Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Arnie

  1. Yes. They didn't melt. Nowhere has it been claimed they melted. They bowed, steel loses significanty strength well with office fire temperatures.
  2. This is completely false. No steel is turned into liquid, the much used strawman.
  3. So your pro-game is that Gelatin sounds like gelignite?
  4. Typo that is kilograms. Whoops. The speed is from gravitational fall. Yoiu cannot have a claim that they fell close to freefall and not acknowledge what that entails after 4/5/6 seconds of fall.
  5. They were gelatin before 911 and ever since on a whole host of projects. What steps have you taken to corroborate any of that?
  6. Nice evasion. Mick West explains how the evidence for thermite is not conclusive at all , since dozens of other things produce the same result.
  7. We covered this 3 pages back - they are Austrian: https://www.gelitin.net/projects/b-thing/ References Kahn, Meredith (2005-11-06). "Directions: Big, Dead, Rotting, Silly Rabbit". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-04-17. Castellini, Luisa (2005-09-02). "Ad Artesina arriva Pink Rabbit, il coniglio rosa più grande del mondo" (in Italian). il Giornale. Retrieved 2009-04-17. Davis, Ben. "Raging Within the Machine". artnet magazine. Retrieved 2009-04-17. Dewan, Shaila (August 18, 2001). "Balcony scene (or unseen) atop the world;episode at trade center assumes mythic qualities". The New York Times (Metro section). Rubinowitz, Tex (2001). Gelatin: The B-Thing. ISBN 978-3883755076. Amazon listing for The B-Thing Angelopoulou, Sofia Lekka (2018-06-19). "gelitin invites visitors to walk around giant turds in latest exhibition 'vorm - fellows - attitude'". Designboom. "Artists erect giant pink bunny on mountain". Ananova. Archived from the original on 2005-09-24. Pictures Archived 2007-09-29 at the Wayback Machine, gelitin.net.
  8. False. Why would they hold together with millions of tons hitting them at 100+mph?
  9. Yeah, well that is just evasion. You point to "rivers of molten metal" on the ground, days after the collapses. Now what exactly are you saying is the significance of this? What are you suggesting it proves? Steel cools quite quickly in air, thermite blows out really fast. To me, you are just pointing at it and saying look, it must be suspicious for reasons. Whatever, that's just arm waving rhetoric. I missed even scant attention to this post, why is that? https://forum.davidicke.com/index.php?/topic/9992-911-was-there-a-plane/&do=findComment&comment=447751
  10. Here's what eyewitness firefighters say: New York firefighters recalled in a documentary film, "heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel" A NY firefighter described molten steel flowing at ground zero, and said it was like a "foundry" or like "lava" According to a member of New York Air National Guard's 109th Air Wing, who was at Ground Zero from September 22 to October 6, "One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers' remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots" As late as five months after the attacks, in February 2002, firefighter Joe O'Toole saw a steel beam being lifted from deep underground at Ground Zero, which, he says, "was dripping from the molten steel" Here's what other eyewitnesses say: A public health advisor who arrived at Ground Zero on September 12, said that "feeling the heat" and "seeing the molten steel" there reminded him of a volcano An employee of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue witnessed "Fires burn[ing and molten steel flow[ing] in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet" A reporter with rare access to the debris at ground zero "descended deep below street level to areas where underground fires still burned and steel flowed in molten streams" An Occupational Safety and Health Administration Officer at the Trade Center reported a fire truck 10 feet below the ground that was still burning two weeks after the Tower collapsed, "its metal so hot that it looked like a vat of molten steel" A witness said “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” A NY Department of Sanitation spokeswoman said "for about two and a half months after the attacks, in addition to its regular duties, NYDS played a major role in debris removal - everything from molten steel beams to human remains..." The fact that there was molten steel under ground zero for months after 9/11 is very odd, especially since firefighters sprayed millions of gallons of water on the fires and applied high-tech fire retardants. Big difference between locked in metals forming the conditions to mimic a foundry and the presence of steel in the actual erect buildings. What is your point? btw, loads of those links are broken.
