Silverstein's 4.5 Billion

[Thoreau72]

Radioman

The work done by Cahill informs you of the answer to your earlier question.

Will you bother to read it?

 

[Menard_K]

Radioman

The work done by Cahill informs you of the answer to your earlier question.

Will you bother to read it?

dare I suggest the obvious, in that there could be a huge class action lawsuit
against the Gov. and MSM for promoting the idea that the air was "safe" in Manhattan,
when in fact it can be documented that there were all sorts of toxic bits in the air at that time.
We The People have been lied to, where is the accountability?

 

[radioman]

This is typical of men making passionate arguments for conclusions reached with complete ignorance of the facts.

Molten metal was seen and reported by many, air samples showing molten metal were taken and recorded, yet you claim to be unaware of those facts.

How will you respond? Deny the facts? Time will tell. eace

---------------
Hey, I'm just passing by.
What passionate arguments?
I'm not a scholar on the 911 catastrophe and I don't claim to be.
I've watched the Popular Mechanics documentaries and found them well reasoned.
The 911 skeptics they've interacted with weren't convincing at all. (Jones was bad, the Loose Change guys were abysmal).
I've perused the 911 conspiracy debunking sites.
The only odd thing I noticed was a claim that conspiracists "...expect taxpayers to waste tens of millions on a new investigation..."
Tens of millions??.....chickenfeed.
So, I'm happy to support any sort of new investigation that will allow the various viewpoints to be debated.
If it's only a few million, some truth-seeking billionaire should jump at the chance.
In closing, I would say that 911 truthers seem to jump to extreme conclusions, based on little, if any, evidence.eace

 

[radioman]

Radioman

The work done by Cahill informs you of the answer to your earlier question.

Will you bother to read it?

-------------------------

While Cahill said he was not aware of evidence confirming the existence of molten metal in the rubble of the WTC, his data showing high levels of ultra-fine particles in the smoke plume prove that incredibly intense hot spots, capable of boiling and vaporizing metals and other components from the debris, persisted beneath the rubble for weeks.
----------------

He doesn't mention boiling steel, does he?
I'm all for hearing ALL explanations for these weeks long hot spots.
Some sort of super-dooper thermite, as skitzo suggests, seems like a huge leap to me.
Does Professor Cahill offer an explanation for the hot spots....do you?

 

[radioman]

dare I suggest the obvious, in that there could be a huge class action lawsuit
against the Gov. and MSM for promoting the idea that the air was "safe" in Manhattan,
when in fact it can be documented that there were all sorts of toxic bits in the air at that time.
We The People have been lied to, where is the accountability?

-------------------

Now this I like.
Demanding government accountability.
Poor, sweet, naïve, trusting Menard.....you're kidding, right?

 

[SanderO]

Prof. Cahill

The trouble with this analysis is that the fires and the corrosive chemical processes continued for months AFTER the collapse and many many have BEGUN after the collapse. To think of the period after the towers fell and as non reactive pile of cold rubble is completely wrong. It was a hold smoldering mixture of all sorts of ground up building materials, water and fires. It took months for the fires to go out and the heat to drop to ambient temps.

 

[Menard_K]

-------------------

Now this I like.
Demanding government accountability.
Poor, sweet, naïve, trusting Menard.....you're kidding, right?

YOU are the one who read Popular Mechanics
and actually believe the crap they are pushing.

 

[radioman]

YOU are the one who read Popular Mechanics
and actually believe the crap they are pushing.

---------------
That's right.
As I've also said, the 911 truthers lack any convincing spokesman.
Aren't you the "there were no planes" guy?:lamo

 

[Menard_K]

---------------
That's right.
As I've also said, the 911 truthers lack any convincing spokesman.
Aren't you the "there were no planes" guy?:lamo

This is a problem, if the movement actually had a "leader" said leader would
be a target, not a good idea. The fact is that the Popular Mechanics bit
proves nothing and explains nothing.

How do YOU deal with the fact that WTC 7 descended at 9.8 m/s^2 for 2.25 sec
and clearly this can only be done if ALL of the resistance has been removed from under the falling mass.

Do you simply buy it that the alleged accounting for the wreckage of "FLT93" is a picture
of a bin full of rubble?

