Were Twin Towers felled by chemical blasts? (Update)

Sep 21, 2011 by Marlowe Hood
Smoke billows up after the first of the two towers of the World Trade Center collapses in 2001 in New York City. A mix of sprinkling system water and melted aluminium from aircraft hulls likely triggered the explosions that felled New York's Twin Towers on September 11, 2001, a materials expert has told a technology conference.

A mix of sprinkling system water and melted aluminium from aircraft hulls likely triggered the explosions that felled New York's Twin Towers on September 11, 2001, a materials expert has told a technology conference.

"If my theory is correct, tonnes of aluminium ran down through the towers, where the smelt came into contact with a few hundred litres of water," Christian Simensen, a scientist at SINTEF, an independent technology research institute based in Norway, said in a statement released Wednesday.

"From other disasters and experiments carried out by the aluminium industry, we know that reactions of this sort lead to violent explosions."

The official report blames the collapse on the over-heating and failure of the structural steel beams at the core of the buildings, an explanation Simensen rejects.

Given the quantities of the molten metal involved, the blasts would have been powerful enough to blow out an entire section of each building, he said.

This, in turn, would lead to the top section of each tower to fall down on the sections below.

The sheer weight of the top floors would be enough to crush the lower part of the building like a house of card, he said.

The aluminium-water scenario would also account for explosions from within the buildings just prior to their collapse that have fuelled conspiracy theories suggesting that the structures had been booby-trapped.

Simensen presented his theory at an international materials technology conference in San Diego, California, and has detailed his calculations in an article published in the trade journal Aluminium International Today.

"The aluminium industry had reported more than 250 aluminium-water explosions since 1980," he said.

In a controlled experiment carried out by Alcoa Aluminium, 20 kilos (44 pounds) of molten aluminium was allowed to react with 20 litres of water, along with a small quantity of rust.

"The explosion destroyed the entire laboratory and left a crater 30 metres (100 feet) in diameter," Simensen said.

By comparison, the aircraft carried 30 tonnes of aluminium into each of the towers, according to his calculations.

Simensen speculates that the two commercial jets were immediately trapped inside an insulating layer of building debris within the skyscrapers.

The debris -- especially plaster, which blocks the transfer of heat -- would have formed a shield protecting the rest of the building.

At the same time, however, it would created a super-hot, oven-like zone around the aircraft, heated by burning fuel.

Aluminium alloy, which in jet hulls also contains magnesium, melts at 660 degrees Celsius (1,220 degrees Fahrenheit). If heated to 750 C (1382 F), the alloy "becomes as liquid as water," Simensen said.

This molten aluminium could then have flowed downward through staircases and gaps in the floor, causing a chemical reaction with water from sprinklers on the levels below.

The mix would immediately boost temperatures by several hundred degrees, releasing combustible hydrogen in the process. Such reactions are even more powerful in the presence of rust or other catalysts, which can boost temperatures to more than 1,500 C (2,700 F).

A meltdown period of 30 to 45 minutes would also be consistent with the timing of the explosions and subsequent collapse of both buildings in relation to the moment of impact.

Simensen said there are lessons to be learned, if his theory is correct, that could help avoid a similar disaster were another skyscraper to be hit by a big jet.

"We could develop means of rapidly emptying sprinkler systems in the floors beneath the point of impact," he said.

Firing a rocket with fire-retardant that could coat the aircraft body could also help prevent metal alloy from melting.

Explore further: Lego-like modular components make building 3-D 'labs-on-a-chip' a snap

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Allergy treatment may cause new allergy

Dec 14, 2010

Allergic contact dermatitis from aluminium has previously been considered very unusual. However, there are now reports of pruritic nodules and aluminium allergy arising after vaccinations or treatments for allergies. Researcher ...

Transparent aluminium is 'new state of matter'

Jul 27, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- Oxford scientists have created a transparent form of aluminium by bombarding the metal with the world’s most powerful soft X-ray laser. 'Transparent aluminium' previously only existed in ...

The 'coolest' semiconductor nanowires

Mar 23, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- Semiconductor nanowires are essential materials in the development of cheaper and more efficient solar cells, as well as batteries with higher storage capacity. Moreover, they are important ...

Toxic mud spill kills four in Hungary

Oct 05, 2010

Hungary declared a state of emergency on Tuesday after a toxic mud spill killed four people and injured 120 in what officials described as Hungary's worst-ever chemical accident.

Recommended for you

A 3D-printed laptop prepared for crowdfunding campaign

9 hours ago

Using PLA filament, a small London-based team have managed to achieve the 3D printing of their own Raspberry-Pi-based laptop, with a battery life of six to eight hours and Wi-Fi enabled out of the box. They ...

Wireless sensor transmits tumor pressure

Sep 20, 2014

The interstitial pressure inside a tumor is often remarkably high compared to normal tissues and is thought to impede the delivery of chemotherapeutic agents as well as decrease the effectiveness of radiation ...

User comments : 753

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

R2Bacca
3.9 / 5 (41) Sep 21, 2011
This is the best explanation I have ever read for the collapse. It's a simple and almost elegant solution.
iPan
2.1 / 5 (49) Sep 21, 2011
Keep inventing new "explanations".

We know the truth.
Scottingham
3.9 / 5 (22) Sep 21, 2011
iPan:

Freemasons? Illuminate? George Bin Laden's nephew?
hemitite
3.4 / 5 (27) Sep 21, 2011
iPan,

You could say the same thing for science in general. After all, if the world was supported on the backs of four elephants back in 1000 BC, why all this new cosmology? What are THEY trying to hide?
dnatwork
3.6 / 5 (17) Sep 21, 2011
hemitite, they are hiding the rest of the elephants.
SincerelyTwo
3.9 / 5 (29) Sep 21, 2011
iPan decided a long time ago that what he heard was convincing enough to be the truth, despite the lack of any actual substantial analysis. You will notice that most people believe the truth to be the first thing they hear, and every subsequent explanation becomes the lie, no matter what.

In other-words, there is absolutely no hope in reasoning with a person who believes they already know the absolute truth, despite evidence to the contrary.
krundoloss
2.2 / 5 (38) Sep 21, 2011
So you are saying that the planes melted, and that the aluminum just happened to flow in large quantities and meet with a quantity of water to cause several explosions? Sounds very unlikely to me. Why dont people just stop investigating the twin towers collapse. The world doesnt need to know that the government betrayed its own people to motivate them to go to war, with the intent of destroying OPEC, the only obstacle to complete control of the world by the oil companies.
NotParker
3.4 / 5 (20) Sep 21, 2011
I've melted aluminum cans with a charcoal BBQ and a vacuum clean with the hose plugged into the hole that blows air.

Why can't jet fuel melt what is essentially a big aluminum can?

And every floor has water pipes attached to the bathrooms.
vesic8
2.6 / 5 (28) Sep 21, 2011
Ok, since this IS physorg I'm going to go out on a limb here and make the assumption (yes, I'm well aware of what happens when I do this) that some of you (specifically the author of this article) have SOME capacity for scientific thought. I'm not a professional so I would like SOMEONE WHO IS to explain the following to me:

How in the world is Aluminum, with a melting point of 1220ºF/660ºC, melted by Jet fuel (Jet A/A-1) which has an open air burning temperature of 260-315 °C (500-599 °F)? Is it because it was enclosed in the tower, so it was burning 2X+ as hot?

I also would like to point out that this article is also acknowledging that there WERE "explosions from within the buildings just prior to their collapse." Interesting.
The_P
4.6 / 5 (29) Sep 21, 2011
Is it just me or is the best part of this article the part where they talk about a "controlled experiment" that destroyed a whole lab! Haha! I want to work there!
brodix
2.4 / 5 (34) Sep 21, 2011
Wasn't most of the jet fuel consumed by those enormous fireballs exploding out the sides, immediately after the planes hit?
So where was the plane that took down building 7?
Does it really matter anymore? Whatever happened, it's just been an enormous fail for the US.
amhippi
2.6 / 5 (30) Sep 21, 2011
Well, well, well. Seems the establishment needs a new theory to explain the volumes of molten metal seen and hundreds and hundreds of explosions heard. Remember, none of this is the official story on what cause the collapse as the official story denies that there even was any molten metal. The problem with this whole story is that the idea that the molten metal seen and discovered was actually aluminum has been tested, peer reviewed and falsified (even by a NIST scientist himself working independently with Steven Jones). Sorry, molten aluminum is not orange / red as the molten metal found in the WTC. Organics and aluminum do not mix and aluminum is ALWAYS silver in lab experiments, no matter what is mixed with it. The official story has crumbled so much so now that people are turning to pure fantasy.
amhippi
2.6 / 5 (30) Sep 21, 2011
Why do we need a new theory after 10 years, I thought NIST settled this already. Whoops, guess not. So, does this then discredit EVERYTHING NIST SAID? This still does not explain WTC 7, which no plane hit. So if the molten metal was just aluminum from the planes, how did it get to the WTC 7 complex where no plane hit?
amhippi
2.5 / 5 (28) Sep 21, 2011
I mean, really... this is laughable. No mention the whole article about WTC 7.... someone, come on, tell me how that building fell then if this is now the theory.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.1 / 5 (29) Sep 21, 2011
How in the world is Aluminum, with a melting point of 1220ºF/660ºC, melted by Jet fuel (Jet A/A-1) which has an open air burning temperature of 260-315 °C (500-599 °F)? Is it because it was enclosed in the tower, so it was burning 2X+ as hot?
Coke has a relatively low burning temp but it is used to refine steel in blast furnaces. Convective air flow in the towers along with insulation from building matls might have produced these conditions.

There is a debate re thermate demolition:
http://www.youtub...iIoCiI8g

-Although to me it seems that these buildings were designed to fail specifically by jet fuel fire which softened the steel floor joists causing them to sag and pop the (2) 5/8" bolts at either end. As one side of one floor fell onto the floor below it would cause a chain reaction.

The bulk of the structure was in the skin. This tube confined the telescoping floors and landed it all in the subgrade 'bathtub'. Very neat and tidy.
cont
Gyges
2.4 / 5 (32) Sep 21, 2011
Anyone who has done their research knows that the only plausible explanation for each of the three builidings to collapse was controlled demolition.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.5 / 5 (21) Sep 21, 2011
This design may have been to facilitate eventual demolition of these structures but I dont see how. They dont seem to have been built to last very long... more like a K-Mart than a courthouse. Most high-rises are built out of structural steel shapes or more recently, reinforced concrete.

Steel joists seems odd for the 2 tallest buildings at the time. They were not able to be adequately fireproofed with existing technologies and yet insurance companies still ok'ed the structural concept.

Anyway this is the first Ive heard of the aluminum alloy explosion thing. Temps which could melt this stuff could have also melted bldg steel re the video.

A NYC developer -Friedman was it? -was once asked why he didnt buy the WTC. He said he didnt want to own a target. This was before 9/11.
YawningDog
2.8 / 5 (24) Sep 21, 2011
Let's get back to explaining building 7.
YawningDog
3.1 / 5 (30) Sep 21, 2011
WTC Building 7:

One of the most interesting tenants was then-Mayor Giuliani's Office of Emergency Management, and its emergency command center on the 23rd floor. This floor received 15 million dollars worth of renovations, including independent and secure air and water supplies, and bullet and bomb resistant windows designed to withstand 200 MPH winds. The 1993 bombing must have been part of the rationale for the command center, which overlooked the Twin Towers, a prime terrorist target.

How curious that on the day of the attack, Guiliani and his entourage set up shop in a different headquarters, abandoning the special bunker designed precisely for such an event.

List of tenants:
CIA.................not known
SEC.................11, 12, 13 (records of Enron pros.)
IRS.................24 & 25
SS..................9 & 10
Mayor's Emg.Mgmt....23
Insur...............19 & 21
Financial Inst......The rest of the floors
Jeddy_Mctedder
2.6 / 5 (43) Sep 21, 2011
tower 7 was a controlled demolition i don't give a crap what they say. if it walk like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.
TTcarnal_force
2.9 / 5 (36) Sep 21, 2011
It is sad to see that anyone who commented with a statement deviating from mainstream belief was given a poor ranking. As scientists, we should challenge the BS our government sold us, and seek the truth, please stop being so ignorant to the thought of it being an inside job and look at the facts, as many have pointed out.
_nigmatic10
3 / 5 (20) Sep 21, 2011
There was molten metal pools for a week at g-zero. Aluminum do that?
Twin
3.4 / 5 (10) Sep 21, 2011
As for water supply; large buildings actually have interior fire hydrants that could provide large quantities.
FrankHerbert
2.7 / 5 (114) Sep 21, 2011
TTcarnal_force joined on 9/6/11 and has posted in only one other topic, also about 9/11.

Gyges, vesic8, and amhippi have all registered today just to post in this thread. Here's a conspiracy for you. How much do you want to bet they are all the same person?

Why do the cranks on this site feel the need to register 4, 5 and more accounts to all espouse the same viewpoint? Is it because they know they are full of shit? At some level they have to because no one can be that fucking dumb.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.2 / 5 (27) Sep 21, 2011
How curious that on the day of the attack, Guiliani and his entourage set up shop in a different headquarters, abandoning the special bunker designed precisely for such an event.
I dont think I would have relocated to a bldg right next to ground zero, which also happened to be on fire, would you?

As far as it collapsing, it had ben burning for 8 hours. Lots of smoke but few visible flames on the exterior could mean that there was still extensive heat and flame in the core. Collapse toward the center of the structure (the crimp) could be consistent with column failure in the core due to temperatures hot enough to sufficiently weaken the steel.

Or it could have been 'pulled', or demolished, as silverstein, the owner, SAID it was in the interview.
http://www.youtub...JimaumW4

-Funny how he says this... like 'Lets add even more mystery and confusion to the event by saying something cryptic here.' He says 'pulled' and then 'we watched the bldg come down.'
blanereigns
2.4 / 5 (38) Sep 21, 2011
Not only does this ridiculous theory completely disregard building 7, this theory still doesn't address the fact that the twin towers gravity driven collapse model defies the law of conservation of momentum. The plane hit about 75% up the tower leaving a 25% top chunk inadequately supported underneath. Assuming the mass of the building is consistent throughout, the bottom section should have been about 3 times the mass of the top section, yet we have here a 25% chunk plowing straight thru a 75% chunk after very minimal acceleration. This is absolutely impossible absent some form of explosives/incendiaries to help the top section completely demolish the lower section. The bottom section had 3 times the mass of the top section, its a direct violation of newtons laws for it to have been crushed by something only 1/3 its mass. In a gravity driven collapse, the 25% top section could only have crushed the 25% section below it, leaving a full 50% of the building still standing.
FrankHerbert
2.5 / 5 (105) Sep 21, 2011
blanereigns, Member since: September 21, 2011, 3:33 pm

Add another conspirator.
blanereigns
2.2 / 5 (23) Sep 21, 2011
FrankHerbert, I'm not a conspirator, I'm a mechanical engineer. I just joined because I came across this article and wanted to comment. Care to address my comment? How about the mysterious collapse of building 7?
FirstTimer
3.2 / 5 (24) Sep 21, 2011
You guys are funny. The reason why people are signing up today, much like myself, is because this story is posted on infowars.com. So I came here to read the full article, and voila, I am now posting on it.

Its like saying someone has a low post count, so they must obviously be stupid or not know what they are talking about.

There are examples of buildings, highrises, that burned for 24 hours as raging infernos, and they never collapsed. WTC 7 fell straight down so fast that even if it wasnt technically free fall, it was pretty close to it. The middle of the building fell into itself followed by the rest of the building extremely quickly. The damage from the falling debris was on one side of the building, and even if the whole structure was up in flames, which is wasnt, the building would have collapsed much slower and not uniformly as it did.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.6 / 5 (25) Sep 21, 2011
The plane hit about 75% up the tower leaving a 25% top chunk inadequately supported underneath.
Youve got to factor in just what was hit and what was left to support the structure. This takes analysis.
Assuming the mass of the building is consistent throughout,
You mean in cross-section or from floor to floor? Either way its not.
the bottom section should have been about 3 times the mass of the top section, yet we have here a 25% chunk plowing straight thru a 75% chunk after very minimal acceleration. This is absolutely impossible
No its absolutely impossible to ascertain without a detailed analysis. But even without doing such, it is easy to imagine that it WAS possible.
absent some form of explosives/incendiaries
Bldgs are economically designed - pretty flimsy - compared to cars or trees. I myself favor conspiracy, but of a more basic, intrinsic sort. The towers were DESIGNED to fall just like they did - no bombs required, only jets. WTC is more problematic.
TTcarnal_force
2.9 / 5 (21) Sep 21, 2011
FrankHerbert "The Physorg conspiritor" apparently, really quit stalking people. It's an open discussion, if you don't like our arguments, counter them with counter arguments, preferably intelligent ones.
Moebius
2.9 / 5 (21) Sep 21, 2011
Keep inventing new "explanations".

We know the truth.


And the rest of us who aren't crazy or have unmeasurable IQ's know the truth about people who believe conspiracy theories with no credible evidence (notice the key word credible). Of course what's incredible to those of us with a brain isn't necessarily incredible to everyone else.
Cave_Man
3.1 / 5 (19) Sep 21, 2011
There's probably alot more to this than anyone will ever know. My theory is that terminators from the future were sent back in time disguised as middle eastern terrorists who then constructed jets made of a futuristic metal which becomes explosive up high gravitational impacts.

They destroyed the world trade centers in order to stop the human resistance in the future from using the twin towers as a strategic headquarters to secure their alliance with the reptilian aliens who joined our forces after coming here to raid earth of it's resources and accidentally becoming stranded here once Skynet destroyed their mothership.

It's the only logical explanation.

Also hitler traveled back in time and accidentally ejaculated into the pre big bang universe thereby causing a big bang which formed the known universe, one sperm happened to survive and when the earth formed it wound up in a crude oil deposit which was refined into plastic which composed the casing for hitlers mothers dildo.
blanereigns
2.3 / 5 (21) Sep 21, 2011
To all those slinging insults at us "stupid conspiracy theorists," I'll repeat, I'm a degree and practicing mechanical engineer. I'm hardly an idiot. Ad hominem insults just make you look like the idiot. Now, like I said before, we have video evidence of a relatively small top chunk of a building, moving straight thru the path of greatest resistance of a bottom chunk of much greater mass. This is a physics forum, you guys should all understand that low mass objects cannot pass straight thru high mass objects. So without adding energy to the system via exposives, how is it possible that an object of lower mass moved straight thru and demolished an object of higher mass?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (16) Sep 21, 2011
There are examples of buildings, highrises, that burned for 24 hours as raging infernos, and they never collapsed.
Much variation in structure, matls, fire type, etc.
WTC 7 fell straight down so fast that even if it wasnt technically free fall, it was pretty close to it.
It indeed looked like many controlled demos Ive seen video of, but then Ive never seen one fall from a fire. Maybe under similar circumstances they look the same. Steel structure, 8 hour fire in the core, a few key internal columns or rivets or welds soften and fail and bawoosh. Kind of like this:
http://www.youtub...=related
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (16) Sep 21, 2011
Keep inventing new "explanations".

We know the truth.


And the rest of us who aren't crazy or have unmeasurable IQ's know the truth about people who believe conspiracy theories with no credible evidence (notice the key word credible). Of course what's incredible to those of us with a brain isn't necessarily incredible to everyone else.
Hey bite me moebius, did you know your strip has only one side? How is this possible??

There are conspiracies all around us. Remember enron or junk bonds or the secret ww1 treaties, or toxic debt for that matter?

There is also much fishy stuff regarding the major Thing which enabled the west to occupy several strategic locations in the middle east just when things were about to explode. As they now dutifully are.

Imagine a greater taliban/quaida/brotherhood rolling unhindered throughout the ME, from palestine to pakistan, had we not had the Excuse to chop it all up into manageable little pieces. Just in Time.

This is fishy to me.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.1 / 5 (23) Sep 21, 2011
@blainereigns
I'm a degree and practicing mechanical engineer.
But alas not much apparent formal structural training.
blanereigns
2.2 / 5 (20) Sep 21, 2011
Ghost of Otto, the buildings mass was fairly consistent from floor to floor. The top floors actually had less mass because of the smaller support beams used near the top of each tower. The building were 110 floors. The planes hit around the 80th floor leaving 80 below and 30 above. 56 minutes later, the top 30 floors crushed straight thru the lower 80 floors at nearly constant acceleration. THATS A DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE LAW OF CONSERVATION OF MOMENTUM. The top 30 floors should have been able to crush at most the 30 floors directly below, leaving a full 50 stories still standing. The top 30 floors should have been losing energy as they crushed the floors below, with the system losing all its energy when both sets of 30 floors were crushed, leaving 50 floors still standing. All forces are equal and opposite. 30 floors simply doesn't have enough energy to crush straight thru 80 floors below. Yet it did. Controlled demolition is the only rational explanation.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (27) Sep 21, 2011
The top 30 floors should have been able to crush at most the 30 floors directly below, leaving a full 50 stories still standing.
You are not factoring in inertia. These are not static loads.
The top 30 floors should have been losing energy as they crushed the floors below
They would have been gaining 'energy' due to acceleration and accumulated weight.
30 floors simply doesn't have enough energy to crush straight thru 80 floors below.
30 floors plus an additional floor for each floor at increasing impact loading for each floor.
Controlled demolition is the only rational explanation.
And how would that work? Devices at each exterior column at each floor, or a representative of such, all wired together and controlled by some central system, all installed surreptitiously during construction with no witnesses eager to get their faces on tv, and no evidence of sequenced explosions whatsoever?

No bldg structure is designed to withstand dynamic loads like the ones at WTC
Sigh
4.3 / 5 (21) Sep 21, 2011
This is a physics forum, you guys should all understand that low mass objects cannot pass straight thru high mass objects.

Does that mean it is impossible for a micrometeorite to go through a sattelite, or for a depleted uranium shell (no explosives that add energy) to go through a much heavier tank?
vesic8
2.6 / 5 (17) Sep 21, 2011
Frank Herbert: For your information, I am an individual, and this is my only username. I have read several articles on this site over the last few years but have never run across an article that I found to be so misleading until today...which is why I registered. I find it laughable that you have attacked the credibility of our characters and ignored the bulk of our arguments preferring slander to science.

