|
Post by shred on Oct 4, 2013 3:02:52 GMT -5
Claiming that they've seen a little river of molten steel isn't the same as metallurgically testing it. As I say, if temperatures were hot enough to melt steel they were hot enough to melt any metal with a lower melting point than steel. Easy to mistake one glowing liquid metal for another. That Bob, is picture of a little river of Aluminium at a smelting works. Now back to the hijackings of the aeroplanes the crashes, the damage those planes did by crashing and the failure of the damaged structures to withstand the intense fires inside.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Oct 4, 2013 7:17:53 GMT -5
"Claiming that they've seen a little river of molten steel isn't the same as metallurgically testing it."
So then you don't accept anyone's eyewitness testimony that it was a river of steel, not even Leslie's Robertson's eyewitness testimony. Despite that you claim you accept his opinion. You're not just a Master of the Obvious, you're a Master of Contradiction as well. But then who cares about your flip flops, they flip and they flop like a smelly rag in the wind.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Oct 4, 2013 10:27:49 GMT -5
How would they know for a fact if it was steel or aluminium if it hadn't been metallurgically tested? Both metals were in the debris, the twin towers were clad in aluminium, there was an abundance of aluminium in the debris, aluminium has the lower melting point and would be bound to form little rivers in a situation hot enough to melt steel, and if the situation wasn't hot enough to melt steel, there'd still be little rivers of aluminium.
Robertson's comments are cut short, whatever explanation he gave, it was omitted from the video and replaced by some conspiracy theorist BERK telling people what to think. I'd be more interested in finding out the rest of what Robertson had to say if I were you.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Oct 4, 2013 10:50:22 GMT -5
"How would they know for a fact if it was steel or aluminium if it hadn't been metallurgically tested?"
Leslie Robertson said it was a river of steel and you said you accept his opinions. You keep contradicting yourself by questioning his opinion and you're constantly trying to dance around your OBVIOUS contradiction.
"Both metals were in the debris, the twin towers were clad in Aluminium, there was an abundance of aluminium in the debris."
And yet another contradiction. In your first sentence you ask how they would know for a fact but in the above sentence you're making a claim that YOU know. Did you test the metal(s)? What are you basing your claim on fake one?
And in any case it's NOT about the debris, it's about the river of steel that Robertson and many others witnessed, not your opinion based on nothing. You admitted you weren't there so you can't make any claims, they can and did.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Oct 4, 2013 14:12:17 GMT -5
They quote mined Leslie Robertson and took his comments out of context. Here's the FULL interview including the comment you mentioned: Here's another of Robertson: He's quite clear that the fires after the impacts weakened the steel causing the steel to give way:- He's the man who designed them, nobody on this planet knows his design better. Is his word not good enough for you ? It wasn't an inside job. The twin towers were clad in Aluminium as shown here: An estimated 2,000,000kg of aluminium was used to clad the twin towers, there was also aluminium used to skin the airliners which struck the towers. www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdfamhistory.si.edu/september11/collection/record.asp?ID=104I'd also like to find more of this interview with Leslie Robertson:
|
|
|
Post by shred on Oct 4, 2013 14:40:03 GMT -5
In the full presentation from Robertson he discusses what would have happened had a 747 or the new Airbus A380 been used as a kamikaze weapon against his design, the kinetic energy alone is shocking and the fuel loads terrifying. He also uses a time temperature curve graph as part of his presentation.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Oct 4, 2013 21:41:59 GMT -5
"he discusses what would have happened had a 747 or the new Airbus A380 been used as a kamikaze weapon against his design, the kinetic energy alone is shocking and the fuel loads terrifying."
Ah ok, in the other thread you posted the same video and I read that one first. So no need to explain further, it may be interesting but it is irrelevant in my opinion. I have just a couple of questions:
1. Did he mention in his lecture how that would result in the complete global collapse of any WTC tower at free fall or near free fall acceleration?
2. Did he mention anywhere in his lecture that such a destruction would generate a river of steel?
If he did, please point to the time where any of these are mentioned. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Oct 5, 2013 2:19:31 GMT -5
1) He explains how his designs failed after the physical damage from the airliners and weakening by the fires started by the airliners. At one hour he mentions how bolts on the columns failed under high tension and shows a picture of one with some failed bolts. Your freefall comment is a bit of a straw man in that the speeds of the collapses were nowhere near the speeds that would have been if the twin towers had collapsed at freefall. The north tower collapsed in 12 seconds at 125 mph, if it had been freefall it'd have collapsed in eight seconds at 186mph. Seismic evidence shows no sign of explosives going off. 2) The lecture is the same lecture that your clip was taken from, the comment is made at 1hr 05 minutes after he'd spoken about searching the water flooded basement in boats, using oars instead of motors for propulsion 1 hour 04 minutes. He said the fires were burning in the debris pile for months and spoke of lifting a slab of concrete in B1 level and there being a little river of steel, that gives no indication of scale, and does not demonstrate that a metallurgical test was done on the material to prove that it was steel, it could be a very small flow indeed, or it could be a stream, he's clearly not talking about something on the scale of a real river like the Hudson. All it indicates is that the debris fires were hot enough to melt metal in some places. Logically there is no way that anything in the basement could have caused a top down collapse. 3) He doesn't really say much about WTC7 as he didn't design it, but did say it collapsed due to fire. 4) If you can watch five hour conspiracy videos please can you watch the whole video of Robertson's presentation. I know the truth is more boring than fiction but you need to hear it.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Oct 5, 2013 11:01:16 GMT -5
"He doesn't really say much about WTC7"
I don't blame him, the official narrative makes no sense.
|
|