Do you understand that less than 1% of the mass of an airliner can be accounted for in the
bits found on the Pentagon lawn, therefore 99% of said aircraft must have entered the building
through that hole. are you buying this stuff? What we have here is the BIG LIE.
a total fairy tale about 19 suicidal radical Arabs, indeed one that was written by
individuals who have a vested interest in turning public opinion against Arabs.
Do you see...... (?)

 

[sKiTzo]

-------------------------



He doesn't mention boiling steel, does he?

The plumes of bluish smoke that rose for weeks from the rubble of the destroyed World Trade Center contained unprecedented amounts of toxic ultra-fine particles which are created only when metal boils.

 

[sKiTzo]

The trouble with this analysis is that the fires and the corrosive chemical processes continued for months AFTER the collapse and many many have BEGUN after the collapse. To think of the period after the towers fell and as non reactive pile of cold rubble is completely wrong. It was a hold smoldering mixture of all sorts of ground up building materials, water and fires. It took months for the fires to go out and the heat to drop to ambient temps.

It's hilarious that you mention everything he said EXCEPT the forensic evidence that metal was boiling for weeks underneath the rubble, something that cannot happen without exotic accelerants.

 

[SanderO]

It's hilarious that you mention everything he said EXCEPT the forensic evidence that metal was boiling for weeks underneath the rubble, something that cannot happen without exotic accelerants.

Who says? First you don't have proof about this metal boiling for weeks. Don't you think this would be part of a collection of the evidence? Or was it all suppressed?

Second, why could the pulverization and grinding produce a chemical soup which CREATED exotic reagents? Why couldn't exo thermic reactions have been CREATED by the rubble chemistry in some cases? What is thermite? Iron Oxide and Aluminum:

"The aluminium reduces the oxide of another metal, most commonly iron oxide, because aluminium forms stronger bonds with oxygen than iron:

Fe2O3 + 2 Al → 2 Fe + Al2O3

The products are aluminium oxide, free elemental iron,[2] and a large amount of heat. The reactants are commonly powdered and mixed with a binder to keep the material solid and prevent separation.

The reaction is used for thermite welding, often used to join rail tracks. Other metal oxides can be used, such as chromium oxide, to generate the given metal in its elemental form. Copper thermite, using copper oxide, is used for creating electric joints in a process called cadwelding:

3 CuO + 2 Al → 3 Cu + Al2O3

Some thermite-like mixtures are used as pyrotechnic initiators such as fireworks.

Thermites with nanosized particles are described through a variety of terms, such as metastable intermolecular composites, super-thermite,[3] nano-thermite,[4] and nanocomposite energetic materials."

There was ample rust produced and lots of aluminum.... there ya go... grind them up... add a bit of heat and you get a source of heat.

 

[Thoreau72]

Jeffrey

That is a perfect demonstration of the depth of your denial. Cahill's data corroborates the statements of many who actually saw the molten steel.

But you deny it happened. And you expect to be taken seriously. :lamo

 

[Thoreau72]

---------------
Hey, I'm just passing by.
What passionate arguments?
I'm not a scholar on the 911 catastrophe and I don't claim to be.
I've watched the Popular Mechanics documentaries and found them well reasoned.
The 911 skeptics they've interacted with weren't convincing at all. (Jones was bad, the Loose Change guys were abysmal).
I've perused the 911 conspiracy debunking sites.
The only odd thing I noticed was a claim that conspiracists "...expect taxpayers to waste tens of millions on a new investigation..."
Tens of millions??.....chickenfeed.
So, I'm happy to support any sort of new investigation that will allow the various viewpoints to be debated.
If it's only a few million, some truth-seeking billionaire should jump at the chance.
In closing, I would say that 911 truthers seem to jump to extreme conclusions, based on little, if any, evidence.eace

I appreciate your candor.

My only point of disagreement is your last sentence claiming no evidence.

On the contrary, ALL the evidence we can find contradicts the official story. What evidence that was not swept away or suppressed in the mainstream media.

Cahill's data corroborates the statements of many who actually saw the molten steel. Those are facts that contradict the story that jetfuel and gravity alone were responsible for the collapse of the towers. Jetfuel and gravity simply cannot do what they are alleged to have done. They cannot produce molten metal and keep it in that state for many weeks.