As a side note to all of us "conspiracy theorists" it has come to my attention that this site is heavily biased in the favor of what the "mainstream" thinks happened on ANY topic (or so they claim). Don't believe me? Just scroll down to the bottom below the comments and look at the comment guidelines. Here is what I am referring to:

"Keep science: Include references to the published scientific literature to support your statements. Pseudoscience comments (including non-mainstream theories) will be deleted..."

In other words: if you're not a "mainstream" thinker don't bother.
FrankHerbret
2.7 / 5 (26) Sep 21, 2011
FrankHerbret, I'm not a conspirator, I'm a mechanical engineer. I just joined because I came across this article and wanted to comment. Care to address my comment? How about the mysterious collapse of building 7?


You aren't a real mechanical engineer otherwise you would acknowledge that many buildings that sustained as much damage as building 7 would collapse eventually. Ask yourself, what is the most likely scenario - is 9/11 all a big conspiracy of the government, or is the status quo more likely? Honestly, grow a brain.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.7 / 5 (15) Sep 21, 2011
Examples of top-down demos:
http://www.youtub...vj-npt5s

Building structures are usually designed to transfer and concentrate static loads in columns and cannot accomodate the type of dynamic, chaotic loading present in a collapse. For instance a column designed to support a concentric vertical load can fail if the same load is applied laterally or asymmetrically. They are truly in many ways like a house of cards.

And further you can imagine it possible to DESIGN a building to fail in a certain manner, which could explain the efficiency we saw with the towers. The bathtub basements which collected all the debris is evidence for this IMO. Whether this was done to mitigate an improbable scenario, or to Stage an Event, is a question.
epsi00
2.9 / 5 (17) Sep 21, 2011
Nice theory. Now try to apply it to WTC 7. Maybe it was hit by an invisible airplane made of aluminum. Or maybe some of the aluminum from the two towers transferred inadvertently to WTC 7 with the water needed for the mixture in the exact amount while no one was looking. We all know that things sometimes happened. I, for one, prefer the duck saying.
FrankHerbret
2.2 / 5 (20) Sep 21, 2011
Plus, I AM a mainstream thinker - I am just sick of people like vesic8, TTcarnal_force, etc registering fake accounts on this site. Don't you people see that this is all just a big conspiracy - there are people who just want to put one view on this site and don't listen to proper arguments.
fmfbrestel
3 / 5 (14) Sep 21, 2011
pancaking can explain floor collapse, but does nothing to explain how the core vanished at the same speed.
fmfbrestel
4.2 / 5 (15) Sep 21, 2011
Now maybe if the aluminum fell down the core to the sublevels and melted their way to a bunch of water... but if that happened first you would have seen a much different collapse. Even as this theory goes, supposedly the aluminum hit water on each level just in time for that level to collapse as the building fell at the rate of free fall. Oh if only we could do some serious forensic science on the steel from the core... oh wait they melted it down immediately so we cant. If they wanted to quash the conspiracy theories, maybe they shouldn't have destroyed the evidence.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (16) Sep 21, 2011
Nice theory. Now try to apply it to WTC 7. Maybe it was hit by an invisible airplane made of aluminum. Or maybe some of the aluminum from the two towers transferred inadvertently to WTC7 with the water needed for the mixture in the exact amount while no one was looking.
Unlike the towers WTC7 was a structural steel frame - thick steel columns presumably well fireproofed. The fire insulation blew off the steel joists in the towers during impact, leaving them exposed to quickly heat, soften, and fail.

WTC7 columns were probably insulated to last for 4 hours; the fires burned for 8. Again, it LOOKS like it was demolished professionally... but I dont know what a fire failure of a building like that would look like.

WTC7, apparently, was the only steel-framed high rise ever to fail in the manner claimed.
If they wanted to quash the conspiracy theories, maybe they shouldn't have destroyed the evidence.
Exactly. Onion layers. Area 51 was where himmler and all the nazis lived. :0
Isaacsname
3.5 / 5 (16) Sep 21, 2011
I haven't really followed the story over the past 5 or so years. In regards to the temp differentials between jet fuel and different metals, did anybody ever mention the stack effect ?

http://en.wikiped...k_effect

Or localized pockets of fuel in vapor form, varying fuel-air mixes, etc.

http://www.newton...9611.htm

With stairwells, ventilation chambers, gaping holes at fairly high windy altitudes, elevator shafts, etc, there seems to be room for vapor " sumps " and buildups, etc.

I think this article has solid logic, that's my 2.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (11) Sep 21, 2011
did anybody ever mention the stack effect ?
The thermate video I posted above mentions that the core shafts were 'hermetically' sealed with dampers or somesuch to prevent a chimney effect.

But much of the core was constructed with drywall and steel stud firewalls instead of concrete block, supposedly to save weight, and blew all to hell during impact. Overpressure and other damage could well have caused this envelope to fail farther down the structure.
fmfbrestel
3 / 5 (16) Sep 21, 2011
WTC7 is the one that really gets me. The BBC had a live reporter announce that the building had just collapsed 26 minutes before it actually did, despite the fact that it supposedly caught everyone by surprise. WTC7 is clearly visible in the background. There are many reputable news watchdogs that have the tape. And then 5 minutes before WTC7 did fall, the satellite feed from that reporter suddenly broke up.
MetEng
4.2 / 5 (19) Sep 21, 2011
I believe this is a very plausible explanation.
In the late 60's I worked as a Met Eng at an aluminum plant in AL. We were trying a new casting method for rod ingots that went awry. Cooling water against the outside of the aluminum molds was inadequate, the molten metal flowing out the bottom of the molds onto the water standing on the platform. The resulting steam initiated explosion killed 7 men instantly. The casting pit, the concrete work area and the adjacent conveyor system was turned upside down. We found some pieces of these men buried under 20 feet of dirt, concrete, furnace brick, etc. But most was never found.
The high grade machined steel platform was found a mile away bent in two.
I was supposed to have monitored that crew that night but was not. I was on the first rescue crew in. Still have nightmares.
I was told by an explosives expert on site that 1 pound of vaporized aluminum is equal to 77 pounds of TNT.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (15) Sep 21, 2011
WTC7 is the one that really gets me. The BBC had a live reporter announce that the building had just collapsed 26 minutes before it actually did, despite the fact that it supposedly caught everyone by surprise. WTC7 is clearly visible in the background. There are many reputable news watchdogs that have the tape. And then 5 minutes before WTC7 did fall, the satellite feed from that reporter suddenly broke up.
Yeah I saw that. Isolated fishy things can be dismissed but a whole great pile of them makes you wonder. That and the undeniable Result of 9/11 - strategic reoccupation of the middle east by western forces - is an Effect of such overwhelming Significance that it makes you question whether it was in fact the Cause.

From our perspective it was an absolute necessity, given the growth rates and radicalization of populations in the middle east. We can well imagine a nuclear-armed caliphate having already formed. We can also see that this was EASILY foreseeable.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.1 / 5 (17) Sep 21, 2011
I was told by an explosives expert on site that 1 pound of vaporized aluminum is equal to 77 pounds of TNT.
Used in thermobaric weapons:

"A typical weapon consists of a container packed with a fuel substance, in the center of which is a small conventional-explosive "scatter charge". Fuels are chosen on the basis of the exothermicity of their oxidation, ranging from powdered metals such as aluminium or magnesium, or organic materials, possibly with a self-contained partial oxidant." -wiki
Josh_Bettar
2.2 / 5 (23) Sep 21, 2011
God, what a bunch of bull!! will they ever stop trying to cover this up? this still doesn't address building 7!! burn in hell Simensen1!
jimmytrain
2.8 / 5 (18) Sep 21, 2011
I'm not American and I'm not a conspiracy theorist but I can assure you I am a seeker of the truth, I can't imagine the horror Americans must have felt on 9/11 but is obvious to the rest of the world that men with box cutters and inappropriate flight training could not achieve what happened that day or that three buildings could defy the laws of physics and collapse neatly into their own footprints at terminal velocity. It is equally obvious that the administration couldn't care less whether or not this event was believeable as it stretches the limits of plausible deniability well beyond breaking point, it would seem the opinion of the American people or any people come to that is utterly irrelevant in this matter and it is that truth which is the real tragedy here. The world is watching as America descends into tyranny against the will of her people who may still be brave but are certainly not free. I offer my heart felt sympathy to the victims and their families.
Isaacsname
3 / 5 (2) Sep 21, 2011
And what about cold smoke explosions ? I always assumed that's what the little explosions down the side were.
Arkaleus
2.9 / 5 (21) Sep 21, 2011
The attempt of this propaganda is to blur the evidence of thermite use with a similar but improbable reaction involving molten aluminum.

Here is a photo of a WTC tower column that plainly shows evidence of the thermite cutters used on the lower floors:

http://www.rense....7932.jpg

When intelligent people use their intellect and training to lie to others, it's very difficult to determine the truth. Those who are scientifically literate yet politically motivated for world conquest by the new order powers betray us all with misdirections. You are our enemies.

Otto, your continual praise of the new NAZI order is threaded through nearly every word you vomit out of your treacherous mouth. Your justifications and apologies for war read like psychopathic jingo from the darkest days of Germany.

Clearly those who lust for war are those who never fight in them, and they who seek to enslave their fellow humans are the ones most worthy of destruction.
Investigate911
2.5 / 5 (15) Sep 21, 2011
Horsepuckey.

There was molten STEEL 5 WEEKS after the blast, confirmed by photoanalysis.

The towers were TAKEN DOWN.

GEORGE W. BUSH's BROTHER MARVIN RAN SECURITY.

FULL ACCESS, FULL MOTIVE.

PNAC signatories. "Our ideology would benefit from a Pearl Harbor like attack"

Pearl Harbor had 8 hours warning, in Washington.
The carriers went out to sea, leaving obsolete battleships.

The Lusitania? The Maine? Yellowcake? Pat Tillman?

How many more lies? How many more lives, for your contractor profits, Bushies?
Blair
2.8 / 5 (15) Sep 21, 2011
The flow of comments is more interesting than the article.

The article seems implausible, and says nothing about 7!!!

The physical reality of collapse is extremely important.

The investigation of that was deliberately obstructed...

Mass murder crime scenes were summarily disposed of!!!!!

For more:

http://www.mariju...amp;sb=5
Investigate911
2.5 / 5 (15) Sep 21, 2011
Horsepuckey.

There was molten STEEL 5 WEEKS after the blast, confirmed by photoanalysis.

The towers were TAKEN DOWN.

GEORGE W. BUSH's BROTHER MARVIN RAN SECURITY.

FULL ACCESS, FULL MOTIVE.

PNAC signatories. "Our ideology would benefit from a Pearl Harbor like attack"

Pearl Harbor had 8 hours warning, in Washington.
The carriers went out to sea, leaving obsolete battleships.

The Lusitania? The Maine? Yellowcake? Pat Tillman?

How many more lies? How many more lives, for your contractor profits, Bushies?
Horus Cheney
2.6 / 5 (17) Sep 21, 2011
YEH - MOLTEN ALUMINIUM RAN DOWN THE LENGTH OF THE LIFT SHAFTS AND STAIRWELLS OF THE TOWERS AND CAUSED THE BASEMENT EXPLOSIONS THAT OCCURRED BEFORE THE PLANES HIT.

FNORD.

ZEITGEISTMOVIE.COM
Garf
2.6 / 5 (12) Sep 21, 2011
I thought that, according to the "official" report, there were NO "explosions" that brought down the 3 buildings. Excuse me, they only mentioned 2. My bad. Anywho, are you saying that "explosions" brought down the 3, I mean, 2 buildings/ giant steel structures? Booms happened? I guess we need to know if "Booms Happened" HMM HMM
xznofile
2 / 5 (4) Sep 21, 2011
while we're talking about new theories, how about the initial explosion could have pulverized the iron oxide paint protecting the girders sufficiently to form an impromptu thermite compound, then circuit breakers successively failed in floors immediately below to ignite falling iron oxide dust in a repeating cadence. Burning plastic and flying debris serendipitously formed flash cord that wrapped around and cut through larger supports.

It'd work if you had the right conditions (lets try it)
Parsec
3.4 / 5 (10) Sep 21, 2011
Well, well, well. Seems the establishment needs a new theory to explain the volumes of molten metal seen and hundreds and hundreds of explosions heard. Remember, none of this is the official story on what cause the collapse as the official story denies that there even was any molten metal. The problem with this whole story is that the idea that the molten metal seen and discovered was actually aluminum has been tested, peer reviewed and falsified (even by a NIST scientist himself working independently with Steven Jones). Sorry, molten aluminum is not orange / red as the molten metal found in the WTC. Organics and aluminum do not mix and aluminum is ALWAYS silver in lab experiments, no matter what is mixed with it. The official story has crumbled so much so now that people are turning to pure fantasy.

Color is related to radiated spectrum. If its hot, it turns orange, then red. ALWAYS.
Parsec
3.5 / 5 (25) Sep 21, 2011
Conspiracy theories just never die. I personally have witnessed a lot of Aluminum/water explosions and they are really nasty. The hydrogen release collects in building pockets and produces a separate explosion in each pocket.

Anyone that thinks you could mix thousands of gallons of burning jet fuel and 30 tons of Al/Mg alloy and not get molten alloy is smoking crack. Having the molten metal run through the crevices in the floors and mixing with sprinkler water is very credible. Certainly a ton more credible than a secret CIA plot to destroy America.
Isaacsname
3 / 5 (10) Sep 21, 2011

Here is a photo of a WTC tower column that plainly shows evidence of the thermite cutters used on the lower floors:

http://www.rense....7932.jpg

q]

Riiiight. So now people take photos of beams that were cut to remove debris and claim thermite cut them ?

Please, use some sense. All that tripe you spill about truth and honesty is laughable.

Rense..? ..really ?

This guy ?

http://www.rense.com/demo1.htm

..um...noe
brodix
2.7 / 5 (13) Sep 21, 2011
There were enormous explosions, out the other sides of the buildings, as the planes flew into them. Given the aluminum on the planes was all fairly thin, it likely did burn up, but in those quite obvious fireballs. I'm no building expert, but these external explosions seem to be ignored in this theory.
As for conspiracies, those who give them no credence have little understanding of either nature, or large sections of criminal law.
Here is a quite topical historical example of how the system works:
http://michael-hu...-ripoff/
MetEng
3.7 / 5 (12) Sep 21, 2011
Parsec is correct. I have been around a lot of molten AL. It is silver with an orange/red glow. In reduced lighting (like in a furnace) you don't see very much of the silver, only the orange/red color. (I always wanted a car that color.)
An intelligent discussion of the article would be more helpful.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (15) Sep 21, 2011
Arkalayme buddy,
Otto, your continual praise of the new NAZI order is threaded through nearly every word you vomit out of your treacherous mouth. Your justifications and apologies for war read like psychopathic jingo from the darkest days of Germany.
NaziNaziNazi.
When intelligent people use their intellect and training to lie to others, it's very difficult to determine the truth. Those who are scientifically literate yet politically motivated for world conquest by the new order powers betray us all with misdirections. You are our enemies.
Blah. It's funny, you seem to accept the concept of conspiracy but you're all too willing to blame it on mommy and daddy.

Relax. Leaders know far more about running the world than you ever could. The pain and suffering They cause you is for your own good.

Consider that if gullible people like you didn't exist we wouldn't need war now would we? Here, let me cover your cage so you can get some sleep. Awk!
brodix
3 / 5 (8) Sep 21, 2011
This theory might be taking into account the properties of aluminum and water, but it doesn't take into consideration the properties of likely mostly vaporized jet fuel. Had any significant amount been trapped within those buildings, think more in terms of a piston firing. The tops of the buildings would have been blown up.
That sort of fuel flash fires. It doesn't burn slowly.
fmfbrestel
4.1 / 5 (10) Sep 22, 2011
The theory of the article is fine with one major exception: The official report on the tower's collapse denies that any secondary explosions ever happened. The windows blowing out was caused by air pressure due to the collapse itself.

Before we can even consider the theory put forward by this article, we would have to accept that a basic premise of the 9/11 report is wrong.
Weltschmerz
3.3 / 5 (12) Sep 22, 2011
I guess some of that melted aluminum must have sprayed through the air and landed on WTC Building 7 which also collapsed into its own footprint at near free fall speed. Nice try Mr. Simensen.
Tim_Riches
3 / 5 (2) Sep 22, 2011
It's an interesting theory, but there was no evidence of explosions, especially one large enough to validate it.
Silan
3.9 / 5 (8) Sep 22, 2011
Go back to bed, America, your government has figured out how it all transpired. Go back to bed America, your government is in control. Here, here's American Gladiators. Watch this, shut up, go back to bed America, here is American Gladiators, here is 56 channels of it! Watch these pituitary retards bang their fu@king skulls together and congratulate you on the living in the land of freedom. Here you go America - you are free to do what well tell you! You are free to do what we tell you!
Vendicar_Decarian
2.3 / 5 (19) Sep 22, 2011
"FrankHerbert, I'm not a conspirator, I'm a mechanical engineer" - Blane

If so, you are clearly incompetent.
Vendicar_Decarian
2.6 / 5 (23) Sep 22, 2011
"tower 7 was a controlled demolition i don't give a crap what they say" - Jeddy

Oh lookie.. An open minded Tard.
Vendicar_Decarian
2.7 / 5 (21) Sep 22, 2011
"There was molten STEEL 5 WEEKS after the blast, confirmed by photoanalysis." - investigate911

We can learn two things from your comments.

1. Fire is hot.
2. You are an idiot.
Vendicar_Decarian
2.5 / 5 (19) Sep 22, 2011
"I'll repeat, I'm a degree and practicing mechanical engineer. I'm hardly an idiot" - Blane

Then let me restate.... You are clearly incompetent.

Calculate for us if you will the terminal collapse acceleraton of a stack of ping pong balls sacked on top of each other with a fixed spacing between.

In the limit, the terminall acceleration = g.
heinrich66
4.1 / 5 (15) Sep 22, 2011
On every 9/11 thread on the internet, it seems, some guy like Vendicar Decarian comes out and fires off a dozen messages that are just name-calling. Then he repeats the name-calling some more. The purpose is to kill the even flimsy discussion that was going on.
heinrich66
4.2 / 5 (18) Sep 22, 2011
Science is supposed to be about systematic doubt. Personally, I don't care whether the "government" demolished the building(s) or not. But if you're advancing what is supposed to be a scientific explanation, it had better cover all the facts. The article is only about the Twin Towers' collapse, not about Building 7. It shouldn't be faulted for not accounting for Building 7, and should be taken on its own merits.
3senselessmonkey
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 22, 2011
oh some guys here just gave people a new method of mass Devastation and destruction:
oh just wait I will take contract to destroy old buildings with
a mix of sprinkling system water and melted aluminium and i will do it without Damaging other buliding nearby.Oh, No i can destroy two buliding by demolishing one only.
To supporter of these theory,there is many things which we think we know but we don't know.There are many unknown unknowns.
3senselessmonkey
3 / 5 (8) Sep 22, 2011
oh some guys here just gave people a new method of mass Devastation and destruction:
->I was told by an explosives expert on site that 1 pound of vaporized aluminum is equal to 77 pounds of TNT.

oh just wait I will take contract to destroy old buildings with a mix of sprinkling system water and melted aluminium and i will do it without Damaging other buliding nearby.Oh, No i can destroy two buliding by demolishing one only.
for me,there are many unknown unknowns out there.
docgary1956
3.4 / 5 (10) Sep 22, 2011
Even if this theory were true, it doesn't explain nano-grade thermite in the dust of Twin towers. This goes on ignored. Authorities can't even investigate a crime scene? Sounds like a job for CSI if you believe that stuff.
Gezza
3.4 / 5 (10) Sep 22, 2011
blanereigns

I could place a hammer on one of your fingers and it would not cause you any problem. But if I were to drop that hammer from 3 metres (I'm guessing that you are from the US, so that would be 10 feet) on to your finger, I'm guessing that you would be taking your finger to hospital. A hammer only weighs a few pounds. As for 25% of a building the same size as WTC hitting one floor, crushing it, then hitting another floor.....

You say that you have a degree in mechanical engineering. I guessing that you have only recently passed your degree. That does not make you a mechanical engineer. You may have completed your uni education but it will take at least another ten years for you to learn your trade.

No offence, but your thoughts are very misguided.
Neon
2.1 / 5 (11) Sep 22, 2011
1 of 2

Aluminium did not likely contribute to the collapse: Even though aluminium has a low melting point it also has a high thermal conductivity; Hence it is even more difficult to melt aluminium and to keep it molten than a metal with the same melting point that has a lower thermal conductivity.(Example to aid in understanding thermal conductivity: you pick up a cast iron dumbell in one hand and then pick up an empty styrofoam cup in the other, they are both room temperature, the iron dumbell feels cold in your hand and the styrofoam cup feels warm in your other hand.) Now consider this, suppose we boil a gallon of water, remove the heat source and take its temperature in five minutes, now suppose we boil a gallon of water and pour it down a stairway and after five minutes measure the temperature of the water that collected at the bottom of the stairs. One will be significantly hotter than the other.
Gezza
3.2 / 5 (6) Sep 22, 2011
blanereigns

Try this one, it something I learnt at school when I was 9yo. Take one empty beer/coke can and place your weight on it. It should be able to hold you. Then get one of you friends to carefully push a pen/pencil into the side of the can. Instantly the can will crush and if you are lucky, your ankle will be in one piece.

The WTC was build in the same way. Support structure on the outside.

The only conspiracy that happened on that day was proberly the fact that the US gov knew that something was going to happen. I'm guessing that George W saw it as way of finishing what daddy wasn't allowed to. (First Gulf War). Just look at the glint in GW's eye when he got told the news while at that school.

All I heard after was "how could they do this to us?". As I tried to tell the US press afterwards, You are asking the wrong question. It should've been "why did they do this to us?"
I don't blame the US people, but the US foreign policy has a lot to answer for.

