MEDIA still pushing "burning fuel melts steel"

All other news and developments related to 9/11

Re: MEDIA still pushing "burning fuel melts steel"

Postby bennet on May 23rd, 2012, 10:57 pm

guys,
i believe there were no planes, ok.
just saying the folks at loose change & infowars etc find it hard to believe.
But they are all coming around, just recently infowars posted the affidavit by John Lear who also believes there were no planes.
http://www.infowars.com/lear-jet-boss-a ... revisited/

Has any of you studied the research by dr Judy Wood?
http://wheredidthetowersgo.com/
bennet
Newbie
 
Posts: 7
Joined: May 23rd, 2012, 8:28 am

Re: MEDIA still pushing "burning fuel melts steel"

Postby simonshack on May 23rd, 2012, 11:09 pm

bennet wrote:has any of you studied the research by dr Judy Wood?
http://wheredidthetowersgo.com/


Dear bennet,

We are all quite familiar with the Judy Wood character. Her entire theory of "the towers being dustified" is based on her analyses of the now proven fake, computer-generated 9/11 videos. Not a very scientific approach, is it?

The gist of her gatekeeping job should be quite evident - to anyone who can recognize the fact that even the tower collapse imagery is fake: Judy Wood's role is quite simply to uphold the notion that the 9/11 imagery is real and legit.


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnPdELURliY

Btw, the Judy Wood character was launched with the above Madison conference, in August 2007 - barely two months after the release of my September Clues. She was introduced by Jim Fetzer. For anyone interested, here's the link to the first part of this Madison Conference, which was also attended by ALL the "prominent" American 9/11 truthers who initially supported September Clues:

- Ace Baker, the top September Clues plagiarist - who presented SC favourably at the Madison Conference, only to flip-flop later on and call the SC findings "95% false"... And going on to produce the gatekeeping, half-baked "PSY-OPERA" movie.
- Rosalee Grable, aka "Webfairy" - an early prominent "no-planer" who then started attacking the SC research 24/7
- Morgan Reynolds - the former Bush economist who fleetingly mentioned the "no-plane" facts on FOX TV
- Dave Von Kleist - the pod-theorist of "In Plane Sight" (another clown upholding the notion that the 9/11 videos were real).

More about "ACE BAKER" here: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=1094
More about Morgan Reynolds here: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=1249
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6361
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: MEDIA still pushing "burning fuel melts steel"

Postby bennet on May 24th, 2012, 1:00 am

Simon,
why haven't you been on at Coast To Coast AM?
They have the biggest audience in the world alternative talk-radio and they discuss 9/11,nwo,aliens... on a daily basis.
bennet
Newbie
 
Posts: 7
Joined: May 23rd, 2012, 8:28 am

Re: MEDIA still pushing "burning fuel melts steel"

Postby Maat on May 24th, 2012, 8:06 am

bennet wrote:Simon,
why haven't you been on at Coast To Coast AM?
They have the biggest audience in the world alternative talk-radio and they discuss 9/11,nwo,aliens... on a daily basis.

Bennet,

If you were genuinely interested in any answers to your questions and followed the advice you were given here, you would have surely found this topic as well: Who Owns Alternative Media?

Now, unless you are deliberately trying to appear stupid just to troll, I strongly suggest you comply with my recommendations or you'll find your probie membership going "poof" — like the Joody Wood persona & 'its' gate-keeping shill game did <_<
Maat
Moderator
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: September 9th, 2010, 2:14 am

Re: MEDIA still pushing "burning fuel melts steel"

Postby bennet on May 24th, 2012, 8:19 am

wow,
great attitude my friend,
and you wonder why 11 years later mainstream media is still pushing "burning fuel melts steel"?
I hope your comment made your day and you feel good about yourself :)
bennet
Newbie
 
Posts: 7
Joined: May 23rd, 2012, 8:28 am

Re: MEDIA still pushing "burning fuel melts steel"

Postby Maat on May 24th, 2012, 10:42 am

bennet wrote:wow,
great attitude my friend,
and you wonder why 11 years later mainstream media is still pushing "burning fuel melts steel"?
I hope your comment made your day and you feel good about yourself :)

No, on the contrary, it's actually rather tiresome to deal with anyone apparently more interested in dropping the names/titles of at least one known shill /gatekeeper, 'Truther' meme or disinfo product of some kind in every posted 'question' than in understanding or heeding the answers and advice already given.

