. And they still lose.LOL

[MarkB1ngham]

Can we see an independent tonnage audit for the salvaged WTC twin towers steel? wouldn't a gravity alone collapse give a steel out EQUALS steel in  figure? is there any precedent for steel not being completely salvaged from building structural failures?

[SvenTviking]

@Lietuvispartizan The fact is, all the thermite talk came from one flow of liquid metal, which came from the corner of the south tower and the floor were all the airliner wreckage ended up, and it started pouring out as that flloor was seen and filmed sagging in this corner. So there is a reasonable theory that this metal flow was aircraft aluminium. Thermite was a product of Dylan "make it up as you go along" Avery's imagination.

[SvenTviking]

@Lietuvispartizan With all this white hot iron flowing, why did the towers not light up like a fireworks display when the thermite started cutting? It HAS to flow freely otherwise it would cool and block the whole process. Where were the crucibles? Why use thermite when shaped charges would do the job so much better? According to the theorys, explosives were used, so why use thermite as well? Yhese are logical questions which truthers never answer.

[SvenTviking]

@Lietuvispartizan There is not a lot of explanation in how thermite cuts steel. Thermite reacts and produces large quantaties of white hot liquid iron which melts through the steel work. It requires huge amounts of reactants and produces large amounts of liquid iron. It needs huge ceramic and steel crucibles to react in and some way (no one has really shown how) of directing this iron flow to cut awkward angles and shapes.

[SvenTviking]

@Lietuvispartizan It was a BBC documentry that said that the reactive materials were paint. The red flakes certainly looked like red oxide undercoat, and I've seen and used plenty of it. I would believe the Thermite theorys more if someone had found either the large crucibles needed to react the thermite in, or the major byproduct, large rivulets of hardened iron, like candle wax on the structural steel work.

[Lietuvispartizan]

@SvenTviking BTW, the professor who made the claim about the energy density,appears isn't so neutral about 911. He was involved in Popular Mechanics debunking magazine in 2006. Also he made at that time a stunning proclamation about a natural occurring thermite reaction. According to Richard Fruehan: "The thermite reaction could had occurred with aluminum metal and any oxide that happens to be near it." Apparently BBC wanted to hear an 'unbiased' opinion about the red/gray chips from him.

[Lietuvispartizan]

@SvenTviking Really? You should look a little bit closer. Presenting unfounded opinions from authorities with no evidence as facts is not healthy to you and your little duh'bunker friends. Guess what I can debunk the paint claim by only citing BBC. Listen what the narrator Caroline Catz says at

/watch?v=hiQkCfBBjno&feature=p­layer_embedded;t=50s

listen again and again. After that, open the paper by Harrit et al, on page 21 you will see an ironsphere, which wasn't present before the ignition. ?

[SvenTviking]

@Lietuvispartizan I just watched a BBC dicumentry on 9/11 conspiricy theorys. The did spectrographic tests which proved Stephen Jones "Highly reactive particles" burned with less energy than paper, and seemed to be red oxide primer and aluminium basecoat exactly the same as is found painted on the Brooklyn bridge! Jones, what a fuckin' liar!

[SvenTviking]

You get iron microspheres from welding and flame cutting steel. Jone's "evidence" is not evidence. Dylan Avery is going to end up in tears on one of these shows.