Cont....
Neon
2.1 / 5 (11) Sep 22, 2011
2 of 2
The problem I see with aluminium is that 1) it has a high thermal conductivity (it quickly radiates away its heat), 2)it has a low melting point so that the molten metal will run off and cool down before it can attain higher temperatures, 3) the further the molten metal travels the more surface area it will have to radiate away its heat, 4) it would take a great deal of energy to melt 30 tons of aluminium alloy, where did all the energy come from that was needed to melt 30 tons of metal?
Gezza
3.2 / 5 (6) Sep 22, 2011
The US foreign policy has pissed off a lot of people. Nobody likes to be told how to live their life. And just because they don't want an American culture doesn't make them wrong.

War on Terrorism and the sponsors of terrorism. I ask both the US gov and press at the time, does this mean that they are going to close down the Noraid website. A website that has been openly raising money for the IRA. A torrorist org that has killed many people, including two dear friends of mine. Guess what, no comment. Alot of that money was raised in bars in Manhatten.

The only conspiracy was that, this was allowed to happen. Thats tha Republicans for you. It keeps their share prices up in "defence companies". Should be called "war companies". Tea party??? I'm alright jack, keep your hands of my stack.

As for the conspiracy theorist, the article above, is very likely what happened. Somebody hated somebody else enough to fly planes into the WTC's. In the eyes of some, it's what stood for America.
Isaacsname
5 / 5 (2) Sep 22, 2011
Ok, for all you chemists and engineers.

What happens when you mix H2S and phosgene gas with vaporized jet fuel and water ? And how would that react with aluminum ?

Or, how do H2S, phosgene, water vapor, jet fuel and hydrogen mingle ?

Seems that I only see a few constituents mentioned here, when there were many more volatile products on the scene.
Neon
2.3 / 5 (12) Sep 22, 2011
@Gezza

I like your analogy about standing on a can and putting a pencil through it: it certainly gets across your main idea about the design flaw of the towers. However, I'm a bit concerned that the scale of the analogy is way out of balance! Would it not be better to put a weight on the can that is more to the scale, such as maybe a brick? Your analogy makes it sound like the Great Pyramid of Giza was balancing on the top of each tower at the time that the proverbial pencil was inserted: as far as I know the pancake hypothesis has yet to be tested (computers just regurgitate whatever assumptions they are given to work with), which is why an actual scaled down model of a tower should be built and the pancake hypothesis be put to the test, not just to shed light on 911 but to aid architects in future construction projects.
Javinator
4.8 / 5 (4) Sep 22, 2011
Here, here's American Gladiators. Watch this, shut up, go back to bed America, here is American Gladiators, here is 56 channels of it!


I think you're underestimating how sweet the original American Gladiators was.
Gezza
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 22, 2011
Neon
Great example with the boiling water down the stairs thing. Now take some boiling water and throw it down some stairs that have been on fire for an hour and then measure the temp of it when it reaches the bottom. Oh, sorry, but there will not be any water at the bottom because it will have boiled away. You are right about the thermal conductivity of aluminium. But it does not mean that it gets rid of its heat quickly. In a perfect insulator then the aluminium would stay molten. Yes, Aluminium is a great thermal conductor. This does not mean that it readily gives heat to other things. Because if it is touching something that is not a good thermal conductor, then that thing will not take heat away from it.
Basic thermal dynamics.

Think twice before posting again.
Gezza
3.2 / 5 (5) Sep 22, 2011
Neon

Did you read my first post about the hammer on your finger from 3 metres? If does not at least trigger some kind of reasoning in your brain then you should really quit while you're ahead in life.
Neon
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 22, 2011
@Isaacsname

There are various reactions that can take place, but since both the reactants and their intermediate products are themselves flammable you will, as long as you don't run out of atmospheric oxygen and maintain the proper initial energy to initiate the reactions, eventually end up with: HCl, SO2, CO2, and H2O as the final products plus X amount of heat released into the surroundings over X amount of time; The mixture could make the atmosphere very toxic depending on the concentration, but would have to be present in large quantities and in very confined spaces to cause explosions and even then the pressure waves are more likely to be vented upward and downward through the shafts that connect floors and outward through windows than to be directed towards the reinforcing structures of the building (pressure follows the path of least resistance and the buildings support structures offer the most resistance).
blanereigns
3.2 / 5 (11) Sep 22, 2011
Gezza,

A hammer on a finger? A person on a coke can? In both your examples the item being dropped is many times the mass of the item being crushed. The top section of the tower that was "dropped" onto the lower section was only 1/3 of the lower sections mass! And it wasn't even dropped, the steel supports should have slowly deformed as they weakened. I still maintain that this collapse violates the law of conservation of momentum absent a precise sequence of explosions. What you're failing to grasp is the fact that as the top section crushes floors of the lower section, floors of the top section are being crushed as well. Equal and opposite forces. After all the floors of the top section are crushed and the system has decelerated to 0, where did all the energy come from to crush the remaining 50 or so floors that should have remained standing? Look up videos of the Verinage demolition technique. They always remove a floor in the middle of the building, not 3/4 the way up.
Neon
3.1 / 5 (7) Sep 22, 2011
@Gezza

The stairs don't have to be ice cold to cause the molten aluminium to solidify, they only need to be a few degrees colder than the melting point of the alloy. Don't forget that the difference between a liquid metal and a solid metal is less than one degree! That's basic chemistry. What concrete lacks in thermal conductivity it easily makes up for in surface area; Not knowing the conditions is our blahs!

I'm going to leave it at that! I wasn't there to record the conditions and neither were you. I believe it will be very difficult if not impossible to use the scientific method to determine what happened inside that building that day if there are no reliable empirical and detailed records of the events that indirectly and directly led to the collapses. It is a frustrating problem since all the relevant physical evidence has appearently been destroyed: what really happened on 911? I don't know, but I do know that conjecture is a flimsy substitute for empirical knowledge.
Gezza
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 22, 2011
Neon
If you were to drop an 8lb weight a distance of 4ft then the force of inpact is equal to a 400lb stationary weight. (Thats an increase of x50) Therefor, the moment that that floor gave way, what came crashing down (the top 25% of the building) had an equivelent mass of 12.5 times the entire mass of the building. Each floor it crushed, it would not only gain the mass of that floor but also continue gaining momentum due gravity minus the resistance of smashing steel and concrete along the way.
Most demolitions start of with charges on the ground floor follow a fraction of a second later by charges of the first floor then second etc etc.. It means that they can use the inertia of the falling building to cut down on the explosives required. Quite often the top two floors are still intact, but this is not an issue as it then becomes easy to finish the job with machinery.
What you are failing to grasp is that a moving object carries more mass. E=mc^2.
You are boring now.
Gezza
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 22, 2011
Neon, Sorry, last comment should have been directed at blanetard.
As for the molten ali, I'm sure it would have been at a temp well above its melting point. I have melted down ali before and I have turned off the heat and still been able to dip more ali in the pot that has continued to melt.
Vendicar_Decarian
2.3 / 5 (15) Sep 22, 2011
"On every 9/11 thread on the internet, it seems, some guy like Vendicar Decarian comes out and fires off a dozen messages that are just name-calling." - HeinrichTard

It seems that Heinrich can't manage to figure out what the terminal acceleration of a pancaking building will be.

I have already told him the answer. It is g.

The self professed engineer who can't seem to figure it out either, is clearly incompetent if he is actually an engineer.

Perhaps he is a "stationary engineer" otherwise known as a janitor.

TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (13) Sep 22, 2011
bit concerned that the scale of the analogy is way out of balance! Would it not be better to put a weight on the can that is more to the scale, such as maybe a brick?
The scale is appropriate. Structural design is economical; buildings are not designed to support any more than they have to. A can can support your weight but when it's integrity is compromised it fails under the same load. Just like a building would.
as far as I know the pancake hypothesis has yet to be tested
It has not only been tested, top-down demo is routinely used. I posted this earlier:
http://www.youtub...a_player

-Read the blurbs. More examples on YouTube. I'm not sure if this is what blanereigns is referring to.
Ethelred
3.9 / 5 (15) Sep 22, 2011
blanereigns
56 minutes later, the top 30 floors crushed straight thru the lower 80 floors at nearly constant acceleration.
False. The top 30 floors fell onto the next floor which then became 31 floors onto the next, then 32 onto the next and so on. They did fall 'straight through' they collapsed on each floor in turn. There is also a FALSE claim that they fell at free fall rate. That too did not happen. They fell at pretty consistent rate with no acceleration.

THATS A DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE LAW OF CONSERVATION OF MOMENTUM
That is a strange thing for an engineer to claim. There was a force involved you know. Its called gravity. That you would make such a strange statement is evidence that you are either not an engineer or you are not rational on this.

The top 30 floors should have been able to crush at most the 30 floors directly below
Nonsense. The fall mass increases with each floor. Do try to reason this out.>>
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.4 / 5 (11) Sep 22, 2011
explosions and even then the pressure waves are more likely to be vented upward and downward through the shafts that connect floors and outward through win
You are idly speculating. Design of damage limiting construction to accommodate explosions is fairly complex. Pressure waves can do much damage before they reach the exterior. Many factors including the shape of the space and contents are considered.
milford30
2 / 5 (4) Sep 22, 2011
E=mc^2? so your suggesting the building is moving at relativistic speeds now? are you suggesting a falling building has the energy of an atomic bomb?
Neon
What you are failing to grasp is that a moving object carries more mass. E=mc^2.
You are boring now.[/q
Ethelred
3.4 / 5 (17) Sep 22, 2011
The top 30 floors should have been losing energy as they crushed the floors below,
Why? Magic? They were under gravitational acceleration and the falling mass was increasing with each floor.

All forces are equal and opposite.
Magic again? Gravity was towards the center of the Earth at all times during the collapse.

30 floors simply doesn't have enough energy to crush straight thru 80 floors below.
True but thirty one floors had enough to fall onto another and another and eventually sixty floors were falling onto the remaining thirty floors. Did you try thinking on this at all?

Controlled demolition is the only rational explanation.
No. It is the explanation of the irrational conspiracy fan.

I wonder how much overlap there would be in a Venn diagram of 9/11 conspiracy fans and Birther idiots. The weird part is how many of the 9/11 fans are Right Wingers yet they think Bush was involved. The fear on his face showed that he knew nothing about it.

Ethelred
blanereigns
2.7 / 5 (15) Sep 22, 2011
OK I tried to explain it to you guys in terms you would understand and all I heard in return are assignations on my character and intelligence. Pathetic. Just look up the Verinage Demolition Technique and take notice of the floor they remove to demolish the building. Its always the middle floor. Anywhere else would not demolish the building. Your arguments about picking up mass on the way down are nonsense. If that were the case, why not remove the second from the top floor and let gravity and accumulated mass do the rest? Its impossible. The only way for Verinage to work is to remove the middle floor so the top and bottom sections have roughly the same mass. But enough about the twin towers. Jut watch a video of building 7's collapse. If you can't immediately discern from the video that it was a controlled demolition, you're an idiot and don't belong on a physics message board. The building collapsed suddenly, symmetrically, and reached free-fall acceleration on its way down.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.5 / 5 (8) Sep 22, 2011
There is also a FALSE claim that they fell at free fall rate. That too did not happen. They fell at pretty consistent rate with no acceleration.
While I will sometimes accept erudition as sufficient authority, I usually prefer links:
http://911debunke...unk.html

-The gentleman, like you, says there is no acceleration in verinage demos but his graphs seem to show otherwise.

I would also think that the resistance to freefall would have to do with the ratio of footprint to the height of the bldg. There would be more weight to resist as the collapse progressed in a tall slim Bldg as opposed to a short squat bldg, all things being considered.

And blane, the intact structure below would indeed present some resistance to freefall. As to how much, this could be approximated through analysis.
Vendicar_Decarian
2.5 / 5 (15) Sep 22, 2011
"If you were to drop an 8lb weight a distance of 4ft then the force of inpact is equal to a 400lb stationary weight." - Gezza

Where did you learn that nonsense?

In grade 9 you should have learned that F=ma with "a" being delta(v)/delta(t).

Since m is constant in this instance, F is determined by rate at which the colliding object decelerates, which is determined by the elasticity and plasticity of the objects impacting.

Since you can not state delta(t) you have absolutely no way of claiming with F is.

If delta(t) approaches 0 then F approaches infinity.
Neon
1 / 5 (3) Sep 22, 2011
@Gezza

I'm not dismissing the pancake hypothesis, if you look at one of my earlier posts I suggested that the hypothesis be tested using a scaled down model of one of the towers. I am a scientist, conjecture does not pay my bills! I am NOT disputing with you: basic physics, thermodynamics, or chemistry. I am suggesting to you that conjecture alone may be enough to satisfy your curiousity but I test my hypotheses' and faithfully record my empirical results and when appropriate make them freely available so that others may attemp to duplicate my findings. However, I don't push my hypotheses on others when it has not been tested repeatedly and an abundance of empirical evidence is manifested for others to study. Furthermore, I avoid leaning too hard on assumptions, even when I'm liking what I see, because building one assumption upon another upon another without validation is the epitome of pseudoscience, of which I do not wish to take part.
Ethelred
3 / 5 (10) Sep 22, 2011
None of the buildings reached free-fall. Despite VD's posts. Or yours.

An "assignation" does not mean what you seem to think it means.

Try using evidence instead of simply insisting that things happen in ways that do not fit actual physics.

Verinage is not the only way of doing demolition.

Some people are also bringing up the core of the buildings as if the buildings were built out from a core when they were supported by the outer frame as are most curtain wall buildings.

WC7 went through a lot before it collapsed. And if there was a demolition team in all three buildings how come no one ever noticed them? According to the conspiracy theory there had to a LOT of work done to cause explosion every 15 stories or so.

Controlled Demolition, Inc does NOT just blow one level and they have more experience than anyone else. They cannot do their job in secret as they have to do a lot of preliminary work to get the job done.

Do let us know how all the work was done in secret.

Ethelred
Gezza
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 22, 2011
Milford
I hope you are joking. If a mass gains energy by inertia then its relative mass has increased. Energy = mass (E=mc^2) Try placing a brick on your face. Then try throwing one at your face. I'm sure you'll agree that the second brick seemed to weigh a little more than the one. You should try this experiment. Its very scientific and you'll learn a great deal from it.
Neon
1 / 5 (3) Sep 22, 2011
explosions and even then the pressure waves are more likely to be vented upward and downward through the shafts that connect floors and outward through win
You are idly speculating. Design of damage limiting construction to accommodate explosions is fairly complex. Pressure waves can do much damage before they reach the exterior. Many factors including the shape of the space and contents are considered.

No! I was generalizing the dynamics of a vague and hypothetical event in which no special consideration was given to the layout because the layout was not given any relevant specifications. It's kind of like me saying a breaching charge on a wall will be less effective if tamping is not at all employed while not specifying the nature of the wall, the breaching charge, or the tamping. I know that generalizing can get you into trouble with some people, however the question was general and open-ended.
Gezza
1 / 5 (4) Sep 22, 2011
Vendi,
Don't be a dickhead. It was purely an example of how a moving object carries a lot more relative mass than a stationary object. Yes, you are correct O great one. I did leave out the bit about how sudden the stop was. But as it was not in direct reference as to how exactly, to the pinpoint second, velocity and blood spatters of how these building collapsed, I didn't think it was needed.

At the end of the day, thousands were killed, more were injured and even more are still struggling to come to terms with it and here you are, biting my head off for leaving something out of a very broad example.

Shame on you, Vendi. You don't deserve to have a forum like Physorg to voice your opinion.

I think you should go and have a quiet word with yourself in the corner.
Vendicar_Decarian
1.7 / 5 (11) Sep 22, 2011
"OK I tried to explain it to you guys in terms you would understand and all I heard in return are assignations on my character and intelligence." - BlaneTard

The top floor falls to the second from the top. It's accumulated energy is mgd where m is the mass of the floor and d is their separation. Energy E is extracted in the collision leaving the combined two floors to start falling at a speed of sqrt((mgd-E)/2m).

When the top two floors impact the third floor, the energy will be (2mgd-E) (mgd-E).

When the top three floors impact on the forth, the energy will be (3mgd-E) (2mgd-E) (mgd-E)

When the top N floors impact on the floor below the total energy remaining after the impact will be...
(1 2 3 ...N)*mgd-N*E = mgd/2 * (N**2 N * (1 - 2*E/mgd).

The final velocity after compacting N floors is then

sqrt((gd/2)*(N 1-2*E/mgd))

After 110 floors are compacted we have

sqrt((gd/2*(111-2*E/mgd)))

sqrt(544 * d - E/m)

For the WTC, d = 3.8 meters m = 50,000,000 kg approx.

cont
Javinator
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 22, 2011
I hope you are joking. If a mass gains energy by inertia then its relative mass has increased. Energy = mass (E=mc^2) Try placing a brick on your face. Then try throwing one at your face. I'm sure you'll agree that the second brick seemed to weigh a little more than the one. You should try this experiment. Its very scientific and you'll learn a great deal from it.


You're not using this properly. The brick doesn't hurt your face because of E = mc^2. Ek = 1/2mv^2 would make more sense since it's referring to kinetic energy (ie. energy transferred to your face from the delta_Ek of the brick from v=v_init to v=0).

You're also mixing up the terms mass and weight. Weight is a measurement of force. Weight on earth is determined by Weight = m*g where g is acceleration due to gravity. This is why you weigh less on the moon since g_moon < g_earth. Mass refers to how much matter something is made up of. They're related by the above equation, but they're not equivalent.
Vendicar_Decarian
2.3 / 5 (12) Sep 22, 2011
So the final velocity after compaction will be

sqrt(2067-E/50,000,000)

Final velocity from free fall will be sqrt(2Ndg)

The ratio of final compaction velocity to free fall is then

sqrt((gd/2*(N*1-w*E/mgd)/2Ngd))

and I see the editor has completely fu**ed up the formatting of and content of the above equations.

An excellent choice of editor for a physics site.

Vendicar_Decarian
1.7 / 5 (11) Sep 22, 2011
"Don't be a dickhead. It was purely an example of how a moving object carries a lot more relative mass than a stationary object." - Gezza

Now you are confusing mass and force.

Moving objects carry more mass, but only due to relativistic properties that don't have any applicability here.

"At the end of the day, thousands were killed' - Gezza

As an Afghani herdsman said... I heard that a giant tent fell, and many goats were killed.

Boe Gritz (Libertarian Freeman) put it this way.

"It was a Rembrant of science and art."
Vendicar_Decarian
1.6 / 5 (21) Sep 22, 2011
Lets be blunt.

America deserves to suffer 10,000 additional 911's for it's long campaign of global criminality.
Brent_Ugoy
3 / 5 (10) Sep 22, 2011
Perhaps Mr. Hood can explain how equal amounts of water and molten aluminum were distributed such that the damage yielded by the explosion was uniform enough to cause symmetrical collapse.
Vendicar_Decarian
1.9 / 5 (14) Sep 22, 2011
"WC7 went through a lot before it collapsed. And if there was a demolition team in all three buildings how come no one ever noticed them?" - Ethel

Because they were invisible. Da Gubderment was usein da alien techlonogies thats dey gots from da UFO dats done crashed on Area 51.

Don't yoozer noes nofink?
Javinator
5 / 5 (1) Sep 22, 2011
To noticeably increase the mass of something using E=mc^2 you need to be going REALLY fast.

Think about it. c^2 is about 9*10^16 m^2/s^2. If you have a car weighing 1000kg going 100 km/h (~60mph), you're looking at a kinetic energy of about 772kJ or 772000kg(m/s)^2 (someone can check my math if they want).

Now plugging this energy into E=mc^2 to get the equivalent mass increase due to that car travelling at that velocity gives me 8.58*10-12 kg or 8.56 nanograms which is about 90* the mass of a red blood cell (thanks WolframAlpha ;) ).

Needless to say, the small amount of increased mass from throwing that brick would be orders of magnitude less than what it would be from this car so that increased mass does not explain why it hurts your face.
Vendicar_Decarian
2.3 / 5 (12) Sep 22, 2011
"...aluminum were distributed such that the damage yielded by the explosion was uniform.." - Brent

Don't ask difficult questions. There is a conspiracy to maintain here.
Vendicar_Decarian
2 / 5 (12) Sep 22, 2011
"Jut watch a video of building 7's collapse. If you can't immediately discern from the video that it was a controlled demolition,..." - Blane

It certainly looks like it was demolished so that the owner could collect on his insurance policy.

So what?
Ethelred
2.8 / 5 (9) Sep 22, 2011
America deserves to suffer 10,000 additional 911's for it's long campaign of global criminality.
Lets use some math to see just how big an asshole VD is being this time.

3,000 X 10,000 =30,000,000

A number equaling all of his country's population. Nearly as many as died in WWII.

You are an utter ass way too often VD. And you had been doing so well lately. Hadn't called for the death of all conservatives in several weeks.

Why don't you and the other newbies go play house with Oliver?

That ought to confuse all the ignoramuses that just showed up for this one discussion.

Ethelred
Vendicar_Decarian
2.1 / 5 (13) Sep 22, 2011
"I still maintain that this collapse violates the law of conservation of momentum" - BlaneTard

As long as the energy liberated in a floor compaction exceeds the energy needed to compact the floor, then the compaction of the next floor is guaranteed since the amount of energy imparted to each floor increases as the weight of the already compacted floors from above increases.

Once one or two floors let go the chain reaction that pulverizes of the floors below is guaranteed provided the collapse remains focused.

In this instance, the collapse remained focused because the outside walls provided greater structural integrity than the interior, guaranteeing that the interior collapsed first.

It isn't rocket science Mr. Self Professed "engineer".

If it is unfathomable to you then you are clearly incompetent.

Vendicar_Decarian
1.6 / 5 (14) Sep 22, 2011
"3,000 X 10,000 =30,000,000

A number equaling all of his country's population. Nearly as many as died in WWII." - Ethel

Which is still less than the total number of people murdered by the corrupt American state over it's short history.

There were 3 million Vietnamese civilians murdered by America in that crime. Another million dead in Iraq war 1. At least another million in Korea. 30,000 Nicaraguans. 8 million Native Americans.

America's list of state sponsored terror goes on and on and on....

Vendicar_Decarian
2.3 / 5 (16) Sep 22, 2011
"nano-grade thermite in the dust of Twin towers." - Tard od Tards

Pure ConservaTard Fantasy.
Neon
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 22, 2011
How many people died in building 7? Seriously, I can't seem to find the numbers anywhere.
blanereigns
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 22, 2011

It certainly looks like it was demolished so that the owner could collect on his insurance policy.