But thanks for demonstrating your real attitude to the obviously necessary and reasonable requirements of serious researchers and participants in our forum :)

Buh bye.
Maat
Moderator
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: September 9th, 2010, 2:14 am

Re: MEDIA still pushing "burning fuel melts steel"

Postby fbenario on May 25th, 2012, 1:32 am

Maat wrote:
bennet wrote:wow,
great attitude my friend,
and you wonder why 11 years later mainstream media is still pushing "burning fuel melts steel"?
I hope your comment made your day and you feel good about yourself :)

No, on the contrary, it's actually rather tiresome to deal with anyone apparently more interested in dropping the names/titles of at least one known shill /gatekeeper, 'Truther' meme or disinfo product of some kind in every posted 'question' than in understanding or heeding the answers and advice already given.

But thanks for demonstrating your real attitude to the obviously necessary and reasonable requirements of serious researchers and participants in our forum :)

Buh bye.

And, to make explicitly clear to all other new members, now and in the future, you are required to familiarize yourself with the basic research, analyses, and conclusions of the forum BEFORE posting your first question.
fbenario
Member
 
Posts: 2175
Joined: October 23rd, 2009, 2:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: MEDIA still pushing "burning fuel melts steel"

Postby lux on December 4th, 2013, 3:18 pm

lux wrote:Our local news media report a tanker crash on a busy LA freeway this past weekend. The LA Times story contains a video with this fine actress, Lauren Wonder, a CalTrans Spokesperson:

Image

Lauren earnestly implores us (at about 1:30 in the video linked below) to realize that gasoline fuel burns at 4000F! "That fuel can burn at 4000 degrees so you can imagine the damage ... and the flames ... and what it can do to concrete and steel," she says with a sincerity and urgency that would make Meryl Streep proud.

Four thousand degrees? Really? Everybody else says it's more like 1000F but I guess LA gasoline burns hotter due to to all the bullshit glitter and glamor that we have here in our atmosphere.

Here is the story link with video:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/04/gas-tanker-freeway-fire.html

The above Caltrans actress, Lauren Wonder, is previously quoted as saying, "“Public affairs work is so exciting; there’s never a dull moment. Those of us in this practice may have just an inch of science and engineering knowledge, but we know how to spread a good story a mile wide.” Source

Yep, that about sums it up, Lauren. :lol:

We've had other similar news stories in the last couple years here in LA. All with tankers that crash and burn and just happen to do it under another section of freeway causing heat damage to the "concrete and steel" above. They never seem to crash out in the open for some reason. :lol:


I just wanted to give an update to this "news event" of about 1½ years ago in which it was claimed that an intense fire "capable of melting steel" resulted from a gas tanker collision on the freeway here in Los Angeles (Glendale, actually).

Ooooo, just like 9/11 ... hint, hint.

The location of this alleged "accident" is located near my home and I pass by the spot quite frequently. The area looks exactly the same as it has always looked before and since the story's date. I have passed this exact spot in every possible direction many times since this story was published and I never saw any evidence of any damage of any kind, not even any scorched structures. And, no repairs or construction has occurred in the area whatever since that time.

In other words, it's as if ... nothing really happened there at all. Go figure. :lol:
lux
Member
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: October 1st, 2011, 11:46 pm

Re: MEDIA still pushing "burning fuel melts steel"

Postby CluedIn on May 18th, 2016, 2:18 pm

In addition to the "secret" 28 pages they are requesting be released from the 9/11 Report, in addition to a judge ruling that the 9/11 families can sue Saudi Arabia, and in addition to the guy who wants to crash a plane into a building to prove "once and for all" whether 9/11 was real or a hoax, we have this local NY story, pushing the "burning fuel melts steel" meme.

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/fir ... -1.2640457

They said this fire took place at Park Ave. & 118th Street in the Bronx and it was from a generator exploding due to some nearby chemicals being stored at the Urban Garden Center. UGC is on 116th Street (runs to 117th Street) & Park Avenue, according to Bing maps (http://www.bing.com/mapspreview?FORM=Z9LH2) and addresses usually coincide with streets - hence 116 street would make sense since their address is 1640 Park Ave.

