Molten Metals

[BeFree]

We all agree that there were pools of molten metals found in the tower rubble.

So the questions are:

What was the composition of the pools of molten metals?

What could have kept the metals molten for so long? What heat source could have kept the metals from solidifying?

[SDuderstadt]

1. Who cares what the composition was?

The answer to your second question is underground fires. Duh.

What is your point, dude? How long are you going to flog this?

[OnTheOtherHand]

2. it's fair to wonder if there is evidence of molten steel

especially after so many people have said so loudly that there is. They care, obviously.

The thing is, people's loud statements are pretty much the only reason I know to think there was molten steel. I don't know of any reason to think that there were temperatures high enough to melt steel.

I have no problem with genuine curiosity. But -- well, I think Bolo has said it well: people should Ask Questions, Recognize Answers. Or at least try to assess answers rationally. They shouldn't just repeat familiar questions, oblivious to all discussion of the possible answers, like toddlers stuck on "But why, mommy?"

[SDuderstadt]

3. VERY well said, OTOH...

unfortunately, I am afraid the point will be lost on BeFree.

[OnTheOtherHand]

10. just to be clear: I'm not "ruling out" molten steel

If temperatures in the pile got hot enough to melt steel, then I would suppose that some steel melted. I just haven't seen convincing evidence for it.

Contrary to a common misunderstanding about "OCTists" or whatever, my worldview isn't predicated on thinking I know the answer to every question, and that all the answers are mutually interdependent, such that if my opinion on any one point is wrong, then the "OCT" lies in ruins.

[BooBluePotion]

4. Underground Fires? do tell

Sort of like the underground PA wreckage. You're spreading disinfo :(

[BooBluePotion]

5. Fitting how so many disasters arose underground

Like cheney in his underground bunker controlling the show

[SDuderstadt]

6. Are you seriously denying there were fires in the...

basements of the towers under the debris? Seriously?

You do realize that "underground" does not necessarily mean "in the ground", right?

[wildbilln864]

14. right! like...

democratic underground. :hi:

[hack89]

7. The rubble pile was packed with thousand of tons of combustibles

why do you think they were measuring hot spots for weeks afterwards.

[BooBluePotion]

11. You both missed all the dirt being thrown on the campfire

Remember that dark cloud of powdered concrete which covered people and buildings? The fire didn't survive this debris. So the basement must have been a source for preimpact explosions.

[SDuderstadt]

12. No, you're making a wild assumption...

with no facts to back it up. Your "reasoning abilities", to put it mildly, are deeply flawed.

Hint: remember how the collapse was top down???? How would that have happened from something in the basement? Duh.

[hack89]

13. No - for several reasons

1. No reason to believe that the dust put out the fire - there was a lot of fire when the buildings collapsed.

2. Even if it had, the steel had been heated to temperatures hot enough to reignite fires after the collapse. The dust certainly had no cooling effect.

3. There were other sources of ignition in the rubble pile - how many gallons of gas do you think were in the cars parked in the underground parking garage?

4. How do high explosives cause massive fires? Hollywood special effects aside, high explosives destroy by shattering material via high pressure shock waves. There is not a lot of fire.

5. The towers visibility collapsed from the impact zone down - what role would a bunch of explosives in the basement have? It makes no sense - certainly looking at the video there is no evidence of the base collapsing before the top of the structure.

[Nathan_Hale]

66. How do...

fires burn under ground? Are they anaerobic? Where's the air?

Curiously, there is no mention of fire here, just heat.

http://gcn.com/articles/2002/09/09/handheld-app-eased-recovery-tasks.aspx

"For six months after Sept. 11, the ground temperature varied between 600 degrees Fahrenheit and 1,500 degrees, sometimes higher."

And, it is steel.

Greg Fuchek, vice president of sales for LinksPoint Inc. of Norwalk, Conn: 'In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel,' Fuchek said


So, what heat source keeps steel molten for weeks?

[wildbilln864]

67. thank you! and notice ...

you got no response from the anti-truthers. :hi:

[Bolo Boffin]

68. Any conditions under which human beings saw molten steel were not anaerobic.

By definition.

[wildbilln864]

69. the question was....

"So, what heat source keeps steel molten for weeks? "
You have to deny Mr. Fuchek's eyewitness account!

[SDuderstadt]

70. Bill....

we've been through this over and over....

"Fuchek" has no more idea that the "pool" is "molten steel" than you do.

[wildbilln864]

71. and you have no idea it was not!

nt

[SDuderstadt]

72. So, prove it was "molten steel", Bill...

otherwise, you're insisting I prove a negative.

[wildbilln864]

74. You're insisting...

on being obtuse! I don't have to prove anything. More than one eyewitness said it was.

ETA: and I'll take their word over yours!

[SDuderstadt]

78. Let me make sure I get this straight...

Bill. 100+ witnesses saw AA 77 hit the Pentagon, but you claim they are wrong. On the other hand, you believe people can identify "molten steel" merely by looking at it??????

[wildbilln864]

81. Nope! As usual you got it all wrong! Again! But that was your intent of course.

You use a broad brush. I don't believe people can but I believe some people can. I believe there's a likelyhood that at least one of the many witnesses that said they saw molten steel know what they are talking about. Maybe not but the matter needs investigation.

[SDuderstadt]

82. Bill...

could you please tell us how someone can tell a substance is molten steel merely by looking at it?

[wildbilln864]

84. Yes.

I'll tell you if you answer one for me.

[SDuderstadt]

86. The floor is all yours, dude....

Please proceed to tell us how someone can determine what a molten substance is merely by looking at it.

[wildbilln864]

89. we're talking about a molten metal not just a substance dude.

Molten steel is red to orange and then on.

[SDuderstadt]

91. Dude...

you realize that color charts are used to estimate the temperature of a substance that is already known, right?

[wildbilln864]

93. Dude you realize most people could tell....

it wasn't molten wax, or plastic, right?

[SDuderstadt]

94. WTF?

Bill...dude...simple question: are you honestly claiming that anyone can tell the composition of a molten metal by merely looking at it? Are you seriously claiming that all molten metals through all temperature ranges are completely distinct and different from every other metal???????

As I said before, dude, color charts are to estimate temperature assuming you KNOW what the metal is. Do you get that?

[wildbilln864]

96. WTF!? Duh! I'm claiming....

it should be investigated to determine what the molten metal actually was.

[SDuderstadt]

97. Bill....

simple question: how would that investigation be conducted????

[wildbilln864]

99. you don't know? really?

well it's a bit late now isn't it...

[SDuderstadt]

101. You just answered your own stupid question, dude....

duh.

[wildbilln864]

103. which question?

do you know the temperature required for Al to turn red?
Not that question of course. :eyes:

[SDuderstadt]

105. Which shade of red, Bill?

And this is relevant how?????




Do you realize you are still committing the same Logical fallacy?

[wildbilln864]

107. any shade sduders...

but specifically this one:

[SDuderstadt]

108. Where are you going with this, Bill?

Do you even know?

[Bolo Boffin]

109. The stream of metal that's almost immediately changing to a liquid grey?

Hmm, I'd say aluminum or lead there, wildbill.

[wildbilln864]

111. I'd say...

you need your eyes checked! But maybe it is lead or Al but we don't know for certain do we?

[Bolo Boffin]

115. I'd think even you...

would have to admit that the intensity of the yellow-orange color at the top of the stream is much softer at the bottom of the picture.

[wildbilln864]

119. "softer" doesn't equal gray. nt

[Bolo Boffin]

130. Looking pretty gray here. n/t

[SDuderstadt]

90. Dude....

The link below will take you to the US patent for an additive that is used in a molten metal sampler to aid in the determine of the composition of the substance.

To spectrographically analyze a molten metal to determine its composition, it is common practice to obtain small sample castings or samples for analysis.

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5524497/description.html

Simple question, dude. If the composition of a molten metal can be determined merely by looking at it, why is spectrographic analysis necessary?

Your claim is silly, dude.

[wildbilln864]

102. your post is sillier sduder...

"SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

An important aspect of the present invention is to provide an economical, low cost device for adding tellurium or a similar material to a cavity for obtaining samples of a molten metal for analysis in which carbide formation within the metal is promoted. A further aspect is to provide for such a device wherein an insert is used which provides for the addition of an accurately measured quantity of tellurium to a sampling cavity in a sample mold or cup, thereby assuring consistently accurate analyses, ie., an accurately measured amount of tellurium is added to a measured volume of molten iron. Another advantage provided by the invention is the use of a low-temperature melting capsule to provide immediate rapid dispersion and uniform mixing of the additive into the metal sample. A further advantage is to provide such an device which uses a low mass of capsule material thus avoiding agitation of the metal. The invention further avoids use of coating materials or binders which tend to delay dissolution and to contaminate the molten metal sample. "

was there a specific point because your posts are a bit incoherrent sometimes. :shrug:

[SDuderstadt]

104. Yeah, dude...

if one can tell the composition of a molten material merely by looking at it, why would spectographic analysis even be necessary?

Your argument appears to go like this:

At xxxx degrees, molten yyyy is bright red.
The substance in the crucible is bright red, therefore it is molten yyyy.

Do you see the Logical error there, Bill?

Jesus, you'r making my brain hurt, dude.

[wildbilln864]

106. Once again, all wrong....

My argument is:
We don't know for sure what the molten substance is so let's stop assuming or pretending we do.

[SDuderstadt]

110. Great...

so you agree with me. Duh.

I've never claimed to know what it is, dude. You did.

[wildbilln864]

112. Nope, Again, wrong.

Eyewitnesses did. I did not.

[SDuderstadt]

113. Bill....

we've already established that no one can tell the composition of a molten metal merely by looking at it. You're going in circles here.

Please stop.

[wildbilln864]

114. Nope wrong again...

We've established that you believe that. We have not established that no one could tell if that was steel or Al.
That horse is not dead! Keep banging!

[SDuderstadt]

116. Bill...

you can prove your claim simply by citing any metallurgical text or expert that states it can be done. Can you?

I am pointing out that you haven't proven your claim. So, your claim that someone could, in fact, tell it was "molten steel" is totally unproven?

With that, I'm out of this. Seriously, you're so illogical that, it's not only impossible to reason with you, you physically make my brain hurt, dude.

[wildbilln864]

117. Lots of things are unproven...

But do go rest your brain. I can tell it needs it.

[SDuderstadt]

118. Bill...

you're the one claiming that someone can tell the composition of a molten metal merely by looking at it. Can you back that up or not?

[wildbilln864]

120. What I'm claiming is...

we don't actually know for sure what the molten metal at the WTCs was. But eyewitnesses who may or may not be correct said it was molten steel. So I'll take their word for it over some anonymous sduders on a message board that it may be steel.

[SDuderstadt]

121. No, shit, Bill....

then quit saying the "witnesses" knew what it was, because they obviously didn't. Duh.

[wildbilln864]

122. stop making shit up!

BTW I edited the previous.
I never said they knew what it was but they said it was steel. Do they know for sure? I can't say but I can't discount them.

[SDuderstadt]

123. No, Bill....

you just totally discount all the other valid explanations becuase the "witnesses" said something different. You can wiggle all you want, but the simple fact is you're making an assumption that is simply unwarranted.

[wildbilln864]

124. that's your tale...

I'm sitting on mine.
You are the one assuming it's not steel. I admit I don't know what it is.

[SDuderstadt]

125. Bill....

do you agree that many metals melt at far below the temperature that steel melts??? Reasoning from there, what do you think the chances are that the "molten metal" is pure anything? If the "steel" melted, then wouldn't it combine with all the other metals present that melt at lower temperatures? Could you explain the mechanism by which the "molten steel" would be segregated from all the other "molten metals"?

Seriously, dude. Critical thinking classes. Your local community college will have them.

[wildbilln864]

126. never said anything was pure. again stop making up shit!

so the rest of your post is not relevant. you are very disingenuous IMO.

[SDuderstadt]

127. Bill....

you can't even describe a mechanism by which it would be. So, doesn't that undermine the "witnesses"?

BTW, would you kindly point to where I am being "disengenuous"?

[wildbilln864]

128. when you pretend I say things...

I did not say, that's disingenuous IMO.
And no. My not knowing something doesn't undermine anyone else. That's more sduders logic I guess.

[SDuderstadt]

129. Point to anywhere that I pretended....

you say things, dude. Please be specific. Take your time.

You realize that if I analogize one of your "arguments", that isn't the same thing as saying you said it, right?

[wildbilln864]

131. right!