So what?


So you agree that wtc7 was purposely demolished? It takes months to wire a building for a demolition that precise and symmetrical. If it was wired in advance, they had foreknowledge of the attacks, and didn't try to stop them. And if one of the buildings was wired, its not a leap of logic to assume all 3 were wired. Also, based on your above posts, your weak grasp of physics would lead you to believe that a Verinage demolition would be successful if it were the second from top floor removed, rather than the middle floor. Am I correct in assuming this? Because that is essentially what your arguing here...
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (11) Sep 22, 2011
None of the buildings reached free-fall. Despite VD's posts. Or yours.
Are you talkin to me ET? If so my answer to this is -correct-. Resistance was presented by the intact structure below.

Some people are also bringing up the core of the buildings as if the buildings were built out from a core when they were supported by the outer frame as are most curtain wall buildings
This does not make much sense. By 'built out' do you mean 'supported by'? At any rate, in the towers there was an internal structural steel structure at the core and an outer structural envelope which were what supported the floors and allowed for column-free office space. It was a non-typical design.

Curtainwalls are supported by internal structure, usually either concrete or steel. Curtainwalls are not structural.

"curtain wall is an outer covering of a building in which the outer walls are non-structural" -wiki
Vendicar_Decarian
2.1 / 5 (15) Sep 22, 2011
"So you agree that wtc7 was purposely demolished?" - BlaneTard

What was left of it. The interior and one side had already been gutted.

Best not risk the lives of the fire fighters, and best get the insurance money by claiming that the building wasn't purposely demolished, but was destroyed by the results of the collapse of the other towers.

"It takes months to wire a building for demolition.." - BlaneTard

I guarantee that I can do it in hours if needed.

"And if one of the buildings was wired, it is not a leap of logic to assume that all 3 were wired." - BlaneTard

Actually it is not only a leap of logic... It is a leap of Tard Logic.

As for pancaking, as soon as a collapse liberates more energy than is absorbed in the compaction, then continuous compaction is guaranteed.

That conclusion comes from the application of basic physics.
Gawad
4.6 / 5 (10) Sep 22, 2011
There were 3 million Vietnamese civilians murdered by America in that crime. Another million dead in Iraq war 1. At least another million in Korea. 30,000 Nicaraguans. 8 million Native Americans.
Canadians were also part of Desert Storm. And Korea. Would you have abandoned the Koreans to their fate? The Kuwaitis to Saddam? How many 9/11s does Canada deserve VD? Care to nominate yourself as a sacrifice? How about the Chinese? It's not like they weren't involved in Korea. Have they paid the price yet? The Russians in Vietnam? Come on, is it that, hell, we should all just swallow a grenade like it's Advil and wait for the end? Who's "worthy" not to be murdered in your eyes anyway?

Nobody in those towers deserved what happened to them that day. Not the CEOs, not the janitors, not the secretaries and not the firefighters. Nobody. No more than the kebab vendors or the professors killed in Iraq, but the suffering or death of one doesn't justify the suffering or death of the other.
Neon
1 / 5 (5) Sep 22, 2011
@Gawad

Do you believe in hell?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.9 / 5 (9) Sep 22, 2011
No! I was generalizing the dynamics of a vague and hypothetical event in which no special consideration was given to the layout because the layout was not given any relevant specifications.
If you were generalizing with a working knowledge of explosions within buildings you would have assumed that pressure waves would have done considerable damage before they had had the chance to dissipate. Confinement is not necessary to create pressure.

I believe these would have been detonation events - shock wave faster than sound - as opposed to deflagration. Which, as it sounds, is worse.
explosions and even then the pressure waves are more likely to be vented upward and downward through the shafts
-And the shafts were fire-rated drywall construction and were definitely not designed for overpressure. As the shockwave from impact or explosion propagated it blew these out too which is why the stairwells were impassible.
Gawad
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 22, 2011
@Gawad

Do you believe in hell?

I'm agnostic. What's your point?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (9) Sep 22, 2011
There were 3 million Vietnamese civilians murdered by America blah
Just as an aside, if VD is not just posturing here then he knows as little about the cause of war as Arkaleus does. Those casualties would have happened anyway; perhaps not to those specific people but to the ones who would have been formed up into armies in order to make war on innocent neighbors and their own populations. Casualties would have only been worse.

The cause of war is TOO MANY PEOPLE. Without war there will STILL Inevitably be WAR.

Arknuts wants to sit down and discuss peace rationally with these guys?
http://en.wikiped...ko_Haram

-He thinks our mere existance gives these people the right to blame their starving children on US? Their obsolete religionist culture is the CAUSE of overgrowth and instability. It was DESIGNED to wage war by supplying cannonfodder and the compelling reasons to throw them at an enemy.

You guys still think Munich Agreements are a good idea? Want one with Iran?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (12) Sep 22, 2011
@Gawad

Do you believe in hell?
Hell is when you ignore an enemy until he is busting down your door. THAT is hell.

Hell is avoidable with Effort. This is why our civilization survives and thrives.
Isaacsname
3 / 5 (2) Sep 22, 2011
...so, as to mechanisms of failure.

Metal at high temps is highly susceptible to hydrogen embrittlement. WTC used low carbon steel, right ?

Water and molten aluminum produce hydrogen gas as a product.

H2S causes SSSC, sulfide stress-cracking.

" If steel is exposed to hydrogen at high temperatures, hydrogen will diffuse into the alloy and combine with carbon to form tiny pockets of methane at internal surfaces like grain boundaries and voids. This methane does not diffuse out of the metal, and collects in the voids at high pressure and initiates cracks in the steel. This selective leaching process is known as hydrogen attack, or high temperature hydrogen attack and leads to decarburization of the steel and loss of strength and ductility."

^^ as per Wiki

So, a high voltage short to hot carbon steel in an atmosphere of H and H2S, among other things, would cause rapid and accelerated embrittlement ?

I ain't no engineer..*sniff*.. but I saw one on TV one time.
Neon
1 / 5 (4) Sep 22, 2011
"Confinement is not necessary to create pressure."

Thick metal is very difficult to destroy using a low VoD FAE like hydrogen 4-75%/air mixture 15.8 bar @1968 m/s. Even though 1968 m/s sounds fast it really isn't. These lower velocity waves tend to "bounce" off of thick metal while a higher VoD of say 8000 m/s tends to cut metal like a hot knife through butter. The thickness of those support beams is comparable to heavy tank armor. So I think the hydrogen explosion hypothesis should be tested, but I will say that at this point seems far fetched. Thermite on the other hand could cut the thick beams or extremely hot fires could potentially weaken them causing them to buckle and fail.

Realistically either:
1)high Vod charges blasted the beams
2)thermite cut the beams
3)extremely high temperature fires weakened the beams

Only the third one is innocent, but has yet to be tested to my knowledge. Again the hydrogen from Al seems unlikely but it should also be tested.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.4 / 5 (9) Sep 22, 2011
These lower velocity waves tend to "bounce" off of thick metal while a higher VoD of say 8000 m/s tends to cut metal like a hot knife through butter. The thickness of those support beams is comparable to heavy tank armor.
Blah? You unfortunately dont know the difference between horizontal beams and vertical columns. Stop throwing numbers please youre annoying me.
The thickness of those support beams is comparable to heavy tank armor.
Blah. You have no clue sir.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.5 / 5 (8) Sep 22, 2011
So, a high voltage short to hot carbon steel in an atmosphere of H and H2S, among other things, would cause rapid and accelerated embrittlement ?
I think you misused 'rapid'. What is the expected rate if diffusion? I would think pretty slow? And how deeply and in what quantity to affect the strength of structural steel sections?
Neon
1.4 / 5 (10) Sep 22, 2011
Even if the whole molten aluminium / water ---> H2 AlO were to pan out and it could be proven that enough H2 was produced and then somehow the 1968 meters per second shockwave were to rip in half the tank-armor like beams without even blowing out every window on that floor first and on and on... still wouldn't explain what happened to building 7?
Neon
1 / 5 (3) Sep 22, 2011
So, a high voltage short to hot carbon steel in an atmosphere of H and H2S, among other things, would cause rapid and accelerated embrittlement ?
I think you misused 'rapid'. What is the expected rate if diffusion? I would think pretty slow? And how deeply and in what quantity to affect the strength of structural steel sections?


I agree with you on this one Otto! If the hydrogen is in the air and the steal beams are red hot wouldn't it just ignite the hydrogen air mixture? Same gos for mixtures of H2S and air.
Neon
1 / 5 (4) Sep 22, 2011
Remember OTTO, I'm not saying that the hydrogen FAE scenario is impossible I'm just saying that it is a new and exciting hypothesis that should be tested. And then let the results speak for themselves. I agree numbers from old books by men that are in their graves are not nearly as appealing as a brand spanking new high tech and well documented, peer reviewed series of experiments that could potentially lay at least one hypothesis for two of the buildings to rest.
Neon
1 / 5 (3) Sep 22, 2011
My use of the term "beam" in these posts is generic to refer to any significant load bearing steel structure that had to fail in order for those towers to fall!
Vendicar_Decarian
1.7 / 5 (11) Sep 22, 2011
"Canadians were also part of Desert Storm. And Korea. Would you have abandoned the Koreans to their fate?" - Gawad

Yup. Particularly the Kuwait royals.

Vendicar_Decarian
2.5 / 5 (12) Sep 22, 2011
"Nobody in those towers deserved what happened to them that day." - Whomever

Most probably true. And also true for the millions of civilians who died in Iraq and Vietnam due to the corrupt, criminal actions of the Bush father and son death tag team.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 22, 2011
My use of the term "beam" in these posts is generic to refer to any significant load bearing steel structure that had to fail in order for those towers to fall!
Generic to those who dont know structural engineering and shouldnt be speculating about it?
If the hydrogen is in the air and the steal beams are red hot wouldn't it just ignite the hydrogen air mixture? Same gos for mixtures of H2S and air.
Depends on the ignition temp, impurities, and a host of other variables.
Most probably true. And also true for the millions of civilians who died in Iraq and Vietnam due to the corrupt, criminal actions of the Bush father and son death tag team.
VD thinks important decisions like these are left up to transients elected by ignorants based on personal appeal and the strength of their PR. Lose the dogma and use your brain. Spokesmodels do not Produce tv shows. Nor do they Conceive them or Write them or Direct them, or even watch them for that matter. They do their Job.
Isaacsname
3 / 5 (2) Sep 22, 2011
I think you misused 'rapid'. What is the expected rate if diffusion? I would think pretty slow? And how deeply and in what quantity to affect the strength of structural steel sections?

Good questions, all outside my knowing admitedly, all moduli can change very rapidly under extreme P/T as thresholds are approached, I've read enough on metallurgy to know that. After spending the past few hours reading up on things, I see that there could have been endless chemical reactions and products produced, the water makes sense as light smoke means water vapor, black smoke is heavy in particulates and you can see in the pictures that the lower smoke is the lightest.

Th high voltage arcing is what is really in the back of my mind. The power was still on when the towers fell right ? Water & high voltage = phenomenon like water bridges, etc.
Cathodic protection usually prevents embrittlement, right ? So too much is detrimental ?

Isaacsname
5 / 5 (1) Sep 22, 2011

I agree with you on this one Otto! If the hydrogen is in the air and the steal beams are red hot wouldn't it just ignite the hydrogen air mixture? Same gos for mixtures of H2S and air.


How can people be disregarding things like electrochemical reactions ? ..Seriously ?

Btw, phosgene isn't flammable.
Stinkie Toes
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 22, 2011
[quote]Simensen speculates that the two commercial jets were immediately trapped inside an insulating layer of building debris within the skyscrapers.[/quote]

It could have been the spaghetti monster. Wherever they are buildings just pulverize to dust and leave molten metal all over the place. It would explain the same molten metal in de pits of WTC7. Ok, I'm off to experiment and proof my theory.

Greets, the disturbed professor
john_marrazzo
2.3 / 5 (6) Sep 22, 2011
so what's the explanation for building 7.. which "collapsed" in the same relative frame of time, with explosions, ( squibs), forewarning, and in perfect symmetry and of course... was NOT hit by a plane.. keep trying you spin doctors.... you just make yourselves look more incredulous.
john_marrazzo
2.3 / 5 (9) Sep 22, 2011
How many people died in building 7? Seriously, I can't seem to find the numbers anywhere.
no one died in building 7... the occupants were mostly govt and were forewarned about the building coming down and subsequently were evacuated prior to the event.
john_marrazzo
2 / 5 (4) Sep 22, 2011
TTcarnal_force joined on 9/6/11 and has posted in only one other topic, also about 9/11.

Gyges, vesic8, and amhippi have all registered today just to post in this thread. Here's a conspiracy for you. How much do you want to bet they are all the same person?

Why do the cranks on this site feel the need to register 4, 5 and more accounts to all espouse the same viewpoint? Is it because they know they are full of shit? At some level they have to because no one can be that fucking dumb.

isnt it interesting to note that those without facts, rely on personal attacks?.. you going to attack me, thinking ( erroneously) that i am this same person?... mr. Frank Herbert.. if you actually WERE Mr. Herbert ( who is DEAD btw) you would look at facts and not just make fun of people.
Neon
1 / 5 (3) Sep 22, 2011
How many people died in building 7? Seriously, I can't seem to find the numbers anywhere.
no one died in building 7... the occupants were mostly govt and were forewarned about the building coming down and subsequently were evacuated prior to the event.


Are you suggesting that 911 wouldn't, in your view, be a government conspiracy if building 7 was full of government employees at the time that it collapsed?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.5 / 5 (8) Sep 22, 2011
so what's the explanation for building 7.. which "collapsed" in the same relative frame of time, with explosions
Youre begging the question. Internal fires burning for 8 hours could have critically softened steel fire-protected for only 4 hours. But it does look fishy due to the symmetricity of the collapse and the totality of it. It didnt collapse inward on itself as if the failure were localized. It just sank.
http://www.youtub...BImVvEyk
http://www.youtub...=related

-This is a convincing and conventional explanation for the collapse:
http://www.youtub...q663m0G8
Neon
1 / 5 (4) Sep 22, 2011

I agree with you on this one Otto! If the hydrogen is in the air and the steal beams are red hot wouldn't it just ignite the hydrogen air mixture? Same gos for mixtures of H2S and air.


How can people be disregarding things like electrochemical reactions ? ..Seriously ?

Btw, phosgene isn't flammable.


Thank you for pointing it out! As for its breakdown I envision:
Phosgene plus hydrogen sulfide = Carbonyl sulphide (flammable) plus Hydrogen chloride
H2S plus COCl2 -----> COS plus 2 HCl

then onward to the most stable end products:

2COS plus 4O2 ----> 2CO2 plus 2SO2 plus O2

I believe that the reaction of phosgene with hydrogen sulfide is endothermic but believe that the energy for the reaction can be provided by burning H2 in air. Alternatively, the phosgene can react with the steam to form CO2 and HCl. There are many dozens of reactions that may have been taking place during the fires. I'm very thankful I wasn't up there choking on my chemistry.
Talltatguy
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 22, 2011
Well thought out and presented. One problem. How is it the author can make the assumption that water was pooling in significant quantities, and not running down the same stairwells and cracks he suggests the molten metal ran through? If the sprinklers were below the impact zone the water would have a head start while the aluminum melted. This theory, literally, "holds no water'! If molten metal can not be trapped on one floor and pool up, why is it water can?
LuckyBrandon
3.5 / 5 (8) Sep 22, 2011
Keep inventing new "explanations".

We know the truth.


what, that it was set up by our own government (cough cough, the shoe sized IQ Bush) for an excuse to get to Iraq and take out saddam? half joking there...but that was the dipsticks goal from the MOMENT HE STARTED RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT. I said it a billion times to people (and in TX no less, the bush-meister's home state...who get VERY offended by it), if you vote for bush, youre a moron, because HE'S a moron who simply wants to wipe out saddam...and sure enough....
Vendicar_Decarian
2.5 / 5 (8) Sep 23, 2011
"Spokesmodels do not Produce tv shows. Nor do they Conceive them or Write them or Direct them, or even watch them for that matter. They do their Job." - Otto

And remain complicit in the production.
blob
1 / 5 (1) Sep 23, 2011
[Quote]
In a controlled experiment carried out by Alcoa Aluminium, 20 kilos (44 pounds) of molten aluminium was allowed to react with 20 litres of water, along with a small quantity of rust.
[/Quote]

http://en.wikiped...Thermite

thinknig

???
==
PROFIT!!!
Ethelred
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 23, 2011
Which is still less than the total number of people murdered by the corrupt American state over it's short history.
Amazing how many errors a Troll can manage in one sentence. There have been periods where the US Government had a lot of corruption but it is not by nature corrupt. Short, is utter nonsense. It is the oldest constitutional government in the world and a much older nation then yours. And you are thoroughly misusing the term murder. That claim is as rational as you claim that all conservatives should be executed.

There were 3 million Vietnamese civilians murdered by America in that crime.
A dubious number but it was not a crime. It was war and we did not start it nor did we start the killing of civilians there. It may be that we shouldn't have been there but that was not because the North or the Viet Cong were doing the right thing as they were killing civilians DELIBERATELY if they had anything to do with Americans OR the South Vietnamese government.>>
Ethelred
2.7 / 5 (7) Sep 23, 2011
It was mess but both sides were guilty of atrocities and frankly the Viet Cong did them as a matter of policy.

The main problem the US had with North Vietnam was some bad decisions that were made to support the French. Eisenhower should have supported Ho Chi Mihn in his efforts to get rid of the French.

Another million dead in Iraq war
Another war started by someone other than the US. It is NOT criminal to protect ones allies.

At least another million in Korea.
Yet another war started by the other side. And a lovely government the South Koreans would have wound up with if we had not joined in the FULLY LEGAL UNITED NATIONS effort to stop the North Korean effort to subjugate ALL Korea to a psychotic government.>>
Ethelred
2.7 / 5 (7) Sep 23, 2011
8 million Native Americans
Bullshit. The number is completely bogus and death by disease is not an act war. There was ONE incident where a seriously sick asshole, Lord Jeffrey Amherst, commander of British forces in North America during the French and Indian War (1756-'63) discussed sending infected blankets to hostile tribes and may have done so but there is no evidence for that. However Captain Simeon Ecuyer, another Brit, apparently gave two blankets and a handkerchief to the Delawares but the disease was allready in the area. Indeed the infected blankets were from Brits in the fort.

Most of the deaths of Amerinds by disease was caused before the English and the French even got here. The Spanish brought small pox to the New World accidentally.>>
Ethelred
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 23, 2011
This is not to say that a LOT of Amerinds didn't die in the various Indian wars but most of the deaths were due to disease and even starvation. But 8 million would have been rather difficult since there weren't that many Amerinds in what became the US after the De Soto expedition.

America's list of state sponsored terror goes on and on and on
VDs lies go on and on.

Really you had been doing so well for several weeks. Then the Troll in you had enough of being good and it had to come out like some serial killer that hadn't killed in way to long.

Ethelred
FrankHerbert
2.4 / 5 (89) Sep 23, 2011
Lol the only "serial killer" in your scenario is the US government.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.5 / 5 (8) Sep 23, 2011
"Spokesmodels do not Produce tv shows. Nor do they Conceive them or Write them or Direct them, or even watch them for that matter. They do their Job." - Otto

And remain complicit in the production.
As does Ronald McDonald in the production of your mcburger. So what? Plans for the western reoccupation of the ME took decades to unfold. You blame one minor player, you miss the whole Purpose.

Which is the Purpose of spokesmodels to begin with. They're convenient diversions for the starstruck masses. You all want somebody you can praise or blame and so that's what you're given. Just like israel and its kings.

Dupe.
krundoloss
3.5 / 5 (8) Sep 23, 2011
Here's the thing: You cannot beleive what you see in the media. You must look at things logically and make your own conclusion. Logically, it would seem that there were just way too many different strange things going on on Sept. 11th 2001. Look into, you will know in your heart that something was planned on that day.
Isaacsname
5 / 5 (1) Sep 23, 2011
Just out of continuing curiousity on my part..

Did the Trade Center Towers have mass damping systems ?

http://en.wikiped...s_damper

Where were they, how were they controlled, can they go out of control( from damaged elements in the system ) and provide extra torque in the form of oscillations, misread wind speed and over-compensate, etc, etc.

Hit me.
Isaacsname
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 23, 2011
There's always LME to consider too, since liquid aluminum and steel happen to be the most prone to suffer this effect.

http://en.wikiped...ttlement

@ otto, you are correct, it's not a " rapid " embrittlement, it's " drastic loss in tensile ductility ".

My bad.
Isaacsname
5 / 5 (1) Sep 23, 2011
" I'm very thankful I wasn't up there choking on my chemistry " ~Neon

True, Le Châtelier himself would cringe at all the possible reactions/products.
Star_Gazer
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 24, 2011
As one side of one floor fell onto the floor below it would cause a chain reaction.


Wouldn't that mean that one side of the building would fall before another side, causing the part of the building above to tilt?
Claudius
2.7 / 5 (14) Sep 24, 2011
@ethelred

"There have been periods where the US Government had a lot of corruption but it is not by nature corrupt."

This assumes that the current US Government is not corrupt. I wish it weren't so, but the level of corruption in the US Government is higher now than any time in its history. Do you really think a corrupt system can correct itself?

"It is the oldest constitutional government in the world and a much older nation then yours."

No, Iceland has the oldest constitutional government. Also, it is an error to say the U.S. is a constitutional government. It has a constitution, yes, but it hasn't honored it in a long time. In fact, supporting the Constitution can get you on the "Terror Watch List."

"A dubious number but it was not a crime. It was war and we did not start it nor did we start the killing of civilians there."

The Gulf of Tonkin incident was manufactured to justify the Viet Nam war. This was recently documented in declassified documents.

Claudius
2.5 / 5 (13) Sep 24, 2011
The main problem the US had with North Vietnam was some bad decisions that were made to support the French. Eisenhower should have supported Ho Chi Mihn in his efforts to get rid of the French.


Actually, the U.S. Government shipped a huge amount of military aid to Ho Chi Minh right after the Japanese surrender. It then in fact engineered the Viet Nam war from that point onward. Read Col. Fletcher Prouty's book on Viet Nam.