Image

http://www.urbangardennyc.com/

Some ridiculous quotes from the article:

“It generated a tremendous amount of heat,” Gov. Cuomo said. “So much heat that it actually bent the steel girders that support the overpass. You can see the main column itself is actually bent.”

Cuomo is commenting on a little fire like this?

Though initial reports suggested several propane tanks had ignited, fire officials said bolts popping out of the elevated track’s steel supports sounded like a series of blasts. Firefighters removed 20 propane tanks to prevent explosions.

One might ask why so much shit is allowed to be stored under these tracks that carry people daily.

And finally, que tears.....

“I’m stranded. What time I’ll be home I have no idea,” Christina Newland, 40, of Hartford, said late Tuesday at Grand Central. She carried a cake that read, “Happy Birthday Vanessa.” It’s my daughter’s 14th birthday. We’ll have to do it tomorrow.”
CluedIn
Member
 
Posts: 234
Joined: December 1st, 2015, 1:15 pm

Re: MEDIA still pushing "burning fuel melts steel"

Postby hoi.polloi on May 29th, 2016, 5:10 pm

The entire idea that steel melts is a distraction from the fact that:

1. No airplanes crashed on 9/11 — the alleged planes didn't even exist, let alone fly, according to all requisite paperwork — and the "recorded" so-called maneuvers were physically impossible anyway and could only be done by a completely freely manipulated 3D model in a virtual simulation of an environment — so there is no reason to say there was "jet fuel" responsible for any heat
~and~
2. The steel could have been pouring down the side like candle wax and it wouldn't explain how a smaller, lighter, weakened version of the material can magically destroy the larger, stronger, denser version in a sudden instant.

In order for people to really understand how impossible that is, we do need to avoid getting hung up on unnecessary distractions like the idea that jet fuel was present. And if people try to pull us into the "the steel turned into a napalm-like substance that created a perpetually increasing burn all around it" idea, we need to get the science of jet fuel right so they can actually see the collapse animations for what they are.

Belief seems to be driving people to completely overlook and almost willfully ignore and deny the qualities of the computer animation that reveal it is, in fact, computer animation.

Is it physically possible to turn steel into an invincible napalm with a bomb-like explosive — no matter if the material is cordite, TNT, jet fuel or Bubba's discount gas or whatever? No. A bomb's main function is to create violent pressure in an instant.

If you can establish that, then you can confidently speak on, knowing you are not talking with a moron.

If you meet someone actually interested in talking about it, from an argument standpoint, if you cannot even get past the chemical and material facts of the matter, you won't get to the point that a weakened state of something doesn't destroy the stronger state as if the towers were made of emotion rather than of measurable states of matter.

So I think when explaining to people the impossibility of a free-fall speed collapse of slightly impacted buildings (designed to withstand violent impacts) it needs to be said that it's true that with a forge capable of heating your material to 1800 degrees, you can weaken smaller amounts of steel dramatically. But not forever, not without containing the heat can you sustain a forge sort of situation, and even then, the building made of conductive steel would absorb and dissipate a great deal of heat. Yes, jet fuel burns 300 degrees cooler than that, it does not burn forever, and steel doesn't melt until extremely high temperatures, and if they are not afraid of asking questions, they will recognize that the tiny amount of melting something shown in the 9/11 videos does not fit with the government's most conservative opinion of events said to have happened by the military's/intelligence industry's/media's goofy animations that made practically anything "provable" with cartoons as evidence.

But in order to help people think clearly through the brainwashing, sometimes you have to dig with them collaboratively into the propaganda. Once you get to the point where they can recognize they've been lied to, they can tackle something as strange as the difference between:

"burning fuel generally melts steel into an invincible napalm when coming into contact with steel"

vs.

"burning fuel under absolutely correct and deliberately crafted conditions designed specifically for nurturing high temperatures is a tool that can help humans weaken human-created steel".

The official story makes it seem as if the buildings had a will of their own and wanted to collapse but the enormous things actually needed a lot of help to come down. And that was probably done with a conventional controlled demolition to create strategic cuts so it could be forced down rather neatly, practically into its own footprint.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4779
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Previous

Return to General 9/11 Affairs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests