JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate > JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate
Education Forum Moderated by Anti-Semitic Crackpot---John Simkin is Aware
Tommy Shanks:
Bye bye, Doctor. Don't let the door hit you too hard on the way outta here.
Zeon Mason:
--- Quote from: John Mytton on March 25, 2026, 08:02:26 AM ---Hey hold on cowboy, aren't you jumping the gun and coming to an unprovable self serving conclusion?
• You haven't provided any visual proof of liquefied steel girders?
• You haven't even proven that any potential molten metal was from the steel girders?
• There is a massive photo record of the steel girders of the WTC towers, yet there is no proof of any being even partially liquefied?
• You haven't indicated where the extra energy to keep molten steel girders flowing for weeks came from?
• As 9/11 truthers constantly and rightfully remind us that jet fuel or office fires isn't enough to melt steel, sure it will weaken but not melt, but when it comes to weeks of liquified steel caused by some impossible energy source you guys have no problem making unscientific accusations! You truthers are unbelievable and the worst types of hypocrites!
• Thermite burns and consumes it's total volume withing minutes, so that isn't going to keep molten steel flowing weeks after the event.
• a possibility is there was over 45 tonnes of aluminium contained in each plane and the melting point of aluminium is low enough to be in a liquid state in the intense conditions of the rubble. Also worth considering is that a small amount of the plane passed through the building and counting what was ejected at least 40 tonnes must have remained, and also of importance is that the plane wasn't pure aluminium but an alloy which would slightly impact the melting point.
Out of the tons and tons and tons of recovered steel girders, there is no reported evidence or visual indication of any signs of partial melting.
JohnM
--- End quote ---
Good presentation JohnM. No sign that I can see of liquified pools of steel which cooled and thus should have remained in their remolded state after cooling. All I see is a lot indications of steel girders and steel truss deformations that indicate the steel members may have lost 50% of their original load bearing strength which is entirely possible if the temperatures had reached 1000 degrees Fahrenheit ( according to Bing AI) .
So the ? Is if lots of the members simultaneously start to lose up to 50% of their original load bearing capacity in the volume of the building where the plane filled with 23k gallons of jet fuel (HUGE BOMB) exploded , could that part of the structure collapse so suddenly and symmetrically that the upper undamaged portion of the building would collapse straight down?
If it can, then how probable that the subsequent impact of the total mass of the upper 1/4th of building dropping at the rate of gravitational acceleration would cause the crushing failure of the inner core incrementally floor by floor and peel away the outer perimeter skin without much resistance?
It’s up to Dr. N to counter JohnM. argument by posting some photos of some steel elements which after collecting on the ground , cooled and remained in a remolded form indicative of having been previously in a liquified state.
Also what measurement analysis of the building collapse proves beyond reasonable doubt that the buildings fell uniformly at the rate of free fall? JohnM posted sources seem to indicate that the rate of descent was slightly less than free fall (gravitational ) acceleration.
Benjamin Cole:
ZM:
Ask the anti-Semitic krackpot Dr Bill Quack how Mossad (unnoticed) planted thousands of bombs in the WTC towers, to set off exquisitely timed explosions, to being down the towers pancake style. The Quack actually believes this stuff.
Dr Bill, in the disEducation Forum, has valorized the works of Ron Unz and Laurent Guyénot, both full-on nutcases.
Dr Quack has promised to leave. Oh, how will we ever survive! The irony of The Quack banning people from the disEducation Forum, and being allowed to post here...
Good-bye Dr. Quack. The US never landed on a man on the Fake Moon from the Flat Earth. We agree!
John Mytton:
--- Quote from: Dr. William Niederhut on March 26, 2026, 05:22:00 PM ---Pay careful attention, Anti-Truthers. Listen and learn.
This will be my final post here.
The mainstream U.S. media and internet have been inundated with pseudo-scientific falsehoods about 9/11 for 25 years.
Here's the incontrovertible evidence of liquefied steel at Ground Zero.
The Twin Towers were not demolished by Magic Jet Fuel.
Jet fuel does not burn hot enough to liquefy steel.
Nor could it explosively pulverize hundreds of thousands of tons of concrete, furniture, and human bodies into pyroclastic ash flows.
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsw2j-3MCMg
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmuzyWC60eE
--- End quote ---
--- Quote ---Pay careful attention, Anti-Truthers.
--- End quote ---
Hahahahaha!
Everything posted here by myself and others is founded in Science and common sense.
You desperately want to find a conspiracy and are about the most gullible person I've known.
--- Quote ---Listen and learn.
--- End quote ---
Oh, this should be interesting.
--- Quote ---......and internet have been inundated with pseudo-scientific falsehoods about 9/11 for 25 years.
--- End quote ---
This is the pot calling the kettle black, the "internet" is where paranoid pseudo-experts such as yourself are given free reign to perpetuate the most unscientific garbage.
--- Quote ---Here's the incontrovertible evidence of liquefied steel at Ground Zero.
--- End quote ---
You haven't come close to providing even a sliver of evidence because a few firemen who allegedly told the truth and even then have no way of knowing what they saw "flowing like molten steel??", and some film of falling debris proves nothing. When you can show cooled off pools of tested molten steel or even partially melted structural steel, then you may have something but till then, dream on!
BTW can you give a logical narrative for why some structural steel was seen dribbling out from a tiny section of the WTC close to ten minutes before the collapse?
--- Quote ---The Twin Towers were not demolished by Magic Jet Fuel.
Jet fuel does not burn hot enough to liquefy steel.
--- End quote ---
Here we go again, thousands of litres of jet fuel started the fires but soon after, the combustible office equipment, carpets, furnishings and etc were being consumed and in the blast furnace type conditions of the WTC, was enough to weaken the steel girders and cause catastrophic failure.
An observation which appears to confirm the above is that at first the smoke from the jet fuel fires were the characteristic black.
But as the jet fuel fires were being replaced by the internal contents of the WTC the smoke turned a much lighter shade.
--- Quote ---Nor could it explosively pulverize hundreds of thousands of tons of concrete, furniture, and human bodies into pyroclastic ash flows.
--- End quote ---
LOL, now what are you suggesting? Even granting your belief that the buildings were brought down by a "controlled demolition", that would require about 10-20 tonnes of explosives or thermite or whatever, but you seem to be venturing into sci-fi with death rays from outer space of perhaps some sort of atomic bomb?
But seriously, the amount of kinetic energy released by each tower was approximately 1,830,000,000,000 joules which was more that enough to pulverise the tons of concrete.
JohnM
Benjamin Cole:
JM-
I enjoy your posts.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version