Another war started by someone other than the US. It is NOT criminal to protect ones allies.


Depends on which war you mean. The second Iraq war is being discussed, and it was a war of aggression, pure and simple. And a war of aggression IS criminal, it was THE REASON why German officials were executed after WWII.
Claudius
3 / 5 (16) Sep 24, 2011
This is not to say that a LOT of Amerinds didn't die in the various Indian wars but most of the deaths were due to disease and even starvation. But 8 million would have been rather difficult since there weren't that many Amerinds in what became the US after the De Soto expedition.


Historically, in war, most deaths are due to things like disease and starvation. It is ingenuous and incorrect to suggest that the U.S. Government did not have a policy to get rid of the native Americans. From the beginning, even in colonial times, they pushed them west from their ancestral homes and would have pushed them into the Pacific Ocean if so many hadn't (most conveniently) already died from "disease and starvation".

America's list of state sponsored terror goes on and on and on
VDs lies go on and on.


No, do a little research on state sponsored terrorism, and it is an awesome list. The U.S. Government isn't the only perpetrator, just the very best.

LuckyBrandon
2 / 5 (4) Sep 24, 2011
8 million Native Americans
Bullshit. The number is completely bogus and death by disease is not an act war. There was ONE incident where a seriously sick asshole, Lord Jeffrey Amherst, commander of British forces in North America during the French and Indian War (1756-'63) discussed sending infected blankets to hostile tribes and may have done so but there is no evidence for that. However Captain Simeon Ecuyer, another Brit, apparently gave two blankets and a handkerchief to the Delawares but the disease was allready in the area. Indeed the infected blankets were from Brits in the fort.

Most of the deaths of Amerinds by disease was caused before the English and the French even got here. The Spanish brought small pox to the New World accidentally.>>


actually you are incorrect (not on the 8 million deaths though, thats bs). blankets infected with small pox were sent to tribes as peace offerings just before the battle of little big horn.
Claudius
2.2 / 5 (10) Sep 24, 2011
@TheGhostofOtto1923

The bulk of the structure was in the skin. This tube confined the telescoping floors and landed it all in the subgrade 'bathtub'. Very neat and tidy.


-Although to me it seems that these buildings were designed to fail specifically by jet fuel fire


You must know, of course, since the whole 9/11 community has made this the cornerstone of their analysis, that the WTC towers were not simple tube structures, but had a huge central core and were not "built to fail." You must also know that the buildings were specifically built to withstand multiple jetliner collisions, including jet fuel. In fact, the towers were built so that jet fuel could not flow to the bottom of the structures and were built in three separate modules specifically to prevent this.

How you have the time to spend on comments, what with singing the Horst Wessel Lied and marching about consuming most of your time, is a mystery to me. Die Fahne Hoch, and all that.
Claudius
2.1 / 5 (11) Sep 24, 2011
@LuckyBrandon
actually you are incorrect (not on the 8 million deaths though, thats bs).


"David Stannard notes that more conservative demographers cite a figure of about 7 or 8 million inhabitants. The Library of Congress uses 900,000 as the total number in its educational article "Destroying the Native American Cultures". By 1900, the Native American population in the United States had dwindled to approximately 250,000. As the direct result of written and broken treaties, warfare, and of forced assimilation the Indians were virtually destroyed by the European immigration that created the United States." - Wikipedia article on "American Indian Wars."

BS?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (10) Sep 24, 2011
You must also know that the buildings were specifically built to withstand multiple jetliner collisions, including jet fuel.
No sorry youll have to reference this. But is this why each fell down by getting hit with just one??

I HAVE read in different sources that this possibility was never considered. Ostensibly.

The core structure indeed functioned as an integral part of the structure but could not have supported itself without lateral support from the tube and floors. What does your statement have to do with anything?
Depends on which war you mean. The second Iraq war is being discussed, and it was a war of aggression, pure and simple. And a war of aggression IS criminal, it was THE REASON why German officials were executed after WWII.
And it is suicide to wait and let an enemy attack you when THEY are ready, and on THEIR own terms. Sun Tzu 101.

Otto uber alles.

Oh hey the word is DISingenuous. I always look words up when I am not sure of them.
Neon
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 24, 2011
@GhostofOtto1923

I've been thinking about the link you provided that demonstrates top-down building implosions and after watching those buildings fall over and over and then watch the fall of the twin towers I have to say that the pancake hypothesis is "gaining momentum" and I now am seeing that, although not unequivocal, it is highly plausible:

http://www.youtub...=related

Another important consideration is the plumes seen being ejected from the towers as they fall: while solid debris of the towers are limited to a free falling speed or less than free fall speed, the air inside the lower floors of the building can certainly be compressed by the compaction of upper floors pushing downward on the columns of air as they fall. Furthermore, this compressed air maybe responsible for the plumes seen being ejected from the lower floors as the upper floors are moving downward. This concept is easy to demonstate at home using a plastic screwcap bottle...
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.4 / 5 (9) Sep 24, 2011
Excellent. As I said the core was supposedly sealed against smoke and fumes but as it was mostly drywall construction, could not resist overpressure and I am presuming liquids.

Pressure from collapsing floors above could have travelled down the core openings and emerged to blow out windows on lower floors before the collapse reached them.

And some windows could have popped from deformation as the entire structure began to stress. Someone said in one of the interviews that they thought the whole Bldg had twisted from the impact and that they were looking out in a slightly different direction. This glass-breaking could have been most pronounced at the corners as they probably would have experienced the most shear from twisting.
Neon
1.5 / 5 (8) Sep 24, 2011
@TheGhostofOtto1923

Compressed air is wickedly powerful stuff: I remember one experiance of it some years ago when I placed a large screw nut in a new hydraulic press to test its strength. What I forgot to consider was that as the metal nut was being compressed so was the air inside the nut as the nut was placed in the press ring-side down: the result was a startling explosion that caused the metal nut to fragment at a high velocity into small pieces all over the work area.

Please someone correct me if I'm wrong but were not the core columns of the world trade centers hollow steel rectangular columns? If so then they might have failed like the threaded nut in the hydraulic press: instead of the air inside the columns being compressed hydraulically the air may be compressed thermally. This can be expressed by Charles's law in which the pressure of a gas is proportional to its temperature when both its mass and volume are kept constant, as they would be in an airtight steel column.
Neon
1 / 5 (6) Sep 24, 2011
A picture of what I was thinking:

http://911researc...ore3.jpg

If these were hermetically sealed at both ends by joiners and exposed to fire then Charles' law takes over and they will blow up when the temperature causes not the metal to fail due to temperature but rather the pressure of the air inside the column to to cause ultimate failure of the steel.
ABSOLUTEKNOWLEDGE
1.9 / 5 (13) Sep 24, 2011
thermite nano particles were found in dust
witch brought them down

no need to make up srpinklers brought down the tawers
how stupid they think people are?
Neon
2.4 / 5 (14) Sep 24, 2011
Thermite is used in welding during construction of railroads and can also be used to join columns and beams like were used in the WTCs construction. I will try to find out more about it, but don't discount that thermite may have been used heavily during the construction of the towers which would explain artifacts of thermite reactions on structural pieces of the towers. Please confirm that it wasn't used during the construction of the towers: you should seek to exhaust all the possible ligitimate reasons thermite residue would be found on pieces of the tower before you go grasping for the illigitimate reasons one would find it there.

Use the scientific method and the process of ellimination and at the end be honest with yourself based on the plain hard facts. Do you care more about the truth or do you care more about your conspiracy theories and conjectures?
sterlingda
3.5 / 5 (11) Sep 24, 2011
Nice try.

How do you explain building 7, which fell at free-fall speed, and wasn't hit by a plane?

How do you explain nanothermite residue found replete in the dust?

How do you explain the squibs in advance of the collapsing building?

How do you explain buildings 1,2 falling at near free-fall speed into their own footprint?

How do you explain molten metal 4-5 weeks after the collapse (iron continues to react with thermite...)

How do you explain the govt's rush to get rid of the evidence, shipping off the debris to China to be destroyed asap?

How do you explain building owner, Silverstein saying he had told them to "pull it" in reference to building 7?

How do you explain that the Patriot Act was already composed?

Why didn't NIST test for explosive residue when thousands of witnesses hear and saw explosions?

etc.

Wake Up!!!!

There are some very evil people running things and covering up, and installing police state, which people would never go for with
Bradley_s
3 / 5 (2) Sep 24, 2011
Learn some manner, guys. This forum's purpose is being ruined by all the caps-locking. Anyone typing invalid physics in such an aggressive tone should be ashamed. And, in general, the aggressive tone is counter-productive. I'm disappointed.
Neon
1.6 / 5 (9) Sep 24, 2011
I already stated quite clearly an earlier post that I don't know what happened on 911. I'm not jumping to any conclusions because like I said conjecture is a flimsy substitute for empirical knowledge.

I think the problem here is that it was a big Emotional event! If this were on the other hand the collapse of an old dam then I think less storytelling and more measurements and testing would be performed to determine the cause of its failure. And when the final report comes out on the cause it would not be politically charged to accept the conclusions of the experts who had the best access to the relevant evidence. However, since George Bush was president, and you didn't vote for him, then the findings of the commission cannot be trusted because they were appointed by a government that you do not trust.
The problem is that the official story is plausible, but there is simply not enough evidence to verify it, and by the same token there isn't enough evidence to disprove it.
Claudius
2.7 / 5 (14) Sep 24, 2011
Those who refuse to accept the most likely explanation that the buildings fell from controlled demolition try to promote explanations that are increasingly ridiculous. It is as if any explanation, no matter how far-fetched, is preferable to the most likely explanation. Also distorting evidence like suggesting that the core columns were hollow, or that the buildings were designed to fail. Or ignoring the presence of unignited namothermite, which is an advanced Defense Department product, just like the anthrax used in the pre-"Patriot Act" scare. This kind of reasoning is not scientific. A scientific approach is to follow the evidence to the best conclusion, no matter what your personal feelings are.
Vendicar_Decarian
2 / 5 (7) Sep 24, 2011
"A dubious number but it was not a crime. It was war and we did not start it nor did we start the killing of civilians there." - Ethelred

The 3 million civilians murdered by American in Vietnam who died from Amerian bombs, American Napalm, and American Bullets.

Hitler would have been proud of America's level of civilian extermination.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.4 / 5 (10) Sep 25, 2011
"There have been periods where the US Government had a lot of corruption but it is not by nature corrupt." - Ethelred

Not corrupt like the Nixon administration hiding the failing war effort and massive quantity of civilian deaths in Vietnam from the American people.

Corrupt like the Reagan administration illegally selling Weapons to terrorists in order to generate profits that it then illegally funneled to terrorists in Nicaragua for the purpose of murdering civilians?

Corrupt like the Bush Administration sending a representative to Iraq to tell Saddam that invading Kuwait would be seen as an internal matter and then using the invasion of Kuwait to bomb Iraq - an American ally back to the stone age?

Corrupt like Bush Administration 2 - the most corrupt government in U.S. history?

Not corrupt?

Vendicar_Decarian
2.4 / 5 (14) Sep 25, 2011
"There have been periods where the US Government had a lot of corruption but it is not by nature corrupt." - Tard Boy

Buildings don't need to be hit by airplanes to fall down.

"How do you explain buildings 1,2 falling at near free-fall speed into their own footprint?" - Tard Boy

Physics tells us that this is exactly how the building would collapse since compared to the mass of collapsing material from above, each floor below offered tissue paper resistance.

"How do you explain nanothermite residue found replete in the dust?" - Tard Boy

Nothing of the kind was found. Although certainly Aluminum and Iron Oxide were found. Steel rusts and Aluminum is also a component in building construction.

"How do you explain the squibs in advance of the collapsing building?" - Tard Boy

Their existence is pure fantasy based on the explosion of exterior windows - and which were actually the result of air pressure caused from the compaction of the floors above.

TheGhostofOtto1923
1.4 / 5 (9) Sep 25, 2011
What makes you think these are indications of corruptitude?

VD again demonstrates his lack of appreciation of the exigencies of war.

All of war is deception.
Peace is only the preparation for war.

-Therefore all of peace is deception.

Apologies for the wordmath. I didn't make the first two up I only took them to their logical conclusion.
Vendicar_Decarian
1.9 / 5 (13) Sep 25, 2011
"How do you explain buildings 1,2 falling at near free-fall speed into their own footprint?" - Tard Boy

This is exactly how physics tells us the building should fall since the mass of material above was offered virtually no resistance by the tissue like floors below.

"How do you explain molten metal 4-5 weeks after the collapse (iron continues to react with thermite...)" - Tard Boy

Molton metal in the ruins of a massive pile of burning rubble? Clearly the only explanation must be space aliens. It couldn't have been fire. That would just be silly.

"How do you explain the govt's rush to get rid of the evidence, shipping off the debris to China to be destroyed asap?" - Tard Boy

Ford needed some more low cost steel for it's Crap Cars.

omatumr
1.5 / 5 (16) Sep 25, 2011
The above comments show how public confidence in government leaders has declined since the finding that climate scientists manipulated temperature data and leaders of the scientific community covered up ('whitewashed') the problem.

Apparently world leaders and leaders of science agreed to promote two falsehoods in ~1971 [1,2] to unite the world:

a.) Bilderberg model of the Sun as a stable H-fusion reactor.
b.) Humans therefore caused Earth's climate change.

After failing to whitewash Climategate, they are trapped like rats on a sinking ship, who must:

c.) Admit deceit and risk retaliation, or
d.) Ban open discussion of Climategate.

Statesmanship is needed to resolve the situation and restore:

e.) Integrity to government science.
f.) Citizen control over government.

1. http://dl.dropbox...oots.pdf

2. http://dl.dropbox...reer.pdf

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo

Vendicar_Decarian
2.1 / 5 (14) Sep 25, 2011
"How do you explain building owner, Silverstein saying he had told them to "pull it" in reference to building 7?" - Tard Boy

He told the truth. But the official story is that the building fell from the attack so that he could collect on the buildings insurance policy.

If the building had been purposely demolished he wouldn't have had the ability to collect.

It's as simple as that.

No moon men, or tard conspiracy needed.
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (12) Sep 25, 2011
"since the finding that climate scientists manipulated temperature data" - Omatard

There has been no such finding Tard Boy, just as - contrary to your lunacy, there is no Neutron Star at the heart of our sun.
Vendicar_Decarian
2.6 / 5 (10) Sep 25, 2011
"What makes you think these are indications of corruptitude?" - Otto

Those who are accepting of corruption are complicit in that corruption.
LuckyBrandon
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 25, 2011
@Claudius - yes, BS...I happen to be a descendent of the blackfeet tribe, and was taught by my gm the history of our people...but if you want to get into this, ok...i have a HUGE amount of info i can pass along, including absolutely RETARDED beliefs of a gd rolling rock and moral lessons learned from said rock...however your statement of 8 million, while as an ENTIRE population of ALL tribes in the US (and northern mexico/southern canada) may be around correct, the demise was NOT from anything short of RAPE of our women. Make no mistake, the use of biological warfare was primarily limited to 2 times...and the largest wiped my tribe out to the extent that only a tiny tiny tiy percentage (even on the largest reservation given to ANY tribe) are full blooded...this was rape that caused this, NOT warfare. The biological warfare wiped out a VAST majority of our particular tribe, along with the crow, the sioux, and some others..was a matter of thousands, NOT millions...facts from childhood
heinrich66
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 25, 2011
Amusing that someone like "Vendicar Decarian" can cite all the gross immoralities of invading Vietnam, Iraq, etc., with the unimaginable loss of life ... and yet not think that there might be some people evil enough to use the U.S. government's cloak of legitimacy to either allow the 9/11 attacks to happen or even help bring them about.

The new theory outlined in this article should be taken on its merits. Thankfully, internet comments sections are no substitute for the peer review process.
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 25, 2011
The 3 million civilians murdered by American in Vietnam who died from Amerian bombs, American Napalm, and American Bullets.
Sorry you can't understand the difference between a war and criminal actions. The Vietnamese did the same thing except for the napalm and they other things instead. It was war. Its nasty.

Hitler would have been proud of America's level of civilian extermination
We killed a lot his as well. It was war in both cases and thus not criminal.

There are few things that are criminal for nations. Piracy is one. Privateering is not.

Not corrupt like the Nixon administration
What part of periods of corruption did you fail to understand? Nixon was corrupt. The government is no more inherently corrupt than yours is.

massive quantity of civilian deaths in Vietnam from the American people.
He didn't actually do that. He hid the failures from himself though. And the deaths of civilians were not intentional.>>
Ethelred
1 / 5 (2) Sep 25, 2011
Quite unlike WWII were civilians were targeted. And you seem to be evading the clear INTENTIONAL killing of civilians by the Viet Cong. They were criminals.

Corrupt like Bush Administration 2 - the most corrupt government in U.S. history?
Funny those were all Republicans and you botched it anyway. REAGAN was the most corrupt based on convictions and as a percentage the one you left out was the worst, President Grant and he wasn't corrupt himself. Just incompetent enough that he didn't know it was going on.

"There have been periods where the US Government had a lot of corruption but it is not by nature corrupt." - Tard Boy

Buildings don't need to be hit by airplanes to fall down.
I think you botched a quote there.

Corruption by all those Republicans came from them NOT having any respect for the US government. Not from anything inherent in America. Inherent in humans maybe.

Ethelred
ABSOLUTEKNOWLEDGE
2.1 / 5 (15) Sep 25, 2011
this article has close to zero scietific merit

because it trys to explain away the know fact
by anyone who is noT mentally retarded

that WTC 1 WTC2 AND WTC7

WERE CONTROLED DEMELITIONS
SolidStateUniverse
2 / 5 (4) Sep 25, 2011
In regards to the whole nanothermite particle issue... isn't using molten aluminum against a rusting steel building an aluminothermic reaction anyway?

I'd be surprised if you didn't find evidence of thermite after an explosion like that.
plasticpower
3.5 / 5 (8) Sep 25, 2011
explain #7...
ABSOLUTEKNOWLEDGE
1.9 / 5 (14) Sep 25, 2011
ADENDUM
this article has close to zero scietific merit BECAOUSE ITS CLEARLY A BLATANT ATEMPT TO VALIDATE THE OFICIAL STORY LINE

it trys to explain away the know fact
by anyone who is noT mentally retarded

AND TOOK HIS HEAD OUT OF THE OFFCIAL STORYS ASS AND DID
FEW HUNDERED HOURS OF RESEARCH ON THE SUBJECT

THAT WTC 1 WTC 2 AND WTC 7

WERE CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS

SolidStateUniverse
1 / 5 (2) Sep 25, 2011
explain #7...


The monsterous shockwave and resonance vibration from the other towers falling after the aluminum-water mix ignited the rusty girders?

Bridges collapse due to resonance, I don't see why a building couldn't.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (13) Sep 25, 2011
WERE CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS
I thought they WERE CONTROLED DEMELITIONS -?
FEW HUNDERED HOURS OF RESEARCH ON THE SUBJECT
Did you read the same article a few hundred times?
DGBEACH
2.5 / 5 (8) Sep 25, 2011
I have as yet to see any scientific explanations here which would back up the conspiracy claims. Structural specifications would be a good place to start IMHO. Maybe the "Mechanical Engineer" could fire up his CAD program and spit out some real (though still virtual) "stress-baring" numbers to support his arguements.
Claudius
1.7 / 5 (12) Sep 25, 2011
@Ethelred

Sorry you can't understand the difference between a war and criminal actions. The Vietnamese did the same thing except for the napalm and they other things instead. It was war. Its nasty.


Well, there is NO difference between a STAGED war and criminal actions. The Viet Nam war was completely fabricated by the U.S. starting right after the Japanese surrender, starting with the shipment of arms to Ho Chi Minh, relocation of 1 million Northern Vietnamese to the South, etc. It was created to produce huge profits for the military industrial complex. When JFK tried to put a stop to it, he was killed. Read Col. Fletcher Prouty's book on Viet Nam & JFK.
Claudius
2.2 / 5 (13) Sep 25, 2011
@DGBEACH

I have as yet to see any scientific explanations here which would back up the conspiracy claims.


You have to be specific. Which conspiracy claims do you mean? The ones (plural) that the government has foisted on us which make no sense? Or the ones that question the official conspiracy theories?

The word "conspiracy" is highly misused and people really ought to look it up in the dictionary.

Rejecting the official conspiracy theory promoted by the government and asking for a new investigation is not in itself a conspiracy claim, it is a rational response to an absurd tale told by a corrupt government.
Isaacsname
3.5 / 5 (8) Sep 25, 2011
explain blah blah...


Squibs ~ No squibs, simple dimensional analysis that you yourself can do, proves this. Explosions don't start small, expand and then die down like the video shows, they start big and die down. Simple.

Fire temps ~ seriously ? This is simple thermodynamics. When you burn a " fuel " in a " system " like an " engine " you remove " energy " in the form of " work ". " Adiabatic flame temperature " , google it.

Thermite ~ Um, no. Ever used it or made it ? I have. Besides, how does anybody know what part of the buildings this " nanothermite " came from since it was scooped from a big pile of rubble ?

Tensile strength of hot metals ~ something like low carbon steel loses ~ 50% tensile strength at~ HALF of the melting temp, it goes plastic far under melting temps see ?

The problem with you " conspiracy people " is that you don't think for yourselves. I probably could debunk any of you. Try me :)
Claudius
2.1 / 5 (14) Sep 25, 2011

The problem with you " conspiracy people " is that you don't think for yourselves. I probably could debunk any of you. Try me :)


Don't you realize that you are one of the "conspiracy people?" It's just that you are defending the conspiracy story told by the government.

So hot plastic metals... If this is the mechanism of collapse, it does little to explain the free fall acceleration seen in all three buildings.

The presence of thermite in the dust would be enough for a fire investigation team to suspect arson. The presence of nanothermite would be enough for them to investigate how anyone could get their hands on a high-tech military explosive, regardless of which part of the building it came from.

There were numerous witnesses to explosions. Well documented.

But these are facts, which mean little to defenders of the government's story, I have noticed.
911-truth
2.8 / 5 (11) Sep 25, 2011
i'm trying to upload certain urls, doesn't seem to be working. if you google nine-eleven, architects, engineers and truth you will see 1500 professionals who have been looking into this these past 10 years...
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 25, 2011
The Viet Nam war was completely fabricated by the U.S. starting right after the Japanese surrender, starting with the etc
Well of course it was. And when you study other wars in depth, any war you might choose, you see the same recurring patterns of Preparation, Staging, Provocation, Management, and Conclusion.

The only thing you fail to realize claw-claw is the Reasons these things are done. If wildfires are inevitable, then in order to maintain the forest and prevent irrecoverable damage then you have to set them yourself. YOU determine when where and how. If you don't you risk losing everything. Your nice forest will look like Afghanistan.

ANY OTHER approach is EVIL and corrupt. Failure to take action and let civilization fall is not an option.

Vietnam is stable and productive today ONLY because the religionist cultures which would have prevented the 25M ABORTIONS since 1976, were systematically destroyed by the concerted Efforts of all Players involved.

Accept the Truth.
Claudius
2.7 / 5 (14) Sep 25, 2011
i'm trying to upload certain urls, doesn't seem to be working. if you google nine-eleven, architects, engineers and truth you will see 1500 professionals who have been looking into this these past 10 years...


http://ae911truth.org/
Claudius
1.9 / 5 (9) Sep 25, 2011


The only thing you fail to realize claw-claw is the Reasons these things are done.


Oh, you and I have gone over this before at length. I understand what you regard as reasons. I even agree with you. I just don't like it.

Your reasons have to do with the idea of the Superman, might makes right, the law of the jungle, survival of the fittest. Social Darwinism. I think we can do better than that, so I guess I am evil.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 25, 2011
Oh, you and I have gone over this before at length. I understand what you regard as reasons. I even agree with you. I just don't like it.
Me neither.
Your reasons have to do with the idea of the Superman, might makes right, the law of the jungle, survival of the fittest. Social Darwinism.
It is biology pure and simple. The horror caused by the tropical human repro rate.
I think we can do better than that, so I guess I am evil.
Many people thought this way. And while they were desperately pleading and entreating and... praying, forces were AGAIN building in the east, and their city walls were soon to crumble. Solomon said you cannot resist the seasons.

The End is on the horizon. This is a Program that works where nothing else ever could.
SincerelyTwo
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 25, 2011
Claudius

There were numerous witnesses to explosions. Well documented.


Yes, and the source of those explosions has been identified, read the article again.

The presence of thermite in the dust would be enough for a fire investigation team to suspect arson.


Then cite your source, where is this claimed, by who, and how was this determined. Computer nerd amateurs relying on wikipedia do not know enough about chemistry like this to make a correct call, I've seen a lot of people say; 'because of the molten blabbity bla it must have been thermite.' That is an unbelievably naive example of proving something, I expect you to cite a much more reliable source than the typical 'just because' method.

GeToChKn
3.3 / 5 (7) Sep 25, 2011
And out come the internet engineers who think they know everything about buildings and engineering because they watched a youtube video and they are sudden experts. The CT nuts can't even agree on 1 theory, some say it was bombs, thermite, mini nuke, particle weapon from space. There were commerical planes, they were military planes, they had bombs on them, they were no planes and were holograms projected to make use think they were planes. To them, thousands of people had to be in on this to wire the building with thermite over many months as it would have taken, killed planes of people, blew up the towers with holographic planes shown to the public, all to go after Iraq? That is the most complicated scheme in the history of man and absurb that it could have been pulled off. If that was their plan, why not just take a suitcase nuke, blow it up in the building and say Arabs did it? Would that have not been 10000x times easier and have the same result. Nutjobs, go away.
GeToChKn
3.1 / 5 (11) Sep 25, 2011
Thermite found. That one makes me laugh. Steven Jones "says" people kept WTC dust for 9 years and then gave it ALL to him and only him for testing. He tested with no review of his data and published it in the Bentham journal, a pay-for-publish journal that has no merit. The leader of Bentham quit over his paper being published and New Scientist did a test where they had a paper "peer-reviewed" by Bentham that made no sense at all, it was gibberish, but as long as the check clear, the paper cleared. The 1500 "engineers" A&E has? Go look at the list, people with a degree in "landscaping engineering" are experts in building design? Someone with a "computer engineering" degree is an expert in buildings coming down? They are a fraud. Go look how much Richard Gage "begs" for each month in donations. Go look how much they sell DVD's and books for. It's a scam like any other scam, follow the money and you'll soon see the "truth".
Substance90
Sep 25, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
I am Sancho
3 / 5 (10) Sep 25, 2011
@GeToChKn: How did Building 7 come down? That also looked exactly like controlled demolition and was not hit by a plane. In fact, the only three steel construction buildings to ever fall from fire were the Twin Towers and Building 7. Other steel structures have burned far more intensely for longer periods of time and yet remained standing.

Only a "nutjob" would live in a self-created fantasy world where governments have never done this type of thing. You need to hit the history books a bit harder. What concerns me is how you de-bunkers always use ad hominem attacks in the end.

If building 7 was controlled demolition (admitted on tape by building owner Larry Silverstein), then all three buildings were controlled demolition. Larry, his daughter and his son who were all scheduled to appear in the towers that day but didn't quite make it to work...all have a lot of esplainin' to do.
GeToChKn
2.3 / 5 (9) Sep 25, 2011
Typical nutjob tactic, take was Larry said out of context. How did 7 come down? How about the huge gaping hole in it. The building went from a half circle sized building to a crescent moon shaped building as huge chunks of 1 and 2 fell on it. Instead of believing Richard gage and his trickery in video (he's been caught 3x changing the speed of 9.8m/s to suit his needs) and look at the rare videos of the other side of building 7 and the huge HOLE that almost cut it in half over 90% of the way down, or the fire that burned for 9 hours, look at them on video too. Nutjob.
I am Sancho
2.6 / 5 (10) Sep 25, 2011
@GeToChKn
Ad-hominem attacks again. Who are you defending anyway? If I'm a nutjob, then you must also include the members of the 9/11 Commission themselves who doubt the official story. Oh, and the high-ranking military officers who also doubt the official story. There seem to be nutjobs everywhere you look huh?

It's laughable that you would call what Larry Silverstein said about deciding to pull the building down "out of context". Do you not find it even the remotest bit odd that all three buildings collapsed symmetrically, appearing exactly the same as what a controlled demolition looks like? Exactly the same. Then Larry said on television that they decided to pull building 7...but that is out of context? Are YOU a nutjob? Are YOU Larry Silverstein?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.9 / 5 (13) Sep 25, 2011
Ad-hominem attacks again.
Except hes right and youre wrong.
It's laughable that you would call what Larry Silverstein said about deciding to pull the building down "out of context". Do you not find it even the remotest bit odd that all three buildings collapsed symmetrically
Except that a large part of wtc was already gone. AND if you look at the video shot from the side you see the rest of the center fall first as the interior truss gives way. This is not symmetrical.
controlled demolition looks like? Exactly the same.
Ive never seen a controlled demo of a partially destroyed bldg which is on fire. Have you?

How would you get inside and set charges safely with all that smoke, flame, and debris? How could you control a demo with the structure already compromised? How would you engineer a coherent demo plan of a partially destroyed and burning bldg in the 9 hours between the initial damage and final collapse?

I am writing here as these things occur to me.
GeToChKn
2.7 / 5 (7) Sep 25, 2011
@TheGhostofOtto1923. It doesn't matter what you say, the wingnuts just repeat standard "Loose Change" quotes over and over. You know whats funny about "Loose Change", is the makers made it as a spoof movie, a pretend documentary. Nutjobs soon latched on, so the makers enjoyed the fame for a bit. Now one is selling heroin, the other living back at moms working at his high school pizza shop begging for money online to "continue the cause", and the main maker, has recanted the video, saying he made it up and the nutjobs got to him and brought him into their cult for a while, now, wanting to be a serious film maker, he is trying to distance himself from "Loose Change". "Screw Loose Change" tears it apart, so they made another, that got torn apart, they made another version, and another, each time removing things they said that were totally wrong. They are like religious people, they will hold their beliefs to their death, wrong or not, they're nutjobs. Plain and simple.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (14) Sep 25, 2011
Yeah haven't studied the issue much. But I look at Bldg 7 and right away I have questions. If it was damaged to the extent it was from initial debris and fire, it would have been unsalvageable anyway. So why risk the lives of a crack demo team, who would have had to make complex decisions about placement and size of charges in light of unknown damage conditions, while anticipating and avoiding the spread of fire, all to take down a condemned Bldg in 6 hours or less? Why not wait until an assessment could be made and a proper demo done to minimize ancillary damage and maximize safety?

And if demo charges and a system to set them off were already in place, how would have this been affected by the damage and ongoing fires? It must've been a hugely expensive and elaborate setup with extreme redundancy and hardened to prevent premature activation from anticipated calamity.

The videos from the good side of the Bldg were misleading. The far side of the Murrah Bldg looked pretty good too.
I am Sancho
2.6 / 5 (10) Sep 25, 2011
Why do the 9/11 commissioners themselves have doubts?
Cave_Man
2.3 / 5 (9) Sep 25, 2011
I'll let you guys in on the truth, absolute and real. I don't have proof but I have literally experienced the end of the universe, it was pretty neat to say the least. Not to be conceited but among the aliens I'm called the world ender (rough translation) because I convinced them to commit suicide at the end of the universe. They had been trying to live forever and once they knew everything they attempted (will attempt) to create new information by traveling backward in time. They pick us (humans) up and take us to the end to see how we react to their predicament. I convinced them to end it because they were stuck in an infinite loop. They are still around but I think I did them a service by allowing their long journey to finally end. Who knows if they had a fail safe.

Anyways on to the main point, the US Govt. only invaded the middle east to find ancient alien artifacts and study them, they may have used 9/11/01 as the catalyst for invasion.

I would bet my life on it.
PHANT0M PARTICLE
Sep 25, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Claudius
1.9 / 5 (9) Sep 25, 2011
I'll let you guys in on the truth, absolute and real. I don't have proof but I have literally experienced the end of the universe, it was pretty neat to say the least. Not to be conceited but among the aliens I'm called the world ender (rough translation) because I convinced them to commit suicide at the end of the universe. They had been trying to live forever and once they knew everything they attempted (will attempt) to create new information by traveling backward in time. They pick us (humans) up and take us to the end to see how we react to their predicament. I convinced them to end it because they were stuck in an infinite loop. They are still around but I think I did them a service by allowing their long journey to finally end. Who knows if they had a fail safe.



Sounds like the plot of Slaughterhouse 5. Say hi to Montana Wildhack for me. What are you ON?
omatumr
1 / 5 (10) Sep 25, 2011
How much of the lack of confidence in our government came from efforts of world leaders and leaders of the scientific community to "whitewash" clear evidence of manipulation of temperature data in the Climategate scandal?

That issue is discussed on Professor Curry's blog, "Whos anti-science?"

http://judithcurr...science/

The world social structure is in danger when so many members of the public think our government had more to do with the 911 event than Iraq did!

Statesmanship is needed to resolve this stand-off and restore:

a.) Citizen control of government, and

b.) Integrity to government science.

Otherwise we may face social disaster.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
http://myprofile....anuelo09

omatumr
1.3 / 5 (12) Sep 25, 2011
See Professor Ian Pilmer's new book, "How to get expelled from school:"

http://joannenova...ew-book/

The foreword was written by Václav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic. He is one of few politicians who understands the serious danger facing our society today.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
DGBEACH
2.3 / 5 (9) Sep 25, 2011
"Rejecting the official conspiracy theory promoted by the government and asking for a new investigation is not in itself a conspiracy claim, it is a rational response to an absurd tale told by a corrupt government."
Unfortunately THAT gov't is no longer available to answer questions...who ya gonna call?
Darkwen
3.2 / 5 (9) Sep 25, 2011
I am sorry but you can't counter conspiracy nuts with facts reason or an appeal to use Occham's razor.

I have learned from these noted academics that my new answer to everything I can't explain is the amazing Building 7 that impossibly collapsed after burning for a scant 8 hours!

Also I should like to state that I am an engineer and part of the Jewish cabal that secretly controls the US government and used this incident to get the US to attack Iraq from some reason I can't quite explain.
StarGazer2011
2.3 / 5 (12) Sep 25, 2011
The reason nobody knows what a steel framed building collapsing after fire looks like is becuase its never happened before in the history of the world. Many buildings have caught on fire, none have collapsed. Building 7 is the giveway, that and the footage of molten steel.
Shootist
3 / 5 (10) Sep 25, 2011
iPan,

You could say the same thing for science in general. After all, if the world was supported on the backs of four elephants back in 1000 BC, why all this new cosmology? What are THEY trying to hide?


Turtles all the way down.
Alex_
1 / 5 (3) Sep 26, 2011
Ghost Busters.

In any case. the least the population should come to expect, especially with all the controversy surrounding the subject. Anther investigation, perhaps from seperate parties. And some explanations about actions and quotes from people surrounding the incident need to be questioned.


Science isn't biased. Let it do its Job. i feel like the evidence was disposed of very fast. air chrash investigateions rebuild the whole plane over years in rented warehouses and we sell everything to china. Science had no chance.

Not one government body has answered al the questions. Nor is completely thourough in there investigations.
people on the same scientific board disagree. NIST disagress.
the conclusions people come to belivev from the NIST investigations i feel are completely distant from what evidence composes today. but in anycase. what harm can checking and re-checking and checking again. why not if there is so much interest on the subject. even if its just conjecture .
Alex_
2 / 5 (4) Sep 26, 2011
Democracy in this case says investigate again.
if universities are still pondering possible outcomes and still questioning why isnt the government
sorry about my spelling , but meh
Cave_Man
1.5 / 5 (8) Sep 26, 2011
Who knows if they had a fail safe.



Sounds like the plot of Slaughterhouse 5. Say hi to Montana Wildhack for me. What are you ON?


have you read slaughter house 5? the only thing my story shares with that book is time travel which is a common theme. You may not remember your "abduction" they usually do it while you are asleep so it seems like a dream or else they can erase memory, which would be pretty easy for a time traveling race of aliens.

Vonnegut would get what I'm saying, sad he died a couple years back...he was a real literary genius. Sirens of titan was the first book of his I read and it is probably more similar to my story than Slaughterhouse 5.

I also really like the short story called 'report on the barnhouse effect' which was in his book of shorts called 'welcome to the monkey house'. very interesting how they removed the secret code in the latest printed edition and I cant find the old version ANYWHERE and I work in a used bookstore.
rwinners
Sep 26, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Alex_
2 / 5 (4) Sep 26, 2011
And why did everyone forget the pentagon? i never read what NIST said about it. either it was very through. enough to quash any thoughts about it. or white washed away. what do you guys think.
rwinners
2 / 5 (4) Sep 26, 2011
I don't have proof but I have literally experienced the end of the universe, it was pretty neat to say the least. Not to be conceited but among the aliens I'm called the world ender (rough translation) because I convinced them to commit suicide at the end of the universe. They had been trying to live forever and once they knew everything they attempted (will attempt) to create new information by traveling backward in time. They pick us (humans) up and take us to the end to see how we react to their predicament. I convinced them to end it because they were stuck in an infinite loop. They are still around but I think I did them a service by allowing their long journey to finally end. Who knows if they had a fail safe.

Anyways on to the main point, the US Govt. only invaded the middle east to find ancient alien artifacts and study them, they may have used 9/11/01 as the catalyst for invasion.

I would bet my life on it.


You just have to turn this into a book!
stealthc
2.3 / 5 (9) Sep 26, 2011
holy crap, lots of comments, I say malarky. The fire system would have turned on immediately and yet the buildings did not have an aluminum explosion until hours later. BS on this theory.
Ethelred
2.5 / 5 (8) Sep 26, 2011
The Viet Nam war was completely fabricated by the U.S. starting right after the Japanese surrender,
And what were the French doing? You seem to have forgotten that it was the FRENCH that were there until they lost by out manuevered, outmanned and out gunned.

When JFK tried to put a stop to it, he was killed.
By Lee Harvey Oswald and not for the paranoid fantasy reason you gave.

Bet you think the autopsy report still a secret.

Go get a clue.

Ethelred
Claudius
2 / 5 (12) Sep 26, 2011

Go get a clue.

Ethelred


Go read the book.
crhylove
3 / 5 (12) Sep 26, 2011
Wow. VERY disappointed in physorg right now. This article had less facts than the text message I just got from my 7 year old cousin. The buildings EXPLODED violently from the top down. 50 floors above the plane collisions. There was evidence of thermate reported by genuine chemists and physics professors. NIST has clearly lied, misled, and also misinformed everyone. The families want the truth. Over 3,000 architects, engineers, and scientists have signed a petition demanding a new investigation. This ludicrous article is meant to put it all to rest? What about building 7? What about the plane that completely disappeared at the pentagon? What about the missing video footage of the pentagon? What about the fact that Cheney and Bush would not go on the record regarding any of this? Think of the families of those who died that day!! Don't they deserve some cold hard facts and at least a reasonable explanation based on science, and not some kind of ludicrous fantasy?
crhylove
3.2 / 5 (11) Sep 26, 2011
One last question, what site can I visit now for REAL physics and science news? This one is clearly just government and corporate propaganda now.
merelogic
2 / 5 (4) Sep 26, 2011
oh yeah! and what's the reason behind Building 7's fall? rememberbuilding7.org
Isaacsname
3 / 5 (2) Sep 26, 2011
And it took a little digging on my part, but, just like I thought, there was a mass damping system in the towers.

" Viscoelastic (VE) dampers are dependent on both relative velocity and displacement to dissipate energy "

" First of its kind in the World, first of its kind implemented in a skyscraper. " <---take note friends

http://www.design...595.html

http://www.design...551.html
iPan
5 / 5 (1) Sep 26, 2011
Isaacsname
5 / 5 (1) Sep 26, 2011
desperately throws link down on table all huffy-like


That the same site that had a rather bland and broad brushed article on " nanoparticles " ? Better not smell anything ever again, all those terpenes 'round these parts, I reckon somebody's gonna catch a case of the sniffles. Sensationalism at it's best, sophism sells the site don't it ?
mikiewooliebugger
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 26, 2011
On 9/11/2001 a group of hijackers were promised by those who control the strings that if they take these four jetliners and land them in NYC & DC with passengers as hostages the US will negotiate their freedom wiyh the promise of Arab grant such as Jerusalem becoming the capital of palestine and other increases of support. Little did they know that the airliner were equipped with laser guidence systems that would take over the controls when they came near their destinations. One near the city of new york the guidence control that was placed on top of bldg 7 took over the first jet that crashed into the north tower. it was a direct hit because bldg 7 had a direct view of the jet coming in from the north without any obstruction. Not so with the south tower. The second crash almost missed due to the obstructed view caused by the north tower. Bldg 7 was distroyed to hide this evidence. Meanwhile above DC a 747 equiped with the same type of guidence system guided it's missle into the Pent.
Michael_Rivero
4 / 5 (4) Sep 26, 2011
The reaction he is talking about is one in which hot aluminum will 'steal' oxygen from water, leaving hydrogen gas. There are two problems with this theory, of course.

The first is the hydrogen gas is very light and floats upward even faster than helium. The ruins of the World Trade Towers were 'porous' and as the smoke trails prove, there was a strong wind from the side. This means that hydrogen could not collect together anywhere in any amounts enough to cause an explosion, certainly not down in the basements, where some explosions were reported.

Second, even under the most ideal of circumstances of perfect mixture of hydrogen and oxygen, impossible in the natural atmosphere and under those conditions, hydrogen may burn fast but does not detonate. Recall the destruction of the Hindenburg. Huge fire, no 'bang.'

Continued in next reply.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (11) Sep 26, 2011
The reason nobody knows what a steel framed building collapsing after fire looks like is becuase its never happened before in the history of the world. Many buildings have caught on fire, none have collapsed. Building 7 is the giveway, that and the footage of molten steel.
Why is it you guys seem to disregard the big chunks carved out of it? Fire AND damage is what brought it down. Demo is just ridiculous. How is it possible? ITS NOT.

I watched Loose Change last night. Guess they'll have to issue yet another version of the missing shanksville debris, in light of the recent Reno airshow P-51 crash. Only bits and pieces left there too. Going slower, not as high. Poof.
Michael_Rivero
4 / 5 (4) Sep 26, 2011
So this latest official 'explanation' is a desperate attempt to reconcile eyewitness reports and video recordings of explosions (like the one that initiates the collapse of building 7) with the rapidly collapsing official story.

In any event, this new 'aluminum' theory does NOT address all the evidence for a conspiracy. The aluminum theory does not explain how the United States Secret Service knew it was safe to leave George Bush sitting at that school reading about goats, with an airport just four miles away, nor does it explain how the BBC reported the collapse of building 7 twenty six minutes before it actually happened.

Finally, given that aluminum is a rather common building material, why have we not seen such water and aluminum explosions before or since 9-11?
Shino
3 / 5 (6) Sep 26, 2011
High influx of conspiracy theorists detected.
Levels of intelligence are dropping rapidly.
:(
kendawg
4 / 5 (4) Sep 26, 2011
when will the "official explanations", get around to explaining the noticeable symmetry of all 3 bldgs going down. the molten aluminum, and sprinkler water caused identical collapses? by the way i must need to get my eyes checked, because i didn't see any molten aluminum in wtc7. recently a prominent group of psychologists came out saying that anyone who still believes this official gov't nonsense, needs some help, they claim that their defense mechanisms are kicking in, because they can't handle reality.
Wildan
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 26, 2011
To me the theory's weakest link is that the plane found itself in a virtual oven allowing it to melt at such a high temp. That is profoundly speculative, the building experienced massive destruction at the center of impact, reason forbids us to believe it would have an incubating 'oven-like' effect, quite the opposite.

And of course, this theory does nothing to explain the total collapse of WTC 7, the third building that was untouched by any plane but yet still suffered a total, free fall, collapse.

WTC 7 is the anomaly no one seems to be addressing, because the only rational explanation is explosives. According to official US anaylsis, mere fire brought this one down --that would be unprecedented in all human history for a 'fire' to suffer a reinforced steel skyscrapper to total collapse, within its own footprint.

Until a real investigation of 9/11 takes place (not the red herring we got with 9/11 commission), what little evidence we have forces us to conclude explosives.
Rip_Harvest
2 / 5 (4) Sep 26, 2011
This is almost as frightening as the History Channel's account of 9/11. You're left scratching your head and asking yourself, "Is that all they got?" Then you turn into Charlton Heston, "Holy shit! They did it. They blew it up. Bastards! Damn you all to hell!"

Hydrogen floats.

I'm more fascinated by the move to now make excuses for explosions after 10 years of denying the importance and impact of explosions.

F*** You!
GeToChKn
2.8 / 5 (6) Sep 26, 2011
Yes, WTC7 did not get hit by a plane, it got hit by huge chunks of 1 and 2 hitting it, carving out a chunk from the top almost to the bottom and hollowing out the center of the "D" shaped building and turning it in a "C" shaped building, gee why did it fall? Go look at the video of that side of the building or the raging fires for 9 hours. Everyone tries the "it couldn't have been hot enough to melt steel" game, and no it wasn't liquid steel, it only has to weaken in a little bit. Yes they came down fairly straight, gravity says it will instead of the extra force needed to topple it. Imagine this, take 4 paper towel rolls and balance a cinder block on top of them. It will stay even though its only carboard. Then build another level, and another, and another. Now do you think you have to cut through all 4 rolls in the 2nd from top level to make it fall or think you can pinch 1 or 2 rolls and have the top level crumble into the level below and probably cause a pancake reaction?
iPan
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 26, 2011
It's only a matter of time before all the liars are exposed, but it is inevitable.
iPan
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 26, 2011
This is an orange.
http://www.youtub...BImVvEyk

Here's what happens when tall buildings burn:
http://www.youtub...jOi2dQSM
I am Sancho
2.3 / 5 (6) Sep 26, 2011
This theory is really at the fringes of believability, I would have stuck with the steel-losing-strength-at-less-than-melting-temperatures theory proposed by NIST. What it still wouldn't explain is the perfectly symmetrical collapse of all three towers, not ONE, but all THREE, all of which we have not seen before or since in history. Demolition companies would all be out of business today if we learned that we could bring down skyscrapers (very, very cleanly) with office fires. Controlled demolition. Case closed.

(Sarcasm): Now I have to run, have some conspiracies to make up with many members of the 9/11 commission, over 200 senior military officers, and over 1500 licensed architects and engineers.
Also, about Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth: How can we continue to let these nutjobs design buildings when they seem to immediately collapse at the outbreak of office fires? Nutjobs.
mikiewooliebugger
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 26, 2011
9/11 hijackers told "take these jets" jets equipped with lazar guide systs. Told "land in DC & NYC to have negotiation to help arab and palestine" Jets taken over and guided into north tower from top of Bld7. Evedence destryed at 5:20pm South tower almost missed by jet due to obstruction of bldgs in front of #7. Pentagon jet guided bt 747 in sky (no hi bldgs to work from) flt 93 sees deception and looks for one of two nuclear plant in Penn. shot down by jet fighter shadowing it. Whthouse says "dont investigate" GWB listens to goat story and realises position Pres Cheney has put him in. Rice is patsy. Kissinger is proven 2b lawyer for Bin Ladens and Kean is High intelegence officer for NWO and flies over Union Nj home in Saucer in Sept 1994. plays important role. wives and family dissed. cover up continues. Shout from rooftops. Keep digging. Silverstein receives 2 insurance payments, go figure. Neil young changes mind from "lets roll" to "restless consumer" and the body bags keep landin
Rip_Harvest
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 26, 2011
NIST was caught trying to deny the existence of liquid steel (molten iron) and they were eviscerated for it. We need to keep a close eye on anyone who is putting forth the myth that there was no liquid metal. It is likely beyond willfull ignorance at this point. Take notes and save the threads.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (11) Sep 26, 2011
So this latest official 'explanation' is a desperate attempt to reconcile eyewitness reports and video recordings of explosions (like the one that initiates the collapse of building 7) with the rapidly collapsing official story.
Failure of large structural elements, and things like floors crashing into one another, can sound like explosions. But the aluminum explosion is plausible
Finally, given that aluminum is a rather common building material, why have we not seen such water and aluminum explosions before or since 9-11?
It is on the exterior but not the interior of bldgs and certainly not the quantities mentioned in the article.
According to official US anaylsis, mere fire brought this one down --that would be unprecedented in all human history for a 'fire' to suffer a reinforced steel skyscrapper to total collapse, within its own footprint.
Yo lying parrot - fire plus damage. Fire plus damage. Fire plus damage. Can you learn that one? Awk.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (8) Sep 26, 2011
Kissinger is proven 2b lawyer for Bin Ladens and Kean is High intelegence officer for NWO and flies over Union Nj home in Saucer in Sept 1994.
No it was a black triangle I got pittuers but dhey didn't turn out so good
Rip_Harvest
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 26, 2011
TheGhostofOtto1923

"Finally, given that aluminum is a rather common building material, why have we not seen such water and aluminum explosions before or since 9-11?

It is on the exterior but not the interior of bldgs and certainly not the quantities mentioned in the article."

Sets off the bullshit alarm.

Buddyboy
2.5 / 5 (8) Sep 26, 2011
All i have to say about this story is that someone is still trying to cover up the facts.

Why wasnt this part of the 9/11 Commission? Or are they only figuring this out 10 years later because people are starting to wake up to the real reason for the collapse?

Water and aluminum? Are you serious?
donberry
1.9 / 5 (9) Sep 26, 2011
and they still use the building pancaking as why it collapsed straight down. I would think a physicist would be smart enough to understand that it is impossible for the buildings to have fallen at freefall speed if it truly pancaked.
Even if only 2 floors pancaked - that messes up the time line.

Also I am guessing that molten aluminum flew out the window and went directly to the middle of WTC 7 - you know, the building that was not even hit by a plane but miraculously also collapsed straight down at free fall speed.

This is why for the last decade or so I put very little credence in mainstream science. They are apparently worried about funding and grants and anyone who steps outside the box and follows the truth is immediately and harshly criticized and can kiss their funding goodbye.
Lennon said it well "How do you sleep at night"
donberry
1 / 5 (4) Sep 26, 2011
forgot - let's not forget the janitor who was hailed as a hero in the immediate aftermath - until he started talking about how he heard explosions in the basement. Funny how he disappeared from the media and was heard from no more. From hero to goat in a day.

But threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise.

Of these, I mention two only.

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.

Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanen
donberry
1 / 5 (3) Sep 26, 2011
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence economic, political, even spiritual is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
GeToChKn
4.1 / 5 (9) Sep 26, 2011
It didn't fall free fall, another myth. Richard Gage had to edit the 9.8m/s a few times to get it to fit with his 'theory'. "Sounded like explosions" by a bunch of people in the street during chaos on an unknown level could maybe mean they heard a bang. Cops get called to 10,000 fake gun shot reports a year over fireworks because it "sounded like a gunshot", yet it wasn't. Transformers in the building, things falling, jet fuel burning, windows popping, maybe "sounded like explosions" but doesn't mean there is. Thermite also doesn't explode and make a bang, so was it thermite or was it explosions. Contradict much?

There is like 100 "theories" on 9/11, thermite, bombs, nuke, particle cannon, planes, military planes, no planes and holograms. Which is it? Maybe when you nutjobs can stick to 1 theory, people can at least grab onto something but you can't even agree on what it is. Watch a planer and no-planer argue. Its funny, they both think they are right.
Rip_Harvest
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 26, 2011
NIST was also caught denying free fall speed and, when called on it, had to admit free fall speed occurred for a significant number of seconds for WTC7. In this exchange, we also learned that NIST was starting the clock way too early for the collapse of WTC7.

GeToChKn and other shills knowingly spreading previously disproven falsehoods need to be formally identified and consequences need to be determined for those who are working on behalf of the criminals.
FrankHerbert
2.4 / 5 (87) Sep 26, 2011
Here's a new video with irrefutable proof the collapse was a controlled demolition! http://www.youtub...Uk28OwHs

More video they don't want you to see! http://www.youtub...=related
COCO
2 / 5 (8) Sep 26, 2011
I am surprised at the activity - primarily the Bush/Obama conspiracy trolls - coming from US and Canadian disinfo chaps. Suggest ROW remains undecided as to cause and perps but the NIST garbage remains unreviewed and rather than showing computer simulations created animations Disney would like. Love the clown who can't get his head outta who thinks WTC 7 did NOT fall symetricaly and at free fall - suspect a Thorazine drip may be responsible.
Rip_Harvest
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 26, 2011
It may be somewhat attenuated, but the number of casualties in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere can be directly attributed to those who lie about freefall speed of WTC7. Gutting the economy to pay for these wars is directly attributable to those who lie about molten metal. The legal basis is thin, but this fact alone does not denigrate the causal link between huge mortality rates and those who continue to lie about demolitions, which, honestly, can be intuited by a grade-school science student playing with building blocks.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.9 / 5 (9) Sep 26, 2011
TheGhostofOtto1923

"Finally, given that aluminum is a rather common building material, why have we not seen such water and aluminum explosions before or since 9-11?

It is on the exterior but not the interior of bldgs and certainly not the quantities mentioned in the article."

Sets off the bullshit alarm.

How so rip hardass? Aluminum is used in curtainwalls and window frames, Not much inside besides furniture. Maybe what you hear is your diaper alarm? Time for change?
this fact alone does not denigrate the causal link between huge mortality rates and those who continue to lie about demolitions
Sorry I see no link to 'denigrate'. Maybe you want to use a more appropriate word?
which, honestly, can be intuited by a grade-school science student playing with building blocks.
Who, if he sees that one of his blocks is damaged, will know not to use it because it will make his little castle fall down.

Unlike you guys who think damage doesnt affect structural integrity?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (11) Sep 26, 2011
We need to keep a close eye on anyone who is putting forth the myth that there was no liquid metal. It is likely beyond willfull ignorance at this point. Take notes and save the threads.
haha you really are a piece of work arent you? I AM STASI - hawhaw

Hey - theres a bug in my tea :P
blanereigns
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 26, 2011
Otto, you obviously haven't read NIST's official report on the collapse of wtc7, NCSTAR 1A. That report states in very clear terms that it was fire alone, and not structural damage from the falling towers that caused wtc7 to collapse. NCSTAR 1A also states on page 45 that wtc7 did indeed undergo a 2.25s period of free-fall acceleration, 9.81 m/s/s. Please reference this report in all future obfuscation attempts. Thanks.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (10) Sep 26, 2011
As to 'symmetrical collapse'; about which axis might you be referring to? In the popular videos showing the relatively undamaged long face opposite the towers, it appears that the collapse is somewhat symmetrical.
http://www.youtub...wvwJCmgk

- But it is clear that the penthouse collapses first and this is due to failure of the damaged face FIRST, and unsymmetrically, as this gentleman indicates:
http://www.youtub...=related

-To me it even looks as if the bldg were falling in that direction.
http://www.youtub...=related

-Indeed it does.
http://www.youtub...Q7Tr9Q3o
Rip_Harvest
1.5 / 5 (8) Sep 26, 2011
TheGhostofOtto1923

Where does the trapped exploding hydrogen gas come from if all the aluminum is on the outside, like a diaper?

denigrate
1. to speak damagingly of; criticize in a derogatory manner; sully; defame:

One could suggest a better word but, let's face it, you're arguing an ancillary point to waste time.

"Who, if he sees that one of his blocks is damaged, will know not to use it because it will make his little castle fall down.

Unlike you guys who think damage doesnt affect structural integrity?"

No. If he has a damaged block, he may notice there is some difficulty in having it pass easily through perfectly good blocks to reach the ground.

I don't believe these points are lost on you. You're not willfully ignorant.

Since you've been pushing the heavy initial damage to WTC7 argument, let's see that NIST photo used by Popular Mechanics showing the corner gouged out. Might as well give the full presentation.

Got any blogs of your own?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (10) Sep 26, 2011
Hey perhaps Mr Hess set the demo charges (hes shown here on lunch break)
http://www.youtub...aQcPK-t4

-Who in their right minds would have gone in there, in insulated firesuits, to set demo charges in all the right places irrespective of fire, debris, cops and firemen, to bring down a bldg that was already far past recovery? To WHAT PURPOSE?

They didnt do a very good job of it because it obviously fell toward the damaged face. Oh well.
let's see that NIST photo used by Popular Mechanics showing the corner gouged out. Might as well give the full presentation.
Try the debunk video I posted above. Is this the corner which firemen noted began to bulge and creak ominously at 2:00? Was this perhaps part of the pre-demo demo operation?
Got any blogs of your own?
No. Hey you think I could make money on one like you guys do? Although not so much any more as I understand. Too bad.

Maybe the P-51 crash was the satellite instead -? Maybe some mileage there...
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.4 / 5 (9) Sep 26, 2011
Otto, you obviously haven't read NIST's official report on the collapse of wtc7, NCSTAR 1A. That report states in very clear terms that it was fire alone, and not structural damage from the falling towers that caused wtc7 to collapse. NCSTAR 1A also states on page 45 that wtc7 did indeed undergo a 2.25s period of free-fall acceleration, 9.81 m/s/s. Please reference this report in all future obfuscation attempts. Thanks.
Im confused. First you 'denigrate' the NIST for obfuscatory obstructionisms, and then you cite their report as evidence damage had nothing to do with the collapse??

I dont know maybe they missed something. Like you guys did?
Rip_Harvest
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 26, 2011
"-Who in their right minds would have gone in there, in insulated firesuits, to set demo charges in all the right places irrespective of fire, debris, cops and firemen, to bring down a bldg that was already far past recovery?

Explosives needed to be planted on 9/11? Hmmm.

That's the point of an investigation. An authentic criminal investigation.

Wouldn't you want such an investigation? Think of the validation!

I don't have to try to debunk your video. Michael Hess was with Barry Jennings most of that day and they were shouting from that window (according to Jenning's interview) since that morning before the collapse of the first tower. People had previously attempted to rescue them but were interrupted by each of the towers' collapse. According to Jennings, the floors, elevator, and stairs under floor 8 were blown up by initial charges that morning.

This video is consistent with Jenning's interview, but hardly justifies a free fall collapse without explosives.
I am Sancho
2.3 / 5 (6) Sep 26, 2011
@TheGhostOfOtto1923:

(All apologies for swaying off topic here)
For someone of your brilliant intelligence and sound wisdom, you seem to spend quite a bit of your working-hours time interacting with the "nutjobs". I've heard the phrase "birds of a feather flock together" before, but this confuses a person with lower than average IQ like me. Why would a man of such integrity like yourself spend so much of your time on the "nutjobs"? It's almost like you are being paid to do it.

When are you going to grow up and live in the real world, mr. government shill?
faithnscience
5 / 5 (1) Sep 26, 2011
Let's suspend disbelief and begin with the assumption that all factors were present to take the aluminum to a molten state, and even that this molten aluminum found open channels through which to travel down.

How long does molten aluminum stay plastic when the heat source is gone and it is traveling through a gigantic heatsink? Welders, how hard is it to keep aluminum hot enough to flow?
ABSOLUTEKNOWLEDGE
1 / 5 (6) Sep 26, 2011
How much of the lack of confidence in our government came from efforts of world leaders and leaders of the scientific community to "whitewash" clear evidence of manipulation of temperature data in the Climategate scandal?

That issue is discussed on Professor Curry's blog, "Whos anti-science?"

http://judithcurr...science/


if u think becaouse o worked for nasa lands you any credibility ur wrong we know u covered up the moon artifacts and bases u found there
so ur a disgraced human filt u should go sit in corner
low life
Fionn_MacTool
2.1 / 5 (11) Sep 27, 2011
At least now they admit there were explosions. This was vehemently denied up until now, which shows the mentality of those who buy into the official theory (i.e. whatever they say we will believe because the alternative would mean I am part of a system that would allow such an act). Wake up people and sell the coffee. Listen to the language of the neocons. You want justification? The alternative was not going to wat with Afghanistan and Iraq, and allowing huge easily available oil rich resources be controlled by enemies. The language was always "lets not allow the smoking gun to become a mushroom cloud". The people in power were given plenty of intelligence which suggestted that eventually the US would be attacked. They knew the american population would not be swayed by rational arguments because they do not like war.
Fionn_MacTool
2.1 / 5 (11) Sep 27, 2011
The same logic was used by certain elements of the US establishment to justify the gulf of tonkin. Which would be better, a random attack by a rogue state when the US was totally unprepared. Or a controlled attack, when its military was already in position to undertake intervention in those rogue states? That is the logic behind 911, and who knows, perhaps they were right? The removal of Saddam could be seen as a catalyst for removing other strong men dictators from north Africa and the middle east, as their justification (Saddam) for existing is removed.

The "official theorists" refuse to explain building 7, and everyone who supports the official story avoids it, because they know they cannot explain it. Until they can, then I think it is more rational to believe that the US acted to protect Americans through a controlled attack, rather than the alternative, which was prolonged future wars against much more powerful enemies in the middle east.
blob
2 / 5 (8) Sep 27, 2011
1. WTC was controlled. I'm not pointing fingers, but I refuse to admit that there are many people doing an extensive research before every controlled demolition and suddenly the same effect is achieved by simply crashing a boeing into a building. We're talking about the two tallest buildings in NY, which collapsed... simply inside. Not on a building standing next to them. There is simply nothing really normal on the building collapse. As said... I'm not pointing fingers as to who is responsible... but I'm rather sure that none of the buildings collapsed just because of a damn plane. /Or rather... they would... if you do a rather simple math and watch the videos carefully you'll notice that before the crash as it was supposed to happen went through suddenly the building starts going down in an unnatural manner/
Fionn_MacTool
2.1 / 5 (11) Sep 27, 2011
(Much more powerful than they were in 2001) Yes...to believe the official version you really do need to have your eyes wide shut ;)
blob
2 / 5 (4) Sep 27, 2011
As for hyperpatriotic US citizens: You see... whatever US takes part in, it's always ok, because it's war. Milosevic, Hussein, german military leaders, soldiers, etc... all were tried for war crimes.
When a german general at a trial wanted to defend himself by saying "But the American soldiers did the same things we did. It was a war..."
He was asked to produce evidence, so he got an US general to testify... US general was stripped his rank and basically everything, the German general was executed.

Summary: Whatever the person with the greatest firepower does, it's ok. If not, the law will be changed /has happened several times by now/. It's not only Americans... it's... human. In this case nationality, race don't matter that much. Sooner or later every human group would get into that position. What I find kinda sic is, that we all just close our eyes. There is nothing we can do, but let's stop pretending it is ok. It's not, never was and never will be.
blob
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 27, 2011
I dont know maybe they missed something. Like you guys did?

Maybe... you know what? MAYBE the people are supposed to be experts in their field, who are paid to double and triple check. They aren't paid to make mistakes. But ok. If they made a mistake, it means that the whole investigation was probably faulty and hence the course of action taken based on those results was not only incorrect, but also illegal an immoral... Really sucks to be you. I've seen people of your kind. You are everywhere. It doesn't matter what side, belief or political orientation I look at. People like you are in every goddamn group spouting nonsense pretending to be smarter than everybody else. And it's precisely people like you that make me believe that physical punishment should be allowed @ schools.
FrankHerbert
2.4 / 5 (84) Sep 27, 2011
We're talking about the two tallest buildings in NY, which collapsed... simply inside. Not on a building standing next to them.


BUILDING SEVEN, HOLY SHIT. Seriously, how can you not put that together?

We're talking about the two tallest buildings in NY, which collapsed... simply inside. Not on a building standing next to them.


Pretty ironic coming from a conspiracy theorist.
Fionn_MacTool
2.1 / 5 (11) Sep 27, 2011
The funniest thing is that Frank goes to the bother of rating our comments. Someone should do a study on the evolutionary impulse to ignore the wrong committed by ones own state. Probably plenty has been done on it. I know people are almost blind to their own faults. When someone is killed in a suspicious manner in Russia, or China...they immediately see it for what it is. A political assassination. Or when we look back at Rome and see how power really plays out (they were killing each other all the time). But then when they look at their own nation, suddenly totally new rules apply. Theirs is the exception to the rule. Their own state wouldn't kill their own people, it wouldn't lie and go to war on false pretences. No...because for some reason, their country is the one exception to the rule! Why? "Because I am a good person...and I would never be part of something that does what I consider morally unacceptable!". Sad.
ABSOLUTEKNOWLEDGE
1.7 / 5 (11) Sep 27, 2011
best argument u cant beat it !!!
the buildings mass was fairly consistent from floor to floor. The top floors actually had less mass because of the smaller support beams used near the top of each tower. The building were 110 floors. The planes hit around the 80th floor leaving 80 below and 30 above. 56 minutes later, the top 30 floors crushed straight thru the lower 80 floors at nearly constant acceleration. THATS A DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE LAW OF CONSERVATION OF MOMENTUM. The top 30 floors should have been able to crush at most the 30 floors directly below, leaving a full 50 stories still standing. The top 30 floors should have been losing energy as they crushed the floors below, with the system losing all its energy when both sets of 30 floors were crushed, leaving 50 floors still standing. All forces are equal and opposite. 30 floors simply doesn't have enough energy to crush straight thru 80 floors below. Yet it did. Controlled demolition is the only rational explanation!!!
mikiewooliebugger
1 / 5 (5) Sep 27, 2011
well said mr mctool
I have never done or said anything wrong in my entire life. As for the rest of you...
omatumr
1.4 / 5 (10) Sep 27, 2011
The world social structure is in danger when so many members of the public think our government had more to do with the 911 event than Iraq did!


Whether deserved or not, this lack of confidence in world leaders is dangerous for everyone.

We must find ways to restore:

a.) Citizen's confidence in government;

b.) Citizen control of government, and

c.) Integrity in government science.

Otherwise we may face social disaster.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
Career summary (1961-2011)
http://dl.dropbox...reer.pdf
FrankHerbert
2.4 / 5 (82) Sep 27, 2011
The funniest thing is that Frank goes to the bother of rating our comments. Someone should do a study on the evolutionary impulse to ignore the wrong committed by ones own state. Probably plenty has been done on it. I know people are almost blind to their own faults. When someone is killed in a suspicious manner in Russia, or China...they immediately see it for what it is. A political assassination. Or when we look back at Rome and see how power really plays out (they were killing each other all the time). But then when they look at their own nation, suddenly totally new rules apply. Theirs is the exception to the rule. Their own state wouldn't kill their own people, it wouldn't lie and go to war on false pretences. No...because for some reason, their country is the one exception to the rule! Why? "Because I am a good person...and I would never be part of something that does what I consider morally unacceptable!". Sad.