Jetfuel and gravity cannot cause explosions in the basement prior to the aircraft strike, as reported by Willie Rodriguez.

 

[SanderO]

Jetfuel and gravity cannot cause explosions in the basement prior to the aircraft strike, as reported by Willie Rodriguez.

Don't talk out of your butthole Mr David. I spoke with William about his experience. What he heard FIRST was an explosion... 1 second as he remembers it before he heard the plane strike the building 1100 feet over his head. That sound of the plane strike was from an event 1 second earlier.. precisely the time he heard the explosion.

The explanation is simple (and correct)... The plane strike cause electrical shorts in the main electrical risers going to the two sub stations on floor 108. The shorts caused a voltage spike which traveled to the basement where the main switch gear was located in the sub basement. The switch gear then exploded as the circuit protection overheated. Electrical shorts can cause temps of 10,000 degrees in a instant, melting steel... and causing the oil cooling insulation to explode when it expands from rapid heating.

BTW the same shorts propagate upstream to the main Con Ed sub station and caused shorts and fires over there too. And that was at the base of bldg 7. How bout that... plane hits tower 1 and causes explosions in building 7. And that was the beginning of 7's undoing.

 

[SanderO]

Jeffrey

That is a perfect demonstration of the depth of your denial. Cahill's data corroborates the statements of many who actually saw the molten steel.

But you deny it happened. And you expect to be taken seriously. :lamo

I don't deny there MAY have been some hot flowing molten material. Have you seen and samples of steel which melted and then cooled? Why not? I maintain that the temps below the towers got extremely hot... in some places when conditions led to these high temps as they can in incinerators after the fuel is cut off. Extreme high temps occur in smoldering fires... well insulated with combustible material present.

However what the flowing material is we don't know for sure... and we don't have examples of it cooled... like rivers of it as has been alleged. And we can't know the SOURCE of the heat... but we do know that the pile was hot... and the building was cold...aside from SOME fires.

 

[Thoreau72]

Don't talk out of your butthole Mr David. I spoke with William about his experience. What he heard FIRST was an explosion... 1 second as he remembers it before he heard the plane strike the building 1100 feet over his head. That sound of the plane strike was from an event 1 second earlier.. precisely the time he heard the explosion.

The explanation is simple (and correct)... The plane strike cause electrical shorts in the main electrical risers going to the two sub stations on floor 108. The shorts caused a voltage spike which traveled to the basement where the main switch gear was located in the sub basement. The switch gear then exploded as the circuit protection overheated. Electrical shorts can cause temps of 10,000 degrees in a instant, melting steel... and causing the oil cooling insulation to explode when it expands from rapid heating.

BTW the same shorts propagate upstream to the main Con Ed sub station and caused shorts and fires over there too. And that was at the base of bldg 7. How bout that... plane hits tower 1 and causes explosions in building 7. And that was the beginning of 7's undoing.

I'm not talking out my arse Jeffrey, and we both know it. I've read the testimony of Rodriguez, and I've seen videos of his presentations at various places 'round the world.

And years later, analysis of seismic records and certain radar data in the area by Gordon Ross and Craig Furlong CORROBORATE Willy's testimony--the explosion in the basement preceded the plane strike by just seconds.

It is you who is talking out of some other orifice, not I. Still pretending the official story is true.

 

[SanderO]

I'm not talking out my arse Jeffrey, and we both know it. I've read the testimony of Rodriguez, and I've seen videos of his presentations at various places 'round the world.

And years later, analysis of seismic records and certain radar data in the area by Gordon Ross and Craig Furlong CORROBORATE Willy's testimony--the explosion in the basement preceded the plane strike by just seconds.

It is you who is talking out of some other orifice, not I. Still pretending the official story is true.

But I SPOKE with him... I didn't watch truther videos...

 

[sKiTzo]

Who says? First you don't have proof about this metal boiling for weeks. Don't you think this would be part of a collection of the evidence? Or was it all suppressed?
.

Stanford. The guy from Stanford. He was called in by the sort of a state level EPA (but not the EPA). When he got there, he was amazed there was not a slew of scientists monitoring everything. He set up his "drum", the air monitoring equipment, and for 3 weeks straight, the bluish smoke registered nano-particles of the kind that are only produced when metal boils. It is being actively suppressed and it's not part of the evidence, because, due to the implications of this revelation, they don't want us to know.

 

[sKiTzo]

But I SPOKE with him... I didn't watch truther videos...

Why would you not watch a truther video in order to get the truth. They can't be called truthers for no reason.

Speaking with him is a far less accurate source because you are relying on information that you heard one time, as opposed to an interview or lecture that is on video and can be played over and over.

 

[SanderO]

Why would you not watch a truther video in order to get the truth. They can't be called truthers for no reason.

Speaking with him is a far less accurate source because you are relying on information that you heard one time, as opposed to an interview or lecture that is on video and can be played over and over.

No I have seen all the vids... but I rely on my conversation which clarified the spin...

 

[Thoreau72]

Stanford. The guy from Stanford. He was called in by the sort of a state level EPA (but not the EPA). When he got there, he was amazed there was not a slew of scientists monitoring everything. He set up his "drum", the air monitoring equipment, and for 3 weeks straight, the bluish smoke registered nano-particles of the kind that are only produced when metal boils. It is being actively suppressed and it's not part of the evidence, because, due to the implications of this revelation, they don't want us to know.

Jeffrey thinks maybe Cahill is making all that up.

Jeffrey believes everything the government says no matter the evidence, but he thinks Cahill is making it all up.

Such is life when one chooses to defend the indefensible. :doh

 

[mike2810]

Jeffrey thinks maybe Cahill is making all that up.

Jeffrey believes everything the government says no matter the evidence, but he thinks Cahill is making it all up.

Such is life when one chooses to defend the indefensible. :doh

There are sites that present information questioning the "molten" metal. So you seem to accept explanation that support some alternative explanation. Please list the sites that contain the info you find so convincing so we can work from the same source and evidence.

HD, please explain why the linked explanation is wrong?
WTC Molten Steel
or
Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - Molten Steel
or
DEBUNKING MOLTEN METAL | 9/11 and Ground Zero

Any response saying the govt report is wrong is will be considered as not an answer.
Any response failing to provide a link to a source of the evidence you find so convincing will be acknowledgment on your part that you have fallen for those who post half truths.

It is interesting you attack those who do not believe as you do as falling for the govt lies or lies by others supporting the govt.

Explain why your sources are more creditable.

Like you I look at what is presented and make up my own mind. We just disagree on what is being presented.

So I can only conclude is you believe everything that someone tells you about 9/11 as long as its against the plane/fire theory.

 

[radioman]

.

Explain why your sources are more creditable.

Like you I look at what is presented and make up my own mind. We just disagree on what is being presented.

So I can only conclude is you believe everything that someone tells you about 9/11 as long as its against the plane/fire theory.

----------------------
Excellent post, excellent point.
Thanks for the links on the molten "steel".
Your last sentence sums things up pretty well.

 

[sKiTzo]

There are sites that present information questioning the "molten" metal. So you seem to accept explanation that support some alternative explanation. .

If you are questioning the molten metal, then you are the one in support of some alternative explanation. How funny you tried to turn that around..

Please list the sites that contain the info you find so convincing so we can work from the same source and evidence.

.

Did I not already do that? It was just one site. You only need one site to show this. You want to know why? BECAUSE CAHILL WAS THE ONLY ONE THERE PERFORMING TESTS. He was apparently the only one interested in finding the truth. He thought he was going there to join the investigation, not to be the only one investigating. He couldn't believe it, and rightly so. It is somewhat astonishing that the government didn't have hundreds of scientists there analyzing the crime scene of these unusual and unprecedented collapses, but not to MIKE2810. This is all perfectly normal to MIKE2810 - why bother to investigate a pile of rubble?

That nobody else was interested in analyzing the evidence means 2 things: First, that they knew what the results would be, so they knew they had to cover it up, not investigate, hence, noone there investigating. This also means that there is nothing to compare Cahill's findings to, so said findings must stand unchallenged. What's to challenge anyway? They are just readings from a machine that analyzes the particles present in the smoke. The machine is lying? Cahill's lying?