  11. Slag. No, that wasn't an insult Impurities in Aluminum Alloy | Method of Controlling Molten Impurities (aluminiumceramicfiber.com)
  12. It's obscurred by vast amounts of dust. The metalwork is not turning to dust and there is an enormous amount of it.
  13. BT sport. Oh dear? Maybe you thought I was mindlessly watching someone filing past a coffin. Laters......this stuff is soooo 20 years ago.
  14. Address the content please. A better guess is you haven't.
  15. You failed to offer me the logical reason for why they brought down the WTC7? Fire was destroying the documents without anyone bothering to go do a search through rubble. That would be the least favourable way to dispose of incriminating evidence.
  16. Just trying to answer posts aimed at me. It's called debate. I'm sipping tea with digestives with the telly on. I feel just fine thank you.
  17. None of them had a plane impact stripping away fire retardants and massive localised fires. None of them resemble the size and construction of the towers. And the failed straw man again. Steel didn't need to melt, didn't melt and has neveer been claimed to have melted. It weakens though and the weight above causes bowing EXACTLY at the impact points and that is EXACTLY where the building clearly gives way. Your own eyes just needs to look.
  18. And with a gigantic wave of the hands my big post just above .... not answered by you. I am offering "nothing" except things that don't fit in with your opinions. That is why you are not properly addressing them. Now, just above that video by Mick West, time stamped, lists dozens of ways to create iron spheres without thermite. Watch it and maybe learn something new.
  19. Nice strawman there. They designed the building to withstand a plane impact. It withstood a plane impact. What it wasn't designed to do is take the impact from an almost fully fuel laden bigger plane at FULL speed that creates fires of that nature. NO building could ever contemplate that occurring at that time. It didn't turn it to dust, it does what it always does and creates significant dust clouds. How rude. I don't claim to be a know all and if you are able to explain things satisfactorily then why haven't you. My arguments are sound and as yet I'm not seeing much logical and explanatory rebuttal. No. But then again, seeing and understanding are two very different things.
  20. No, please don't ask me to see what you think. Tell me what YOU see and give me an example. If it is puff ejections from massively compressed air seeking an exit then there is my answer.
  21. Phuck yes it does. See what I did there? I showed a video with a computer simulation plugging in every known variable. It did exactly what we saw. Your opinion is based on things you have read but do not appear to have verified. Hmm, the "go and do some research" suggestion and a link that must be the "truth". Researchgate ? Ok, you go and do some research: (PDF) The Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers: A Metallurgist's View (researchgate.net) How did the WTC towers collapse: A new theory | Request PDF (researchgate.net) Why did World Trade Center collapse? – Simple analysis (researchgate.net) (PDF) Collapse of world trade center towers: what did and did not cause it? (researchgate.net) If you only look at things that reinforce your current view you don't get to see why it is maybe wrong.
  22. Lots of questions but none really relevant. We see the building bowing and giving way. It's right in front of your eyes and impossible to miss. Right there, there ar no thunder clap noises for such a massive building, you would hear this miles away, absolutely miles. I would be staggered if during the fall, people within or below didn't hear insane loud noises.
  23. Yes in the world of physics. The kinetic energy from the broken part of the building has more energy than the resistant force of the floor below. As it falls, that energy builds up, it is inevitable.
  24. And yet there were fires burning for most of the day and they all survived this? Extremely unlikely. So, the claim is to get rid of these papers - rather than bundling them into a van at night, let the tower burn them completely (with maybe an assist with a few flame throwers) they in fact chose to detonate the tower and blow them all over the place, THEN spend hours making sure they had them all secure and sneak them offsite for something or other (destruction I presume). Can you see any logic flaws here? I asked why they brought down WTC7, can anyone else supply a logical and workable reason?
  25. Hearing things exploding in the towers during the fire is not the same as hearing hundreds of extremely loud individual floor charges. The video I posted was not "dumb", but concluding that the WTC1/2 could have some cascading demolition that nobody hears the explosions to, now that isn't exactly intelligent. The idea that synchronised thermite was used is just so very unfeasible. The physics works for the collapses.
  • Create New...