truthseeker john
Validated Poster
Joined: 02 Oct 2006
Posts: 577
Location: Yorkshire
|
 Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 7:42 am Post subject: Re: Evidence that Steven Jones' "Molten Metal" is |
 |
|
I wasn't going to bother but...
http://www.911researchers.com/node/147 says...
| Quote: | | We understand that the raw data came from NASA and then these images were produced by USGS using the NASA data. How reliable are these data? |
I would say that data from NASA can be reliable and it will be much more likely to be reliable if the data can be interpreted as going against the official story.
| Quote: | | Figure Thermal(b), September 23, 2001, shows no large hot spots anywhere, casting doubt on the stories of long-lived molten metal. |
That second picture doesn’t show large heat spots but it does appear to show some small ones. Puzzling thing, the second picture hasn’t got the same landscape as the first. Is this casting doubt on the reliability of those pictures I wonder?
| Quote: | | Why is the "air" colored orange? |
It isn’t air it’s smoke that's lit up with the orange glow. Shine a torch on a foggy day and what do we get? Oh look, the ‘air’ is lit up! Silly....
| Quote: | | Why does the "Cheeto" on the ground have uniform color? |
Someone is color blind then.
| Quote: | | Or perhaps it even looks hotter away from the heat source. |
Where? As I explained, the smoke is lit up but as can seen, it is not anywhere near as bright as the source! Someone must be colour blind and brightness blind at the same time - or just plain dishonest. Methinks they are 'perhaps' dishonest.
| Quote: | | If it really were that hot, the hydraulics would not be working. |
That is a load of BS! Never heard of a heat sink? The mass of the steel in the machine will be dispersing the heat away. There is far too much mass in that machine for it to get very hot by it picking up relatively small pieces of glowing metal.
Then it gets more than ridiculous! Hey it even quibbles about the size and focus of some pictures, when it can be seen that the relevant content is the same! ---- except that the brighter and original one, is more white so it looks hotter!
However, the last statement is the most silly I ever heard!
| Quote: | | Judy Wood had said in a recent interview that if the photo was really of molten metal, the rescue workers' skin would have melted. |
I have worked in closer proximity to molten steel than in that picture, when I worked at the steel works and guess what? My skin didn't melt. One day I forgot to put my apron on (made of treated pig-skin to resist the heat) and because of the radiant heat (not sparks or direct contact with the metal), a rip in jeans started to smoulder and then caught fire! Yes, it was hot, it was very hot, but guess what? My skin contains water and it didn’t melt. Silly woman 
The website mentions “direct energy weapons” but for anyone who can believe that the skin would melt, along with many other stupid things said, they obviously have no idea know what they are talking about whether they have a title of ‘Dr’ or not.
I have also seen talk about “direct energy weapons” on here, as though this would somehow disprove Steven Jones’ theory of thermate being the cause but it does no such thing as disprove what Jones is saying!
Instead of competing one theory against the other why hasn’t it occurred to people that the causes of collapse of towers 1 & 2 could be a combination of both?
However, if we concentrate on energy weapons being the cause, of which we have little, if any, tangible proof it is simply not going to be believed by the public, unless they happen to believe in magic.
Its one thing having a theory but if we are going to get this message across to the public, in what we say to them we should try to stick with what we have more evidence for.
. |
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