:sarcasm:
but we're off topic. Let get back to that?

[SDuderstadt]

132. Bill....

it was YOUR fucking accusation! If you can't back it up, then withdraw it. I won't hold out any hope for an apology.

[wildbilln864]

133. ummm.

"121. No, shit, Bill....
then quit saying the "witnesses" knew what it was, because they obviously didn't. Duh. "
Accusation now backed up!

Now would you tell me what temperature Al turns red? Or Pb? You never answered that though I think it's very important because that would help understand what the molten metal could have been.

[SDuderstadt]

134. Jesus, Bill...

are you denying that you said that the witnesses knew what it was? Did you see that I didn't have that in quotation marks??? Do you understand what a paraphrase is? Do you honestly deny that you claimed we should take the witnesses' word, because they know what they saw??? That is the fucking point of this "debate". I have said consistently that they could not tell what it was simply nby looking at it. Talk about disengenuous.

As to your other question, I asked what shade of red you mean and provided you with a color chart. Then I ask the most obvious question. What in the fuck would that establish since we don't know what the molten material was, nor do we know what temperature it was. Do you understand why simply knowing the color doesn't really tell you anything?????

I'm done with your silliness, dude.

[wildbilln864]

135. I understand exactly...

squirm away! You could have said I implied they knew but I did not "say" they knew.

What is the temperature required to make aluminum turn red? I don't need a chart. I need your guess. Can't you just say it? What's the chart from? Do you know if it applies to all metals? How do you know it represents Al? Link where you got it?

[wildbilln864]

73. and yes we have been......

through this over and over and once again you'll fail to show it wasn't molten steel. But you'll sure push your limited opinion that it wasn't.

[SDuderstadt]

76. Jesus, Bill...

do you understand Logic and reason at all? How in the fuck am I supposed to prove it wasn't "molten steel"? The simple fact is the maker of the claim bears the burden of proof. You are including an unproven claim in your challenge. NO one can tell if something is "molten steel" simply by looking at it, dude.

For example, what are the following molten materials? Can you tell without going back to the source? Hint: no. This is why this "debate" is stupid and pointless.















Serious question, Bill. Do you honestly claim someone can identify molten steel merely by looking at it?

[wildbilln864]

79. Don't get your panties in such a wad!

I didn't ask you to prove it wasn't molten steel. I point out that you can't. But you can't prove it was anything else either.
Those are some nice pictures by the way.

[SDuderstadt]

80. "But you can't prove it was anything else either:

And I don't have to either....YOU have to prove it's molten steel...which you can't. All I have to do is show that you cannot prove your claim. You seem to believe you've proved it was molten steel, unless someone proves it wasn't.

This is why you're a "truther", dude.

[wildbilln864]

83. No I don't!

That's why you're an anti-truther dudes!

[SDuderstadt]

85. Dude...

it's YOUR claim. If you want us to believe it's "molten steel", then provide some proof it was.

Similarly, I'd love to see your proof that anyone can determine something is "molten steel" merely by looking at it. What were the qualifications of anyone who claims it was "molten steel"?

[wildbilln864]

87. I don't really care what sduders believes.

That's irrelevant.

[SDuderstadt]

88. It's not what I "believe", Bill...

it's what I know. No one can determine what a molten substance is merely by looking at it. Ask a metallurgist.

[wildbilln864]

92. They maybe can't make a precise determination but someone...

familiar with it as many are could make an accurate conclusion that it probably was. But if you think it was molten Al, do you know at what temperature molten Al turns red, orange, bright yellow? No!

[SDuderstadt]

95. "many are could make an accurate conclusion that it probably was"

Dude...how would one make an "accurate conclusion" that it "probably was"? How is that accurate?

[wildbilln864]

98. yep. should have proof read it first but...

now what temperature does molten Al turn red?

[SDuderstadt]

100. Bill....

do you notice what your question asks? In the question, you already know the composition of the material. So, you're asking what at what temperature a known material turns red. Do you understand that doesn't mean you can look at at a material that is red and, on that basis alone, know what the material is?


You'd have to say, if the material is xxxxx, then it's xxx degrees.

If the material is this, then it's yyyy degrees.

Do you see the Logical error you're committing?

[Bolo Boffin]

77. the answer was

fire

[hack89]

8. Aluminum is the most likely choice

the building was clad with it and it is the most common metal used for furniture, computers, HVAC ducting, etc etc,

Aluminum melts at 660 C - well below the temperatures produced in building fires and well below the temperatures seen in the rubble pile

The fires in the rubble pile kept them from solidifying - there was no other heat source, especially weeks after the collapse.

[wildbilln864]

75. but some would cool and solidify.

right?

[Bolo Boffin]

9. No, we do not all agree that there were pools of molten metals found in the towers.

Stop playing silly games, BeFree.

[BeFree]

15. Another fact to consider

The OCT has the towers burning only nearer the tops of the towers. One at 60 floors and the other at 75 floors high, IIRC - If I Remember Correctly. No fires down below.

So, the towers collapsed and there were between 60 to 75 floors of concrete between the fires and ground level.

It makes for an interesting question as to just how the fires burned all the way down through the 60 and 75 floors of concrete to end up in the basements and causing the molten metals found there.

[hack89]

16. So all that concrete wasn't pulverized into fine dust?

glad we got that settled after 8 years.

seriously though - are you really saying that all that non-reinforced, light weight concrete survived the collapse and formed an impenetrable fire proof barrier? Really?

[BeFree]

18. Good point

The pics of the collapsed buildings in Haiti and Chile, show a true pancake failure/collapse, but the towers did indeed turn into fine dust, for the most part.

That dust, I think, is why the 'pancake' theory has been discarded from the OCT.

Which begs another question: If it were a simple collapse, then why the pulverization that is unlike recent building collapses? Why the difference between the two?

[SDuderstadt]

19. Because buildings are designed and built differently...

dude. Duh.

Your claim that, "for the most part" the towers were pulverized into dust, is disproven by simply looking at the pictures of the large debris. Again, dude, your goofy claims that are flatly contradicted by the physical evidence is why you are regarded with such derision here.

Don't you have to go "hound Bushco" or something?

[LARED]

20. Why would you think this?

That dust, I think, is why the 'pancake' theory has been discarded from the OCT.

Once again a 9/11 CT'er displays a complete lack of understanding about the collapse of the WTC's

[BeFree]

21. So

Here's your big chance to tell me all about the collapses.

Tell us how steel was thrown hundreds of feet sideways.

[LARED]

22. Nope, it doesn't work that way

I asked a question, you answer, then you get to ask a question.

[BeFree]

23. No answer, eh?

I don't blame you, the collapses are unexplainable. Heck, they ditched the pancake theory and there are tons of questions from all angles about how the collapses happened.

[SDuderstadt]

24. More of BeFree's...

dishonest reframing. Why can't you answer Lared's question?

[LARED]

29. What are you afraid of? Stop trying to change the subject? nt

[OnTheOtherHand]

31. see, this is how it goes

Every time I try to pay you a little bit of respect, you start playing these head games.

[BeFree]

33. Head games?

Well, if anyone can spot a head game, it would be you.

[OnTheOtherHand]

35. umm, yes, I'm fairly perceptive

And I have been watching your substance-free antics for longer than I care to remember.

[BeFree]

38. I've learned much from you

Unfortunately the shit is infectious.
But, when in Rome....

[SDuderstadt]

42. Why don't you point to a single "head game" OTOH has...

played, dude.

At some point are you going to ask why you have to be called on your despicable smears by so many people here, dude? It would actually be funny to witness your lashing blindly out at nearly everyone if you didn't embarrass liberalism so much in the process, dude.

[Bolo Boffin]

So you think we are disruptive and you therefore have adopted what you see as our tactics

You think we're trolling, and your response is to do what you think we're doing. Sounds like it's your intent to troll these forums, BeFree, and you're happy to admit to it. Explain how you're not.

[BeFree]

45. The biggest crime ever

I am here trying to make sense of it, something bushco has failed to do. Or you.

[Bolo Boffin]

47. And yet again you evade answering the question posed to you in post 20.

When asked to make sense of your own statement, you respond with this incredible scene of foot-stomping, subject changes, and apparent admission of trollery.

Are you capable of explaining your own statements, BeFree? Or is trollery the only explanation, and thus this incredible hissy fit of yours?

[BeFree]

51. heh

Why don't you attack bushco the way you attack me? Try it.

Bush lied and people died. I am nothing. Yet you're all over me and bush skates?

[Bolo Boffin]

53. By attacking error and misinformation, I AM attacking Bushco.

Why can't you answer a simple question, BeFree? Why all of this fuss? Why not answer the question put to you in post #20?

PS: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7913573

[SDuderstadt]

52. You just replied to yourself, dude...

Duh.

[OnTheOtherHand]

62. this is, almost, funny

If you're going to whine, moan, and spew about how I've set the tone for you, I don't think you'll get a lot of takers for that analysis.

[Make7]

63. The comedic value of BeFree's posts appears to be their only redeeming quality. ( n/t )

[SDuderstadt]

64. Quit "ganging up" up on Be Free...

of course, what do I know? "No one likes" me.

[SDuderstadt]

37. Predictably, BeFree retreats into his...

"who, me?" mode.

Simple question, dude. Why does nearly everyone call you on your head games, word games, mischaracterizations and smears? Why don't you quit poisoning the debate, dude?

[BeFree]

40. Heh

You are the worst of the offenders. No one here likes you. You are an embarrassment to progressives.

[SDuderstadt]

49. Really, dude?

Can you point to a single smear from me? Why is it that you're routinely called on your smears by nearly everyone in here?

The biggest hoot was when you hypocritically posted "Honest discussion - 10 steps". People are still shaking their heads about that one, dude.

[hack89]

25. You do understand the concept of lightweight, unreinforced,

non-load bearing concrete used for floors? As opposed to steel reinforced structural concrete use in the buildings in Haiti and Chile?

You understand that your comparison is not valid?

[BeFree]

26. I understand

The towers were so much stronger. And under each concrete floor were pans of steel and steel trusses. And in the middle was a core of massive steel.

The steel pans actually held the concrete together.

That's why the towers, if they were just a collapse scenario, would have pancaked and held together even better.

Basically, what we should have seen from a pancake collapse is about 30 or 40 foot high pile of pancaked floors. We didn't and that's why the pancake theory was abandoned and there is no coherent theory to explain what really happened.

But you're welcome to try to be coherent.

[SDuderstadt]

27. The "pancake theory" was only "abandoned"..

for the collapse initiation. Do you understand that?

Why should we have seen 30-40 floors stacked neatly on each other, dude?

[hack89]

28. You're kidding, right?

how did the pans hold the concrete together? How did the pans keep protect the concrete from all the weight that smashed into it? The concrete was shattered - take a brick and smash it with a sledge hammer and see what happens. The concrete was extremely light weight - don't you understand that point?

And the same applies to the floor pans themselves - they would have been crushed and twisted beyond recognition. I don't think you appreciate how much KE was released in the collapse. How do you think all this steel got so twisted?

[LARED]

30. I doubt he's kidding,

The sad part is BF has no clue how just clueless he/she sounds.

[BeFree]

32. Clueless?

No shit, if it seems I don't have all the answers. No fucking shit!!

Newsflash: you don't have all the answers either, so you are clueless, too?

If you know what really fucking happened, what don't you share it with us?

Newsflash: not even the NIST knows what really fucking happened, how could you?
Yet you and the others here spout your damned nonsense here day in and day out.

At least I don't let the M$M do my thinking for me.

[Bolo Boffin]

34. You're asked a question, counter by trying to change the subject, get called on it

And now you're throwing a fit in another attempt to avoid answering the first question.

"Clueless" is being kind.

[BeFree]

36. I learned how from you

The shit is infectious.

Go ahead, explain the whole damn story, if you fucking know it. No one else has been able to, but go ahead MR. 9/11 Expert. Prove it in court. Get OBL in court. Until then accept you don't have the answers.

At least I admit I don't fucking know what happened. Can you?

[Bolo Boffin]

39. And now you attack me personally to avoid answered the question asked of you in post 20.

Very lame.

"At least I admit I don't fucking know what happened."

Can you explain what you meant by the statement you were asked about, at long last?

[BeFree]

43. heh

Good dodge, Mr Expert. You forget, I am clueless, not like you who has all the answers. Wait, you have no fucking answers. Nothing you can prove anything with. You are clueless, too. Admit it! Admit it or go to your AG and get a court case going.

[Bolo Boffin]

44. More hissy fit, and still no answer to Post 20.

Stop dodging. Answer the question. You were asked to explain a statement you made. Why can't you even explain a statement you made?

[BeFree]

48. I'm clueless?

Maybe I said something I shouldn't have? So fucking sue me!!

Bush has said tons of shit, and people fucking died, and you spend time going after me while bushco gets a friggin pass? What are your priorities?

[Bolo Boffin]

50. "Maybe I said something I shouldn't have?" This is your answer to #20?

Why didn't you just admit that in the first place, consistent with your self-posted rules of engagement Make7 has so helpfully kicked?

Why did you change the subject and throw this tantrum?

[BeFree]

55. Ok

"That dust, I think, is why the 'pancake' theory has been discarded from the OCT."

We know the pancake theory was discarded. I think it was because if it was a pancake collapse then it wouldn't have all turned to dust. There was ensuing conversation. It was answered by me. Just because it wasn't the answer you wanted doesn't make it unanswered.

Are ya happy now? I doubt it. I expect not. So sue me.

[AZCat]

57. It's almost as if you're proud...

to not know the real answer. Curious, that you'd prefer ignorance, as long as it doesn't interfere with your fantasies.

[SDuderstadt]

59. Jesus, dude...

Anyone can look at the pictures and video and see it didn't all "turn to dust". Another one of your false premises.

Beyond that, you falsely mischacterize NIST's supplanting the "pancake theory" as the CAUSE OF COLLAPSE INITIATION and pretend they're saying the floors didn't pancake AFTER the collapse initiated.

Again, this is why you're a perpetual object of derision here.

[Bolo Boffin]

61. "then it wouldn't have all turned to dust." What is "it" in this sentence?

The reason the pancake theory of collapse initiation was discarded was that the mechanism by which it would have occurred proved not to have actually happened. The floor trusses were thought to have torn away, beginning a pancaking sequence that led to global collapse. But the floor truss structures proved quite hardy under the fire conditions present. So it was not the floor trusses ripping away that started the collapse.

Instead, this information in turn supported the actual reason the Towers started collapsing. The floors were sagging, pulling in on the perimeter columns. The perimeter columns along one side eventually buckled, precisely because the floor trusses would not fail. That initiated the global collapse.

As the building fell, of course, there was plenty of pancaking of floors. You can see large chunks of pancaked floors in what have been called "meteorites". Richard Gage thinks these are large pieces of molten metal. They are actually compressed floors broken off into large pieces.

So there was pancaking, but the pancake theory of collapse initiation proved to be incorrect, and the tests that showed this supported the actual reason discovered: the failure of the perimeter columns.

Now what's all this nonsense about it all turning to dust?

[SDuderstadt]

54. Another stupid "false dilemma" agument from BeFree...

dude, do you really think anyone here is giving Bush a pass? Please explain.

In the meantime, you do realize that going after Bush for his crimes, while simultaneously reproaching you for your despicable smears is not mutually exclusive, right?

It another Sunday and nearly everyone here is squaring off against you on your despicable poisoning of the debate.

[SDuderstadt]

41. "at least I don't let the M$M do my thinking for me"

More poisoning the debate, BeFree?

[AZCat]

46. Looks like someone's a little touchy about their ignorance. n/t

[BeFree]

56. Ganging up, eh?

Too bad, I'm swimming away. C'ya. Yall have fun now, ya hear?

Meanwhile GWB walks away as if nothing happened. Good job, brownies.

[AZCat]

58. Only in your pitiful fantasies.

I realize it's much easier for you to imagine that you're courageously confronting an army of opponents paid by some monolithic enemy here in the DU September 11th forum, than to accept we're a bunch of individuals who have on our own each decided to confront your bullshit, but it's simply not true.

[SDuderstadt]

60. And BeFree runs away once more...

firing over his shoulder and poisoning the debate by lashing out at anyone who has the audacity to call him on his gross factual errors.

[LARED]

65. Wow, try to follow along

Cluesless was in regards to your ignorance about the failure modes and construction of the towers.

Information that is readily available to anyone who want to take the time to sort it out.

[SDuderstadt]

17. Through the elevator shafts and.....

the collapse of the towers. Duh.

Dude, do you think this stuff through before you post it?