And now explain what any of this has to do with 9/11.
Fionn_MacTool
1.9 / 5 (9) Sep 27, 2011
Well Frank, a lot of people reduce the argument to the following "Do you believe the United States government is responsible for 911?". The majority of 911 truthers (and I do wish they were wrong to be honest) have to dance around any direct claims of US government involvement because they would be instantly shouted down and condemned as unpatriotic loonies. At that point you are not allowed to have a conversation, you are simply "crazy". My point is that these kind of events are not out of the realm of possibility. In fact, if you do any research into how war is conducted, false flag attacks are not just possible, but they happen regularly. From the Nazis in Poland to the United states in the gulf of Tonkin. So, it is our duty therefore not to shout down those who point out these facts and label them as untouchables, but in fact to encourage these voices. Because without them, it will happen again. Keep in mind, I am not saying false flags are morally unjustifiable.
Claudius
1.7 / 5 (11) Sep 27, 2011
@omatumr

Whether deserved or not, this lack of confidence in world leaders is dangerous for everyone.

We must find ways to restore:

a.) Citizen's confidence in government;

b.) Citizen control of government, and

c.) Integrity in government science.

Otherwise we may face social disaster.


I completely agree with b. and c., however, restoring citizen's confidence in the present system (I hesitate to use the term "government" as this implies some kind of citizen control of government) is going to be about as hard as tying a hair ribbon on a bolt of lightning.
Fionn_MacTool
2.3 / 5 (9) Sep 27, 2011
"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, IT IS THE LEADERS of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is TELL THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY COUNTRY."

--Goering at the Nuremberg Trials
Fionn_MacTool
2.3 / 5 (9) Sep 27, 2011
@omatumr

Whether deserved or not, this lack of confidence in world leaders is dangerous for everyone.

We must find ways to restore:

a.) Citizen's confidence in government;

b.) Citizen control of government, and

c.) Integrity in government science.

Otherwise we may face social disaster.

This may be true. But I think somewhere at the heart of this is the assumption that the common man cannot handle the unpalatable truths of reality. This assumption has been made again and again and ends up leading to concepts of noble lies and the end justifying the means. Who are the intellectual elite to decide what truths a man can and cannot have access to? Give the people the truth and let them decide!
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 27, 2011
@harvey
Explosives needed to be planted on 9/11? Hmmm.
And I already mentioned the problems with a preinstalled system. Do I have to repeat myself every time I post?
I don't have to try to debunk your video. Michael Hess was with Barry Jennings...People had previously attempted to rescue them
Which only demonstrates that major parts of the Bldg were impassible.
but were interrupted by each of the towers' collapse. According to Jennings, the floors, elevator, and stairs under floor 8 were blown up by initial charges that morning.
For WHAT PURPOSE?? I'll offer you an alternate explanation: that initial damage from the tower collapses set off parts of your demo system prematurely. Sure you can use it. Pay me if you want.

But it's more PLAUSIBLE to assume that the gentlemen were trapped by initial damage and fire, which ultimately collapsed the Bldg asymmetrically; that is, toward the damaged side. Your system would have been dysfunctional from this damage, and unnecessary.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 27, 2011
Your demo hypothesis relies mostly on the videos shot from the intact face, which resemble videos of controlled demos. But from other angles this is not the case. And from subsequent study people can see that the smokey side of the Bldg was extensively damaged.

Eyewitness accounts; '25 percent of the structure carved out', 'the Bldg creaking and groaning', 'corner bulging', firefighters vacating because they feared collapse, etc. further weaken your argument. Lack of a reason to demo an unrecoverable Bldg using a compromised preinstalled system, weaken it further still.

The idea that documents needed to be destroyed - wouldn't it have been easier to sanitize a standing Bldg after the fires were out rather than sanitize the rubble as has been claimed? And why would Silverstein be making the decision to destroy secret govt docs? His decision to 'pull it' would have been superseded by those agencies those docs belonged to.
Claudius
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 27, 2011
Explosives needed to be planted on 9/11? Hmmm. And I already mentioned the problems with a preinstalled system. Do I have to repeat myself every time I post?


"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." - Arthur Conan Doyle, Sr.

It is impossible to have planted explosives for controlled demolition on the day of 9/11. You are left with the improbable, then, since it is beyond question the buildings fell due to explosives.

Fionn_MacTool
1.9 / 5 (9) Sep 27, 2011
Barry Jennings died in mysterious circumstances two days before the release of the NIST Final Report on the collapse of WTC7. No investigation. Now, if you had the choice to come out and say you had evidence of explosions in building 7 on 911 and were told by a CIA operative "Take this money or become the next Barry Jennings". Which would you do?

Just in case you were wondering how you cover up something like 911, killing witnesses, intimidation and offering money would be one way.

TheGhostofOtto1923
1.5 / 5 (8) Sep 27, 2011
It is impossible to have planted explosives for controlled demolition on the day of 9/11. You are left with the improbable, then, since it is beyond question the buildings fell due to explosives.
It is highly improbable that the Bldg was felled by explosives which is easy to demonstrate. It is much more probable that wtc7 fell due to extensive damage and fire
Claudius
1.8 / 5 (10) Sep 27, 2011
@TheGhostofOtto1923

But from other angles this is not the case. And from subsequent study people can see that the smokey side of the Bldg was extensively damaged. Eyewitness accounts; '25 percent of the structure carved out', 'the Bldg creaking and groaning', firefighters vacating because they feared collapse, etc.


Assuming this to be true, and one side of the building had suffered enough damage to allow collapse, would not the ensuing collapse be asymmetrical? In other words, wouldn't the intact columns (75% of the structure, you said) hold fast while the damaged 25% collapsed, causing the tower to topple away from the undamaged sections? This analysis does not explain the observations. A controlled demolition does explain it very neatly and tidily. Why pursue less likely explanations, if you are being honest?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.5 / 5 (8) Sep 27, 2011
Barry Jennings died in mysterious circumstances two days before the release of the NIST Final Report on the collapse of WTC7. No investigation. Now, if you had the choice to come out and say you had evidence of explosions in building 7 on 911 and were told by a CIA operative "Take this money or become the next Barry Jennings". Which would you do?
Yah I think I saw that movie too. Toby redford right? -No it was cruise and Kidman.

Claudius
1.9 / 5 (9) Sep 27, 2011
It is impossible to have planted explosives for controlled demolition on the day of 9/11. You are left with the improbable, then, since it is beyond question the buildings fell due to explosives.
It is highly improbable that the Bldg was felled by explosives which is easy to demonstrate. It is much more probable that wtc7 fell due to extensive damage and fire


No steel building has ever before or since fallen from fire. Therefore fire is a far less probable explanation for the observations, which match controlled demolition in all respects. Only someone who is being dishonest would maintain a less-likely explanation when a much better one is available. Your analysis is pure DISINFO. It seems to be your full-time job. How much does it pay? 30 pieces of silver?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 27, 2011
Assuming this to be true, and one side of the building had suffered enough damage to allow collapse, would not the ensuing collapse be asymmetrical?
It was. The Bldg obviosly fell toward the damaged face as I explained in my previous post which you didn't read, with videos you didn't watch?

As the front of the structure began it's collapse the Bldg started to lean causing concerted failure of lower structure on the side facing the cameras. The entire Bldg begins to fall at this point, collapsing floor after floor from the bottom up.
No steel building has ever before or since fallen from fire.
But these fell from extensive fire AND damage. Your willfully ignorance is DISINFO.
Claudius
1.9 / 5 (9) Sep 27, 2011
@Fionn_MacTool

Now, if you had the choice to come out and say you had evidence of explosions in building 7 on 911 and were told by a CIA operative "Take this money or become the next Barry Jennings". Which would you do?


Some of us have integrity. Many have come forward to tell their stories. The problem is, they get no press from the mainstream media. Just like in 1984's Ministry of Truth, history is revised in the public mind on a daily and full-time basis. It is a major industry, controlling public opinion, but somebody's go to do it.

TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 27, 2011
Some of us have integrity. Many have come forward to tell their stories. The problem is, they get no press from the mainstream media. Just like in 1984's Ministry of Truth, history is revised in the public mind on a daily and full-time basis. It is a major industry, controlling public opinion, but somebody's go to do it.
Yawn. More mindless ideology. Don't you realize how blind it makes you to facts?

Meanwhile the swine are dining with the farmers. They're both on the Same Side you see. This is how a Farming Community is run.
Claudius
1.9 / 5 (9) Sep 27, 2011
@TheGhostofOtto1923

It was. The Bldg obviosly fell toward the damaged face as I explained in my previous post which you didn't read, with videos you didn't watch?


Read your post, watched your videos. Not convincing at all. Even the video you point to as being asymmetrical shows the building falling into its own footprint, an impossibility if most of the columns were intact. It would have fallen across the street onto another building, and you would have seen a damaged Building 7 leaning up against an adjacent structure. Controlled demolitions are done to prevent just that from happening.

blanereigns
3 / 5 (4) Sep 27, 2011
Otto, why do you keep repeating that wtc7 fell from fire and damage? The official NIST report, NCSTAR 1A says in very clear terms that it was fire alone and NOT structural damage that caused the collapse. You are deviating from the official story in a very significant regard, despite claiming to support the official story. How can anyone take you seriously? Especially given the fact that companies like this exist:

payperpost [dotCOM]
Claudius
1.9 / 5 (9) Sep 27, 2011
@TheGhostofOtto1923

You call Building 7 an asymmetrical collapse?

Now THIS is an asymmetrical collapse, and what we should have seen if your damage and fire scenario were true:
http://www.youtub...N63iDTqA
Claudius
1.9 / 5 (9) Sep 27, 2011
@TheGhostofOtto1923

Yawn. More mindless ideology. Don't you realize how blind it makes you to facts?


I was an idealogue in my youth. I am too old for that now. Now I am just disgusted with all the stupidity and sheepish behavior.

Your philosophy calls out for people to submit to the inevitable. To accept the natural order of things, and smile while the boot stomps on our faces for the rest of eternity.

You may call me a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.
Fionn_MacTool
1.8 / 5 (10) Sep 27, 2011
@Claudius

I mean people who actually witnessed the events or who were involved or interacted with those involved. Those people need to be silenced because they can not be ignored by the media (someone will pick it up). Take the example of Deborah J. Palfrey. She went public about interactions she had with CIA operatives and was vocal in the media. She even said publicly she had no intention of committing suicide after being threatened. She "hung" herself in her garage.
ABSOLUTEKNOWLEDGE
1 / 5 (5) Sep 27, 2011
WERE CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS
I thought they WERE CONTROLED DEMELITIONS -?
FEW HUNDERED HOURS OF RESEARCH ON THE SUBJECT
Did you read the same article a few hundred times?


not the same one actually did read about ALMOST all articles and research on it from all parties not only the goverment paid for nist cunts articles, well about a thousand in the last 10 years, so when i tell u WTC1 WTC2 WTC7 WERE CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS IM PRETY MUCH STATING THE OBVIOUS NOT ONLY MY OPINION
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.5 / 5 (8) Sep 27, 2011
Your philosophy calls out for people to submit to the inevitable. To accept the natural order of things, and smile while the boot stomps on our faces for the rest of eternity.
Farm animals have no clue about running farms. If left to their own ends they would reproduce themselves into a feral state. None of them like fences or corrals, but these things are there to keep out the foxes and wolves and rustlers too. They don't know this or don't care, they just want OUT.

So farmers must work together in order to maintain the Community. Because it's much better for both them AND the animals this way.

Farmers actually CREATED domesticated animals, did you know that? Husbandry is an ongoing Process, the Wild constantly calls.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.5 / 5 (8) Sep 27, 2011
Otto, why do you keep repeating that wtc7 fell from fire and damage? The official NIST report, NCSTAR 1A says in very clear terms that it was fire alone and NOT structural damage that caused the collapse.
But you and ABSOLUTNOULGEE think the NIST are cunts so why do you cite them? That's funny.
Claudius
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 27, 2011
@TheGhostofOtto1923

Farm animals
etc...

Yes, but a farmer who burns down the barn and then terrorizes his animals is a poor farmer. We are being managed by very poor farmers indeed, and some of the animals on this farm are becoming aware. Speaking from personal experience, you don't want to be standing in a herd of terrorized animals.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.5 / 5 (8) Sep 27, 2011
@TheGhostofOtto1923

You call Building 7 an asymmetrical collapse?

Now THIS is an asymmetrical collapse, and what we should have seen if your damage and fire scenario were true:
http://www.youtub...N63iDTqA
Yeah so's this
http://www.youtub...a_player

-What's your point?
Claudius
1.8 / 5 (10) Sep 27, 2011
@Claudius

I mean people who actually witnessed the events or who were involved or interacted with those involved. Those people need to be silenced because they can not be ignored by the media (someone will pick it up). Take the example of Deborah J. Palfrey. She went public about interactions she had with CIA operatives and was vocal in the media. She even said publicly she had no intention of committing suicide after being threatened. She "hung" herself in her garage.


Or like the fellow who shot himself twice in the head, or the other fellow who cut his wrist even though it was shown that he was physically incapable of doing so.

Even so, a lot of people have come forward. These things are never really kept secret. They are just never acknowledged by the mainstream media, rulers, etc. Must be why public confidence in media and "government" is so low.
Claudius
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 27, 2011
@TheGhostofOtto1923

You call Building 7 an asymmetrical collapse?

Now THIS is an asymmetrical collapse, and what we should have seen if your damage and fire scenario were true:
http://www.youtub...N63iDTqA

-What's your point?


That when you see a symmetrical collapse, it can only be controlled demolition. All other building collapses are like the one you showed, falling as a unit across the street to smash into other buildings. If buildings could be collapsed into their own footprints without damaging adjacent buildings by setting fire to them, or taking a chunk out of one corner, or both, controlled demolition experts would have to start looking for a new line of work.

Now, exactly who is being blind to the facts?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (10) Sep 27, 2011
Yes, but a farmer who burns down the barn and then terrorizes his animals is a poor farmer.
Nonsense. sometimes barns need to come down and maybe it is easier to torch it. Animals doont like fire but humans have learned to use it constructively.

Husbandry involves all sorts of unpleasant and terrifying things: culling, slaughter, forced impregnation. But these things occur naturally in a wild environment. No way to avoid them. The wild is a brutal and terrifying state. Species come and go.

The human species WILL remain no matter what may threaten it. This includes the unfortunate state created by it's wild urges, among them the tropical urge to reproduce. This can be bred out of animals.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 27, 2011
That when you see a symmetrical collapse, it can only be controlled demolition. All other building collapses are like the one you showed
Now if you knew enough about structural engineering you would know that bldgs come in all shapes sizes and configurations and predicting how any of them would collapse due to this or that is very complicated.

WTC7 collapsed asymmetrically, toward the damaged face, which the videos I posted make clear. This does not preclude either fire/damage OR controlled demo.
Claudius
1.6 / 5 (9) Sep 27, 2011
Nonsense. sometimes barns need to come down and maybe it is easier to torch it.


I have a farm, and if I can think of no reason at all to burn down one of my barns. And if I needed to remove a barn, it wouldn't be by burning it down and causing a stampede.

This can be bred out of animals.


I like it when you put your swastika armband on and start sieg heiling. It makes my point for me.
Rip_Harvest
2.7 / 5 (7) Sep 27, 2011
The demolitions of the three buildings are not a scientifically controversial subject.

The following three conditions cannot be explained without explosives:

1. Molten iron in the basements of all three buildings.

2. The complete annihilation of all three buildings and their contents.

3. The rate of which all three buildings collapse while they are being destroyed.

It has been demonstrated time and again that the establishment has nowhere to go with this. Presenting these three basic items is the equivalent of placing your hands onto the neck of the establishment and squeezing. They are stuck. As you see in this exchange, the more they dispute it, the worse it gets for them. It has NIST lying and every politician using Popular Mechanics and the 9/11 Commission report as their excuse for willful ignorance. It has the Royal Institute of British Architects screaming "anti-Semitism" when Architect Richard Gage makes no mention of Judaism in his presentation.

Pathetic.
Claudius
2.3 / 5 (12) Sep 27, 2011
WTC7 collapsed asymmetrically, toward the damaged face,
...and into its own footprint, leaving adjacent buildings undamaged. Any controlled demolition engineer would be proud of this and well paid for it. It does not happen with uncontrolled collapses, it has to be made to happen. And three times in one day?

TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (11) Sep 27, 2011
This aerial view of the wtc7 debris field appears to confirm that WTC7 fell toward the towers; that is, asymmetrically.
http://en.wikiped...hoto.jpg
I have a farm, and if I can think of no reason at all to burn down one of my barns. And if I needed to remove a barn, it wouldn't be by burning it down and causing a stampede.
It's a metaphor claw-claw.
I like it when you put your swastika armband on and start sieg heiling. It makes my point for me.
And I like it when suckers like you fall for metaphors like that. Your gullibility keeps you all safely blind and stupid. Nazis were not the first time an entire nation was turned into an army and sent to destroy itself against a foe. Sparta comes to mind.

Question: what ethnic group suffered and died more in and around Germany during and after the war, than any other? Answer: it was the GERMANS.

This is the power that ideology can have over dupes like yourself.
Claudius
2.1 / 5 (11) Sep 27, 2011
It's a metaphor claw-claw.


More accurately, it is allegory.

The thing that bothers me about your argument is that though we might agree that the human race as a whole is not worthy of much admiration, one of us wants it to improve, while the other applauds its subjugation. Sort of like God and Lucifer having a debate on the worthiness of humans and doing a little test on Job to see what happens when the tongs are applied.
Claudius
1.8 / 5 (10) Sep 27, 2011
This aerial view of the wtc7 debris field appears to confirm that WTC7 fell toward the towers; that is, asymmetrically.
http://en.wikiped...hoto.jpg


The photo shows Bld. 7's debris field extending at most into the middle of an adjacent street, leaving surrounding buildings undamaged. Any controlled demolition expert would be proud.

Add to this the news reports of the collapse of Bld. 7 long before it collapsed, firemen warning people away because it was "going to come down" and L. Silverstein announcing that he made the decision to pull and watched it come down. Sheesh, what more do you need?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.4 / 5 (10) Sep 27, 2011
God and lucifer were originally one being. Religionists split the entity in order to assign Evil to the enemy. This was an improvement.
human race as a whole is not worthy of much admiration
Oh I don't agree with that. They're a triumphant species caught on an unresolvable Dilemma. Luckily Leaders figured how to overcome it, by dividing the people up and setting them against each other in constructive and manageable Ways. This is all horrendously tragic.
one of us wants it to improve
Improve? Naw you just want out of the cage. Like everyone else you don't like being told what to do.

You like to pretend you're altruistic and benevolent, and these are the natural state of tribal members toward one another. But you must admit that when anything would disturb your idyll you, like any other animal, could be expected to fight like hell to protect tribe and family.

Without Management these instincts wreak havoc in a world in constant conflict because of our reproductive rate.
Claudius
1.8 / 5 (10) Sep 27, 2011
They're a triumphant species caught on an unresolvable Dilemma.


Enkidu should have stayed in the wild. Civilization is a curse.

I still think we can do better than this. And yes, I do mind being told what to do, thank you very much.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.4 / 5 (10) Sep 27, 2011
They're a triumphant species caught on an unresolvable Dilemma.


Enkidu should have stayed in the wild. Civilization is a curse.

I still think we can do better than this. And yes, I do mind being told what to do, thank you very much.
Of course you do. Job was being stress tested to see how well he could retain the ability to do tricks. Satan asked gods permission and god said well sure, just don't kill him.

Job passed the test and survived the cull. I bet Claudius would too. Because you're well-trained and come from a long line of grumbling order-obeyers.

You're TRAINED to hate German nationalists but love Israeli nationalists
Claudius
2.2 / 5 (11) Sep 27, 2011
You're TRAINED to hate German nationalists but love Israeli nationalists


I can tell you would be a very interesting person to have a beer with. But you are too busy in your disinfo job to leave long enough for that. It seems like a 24/7 type of job. On the scene for every controversy, defending the indefensible, championing brutality, looking forward to managing humanity for the rest of eternity. It's a hard job, but somebody's got to do it.
GeToChKn
5 / 5 (7) Sep 27, 2011
The tallest building ever demo'd took teams and teams of people almost 8 months to wire the building 24/7. You have to strip the building down to get access to key supports, columns, etc. How did Bush get his evil cronies into 3 buildings without anyone noticing people drill through wall, putting explosives in, for what have taken a year or so to wire properly? Why go through all the elaborate work needed just for a pretense to war? Why not just put a suitcase nuke in the building and say the Arabs did it? Instead according to the nuts, is they had to wire the building secretly for a year before with explosives with hundreds of people knowing doing this would be killing thousands of people and went along, then people who remote controlled the planes into the buildings, knowing they were killing thousands of people, everyone else involved, there is thousands of people who sat back and killed thousands and did it for what? Why has not 1 whistleblower came forward and said I wired it all
Claudius
2 / 5 (12) Sep 27, 2011
according to the nuts, is they had to wire the building secretly for a year before with explosives


Speaking as one of the nuts, I have no clue how it was done. I just reject the idea that small fires could produce results that exactly mirror controlled demolition.
GeToChKn
3.8 / 5 (10) Sep 27, 2011
according to the nuts, is they had to wire the building secretly for a year before with explosives


Speaking as one of the nuts, I have no clue how it was done. I just reject the idea that small fires could produce results that exactly mirror controlled demolition.


Thanks for expert opinion. Do you also form hard-headed opinions on things you don't understand, have no idea how it was even done. That's like saying you don't believe car's can drive because you don't understand a combustion engine.
Isaacsname
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 27, 2011
" 1. Molten iron in the basements of all three buildings "

~Another tard

The reaction between IRON AND STEAM is also EXOTHERMIC and fast at temperatures above 400 deg C. This reaction produces Fe3O4 AND HYDROGEN. It is the classic example of a REVERSIBLE REACTION studied in Chemistry labs at high school.

Now add in gypsum reactions with H2 and CO and we have a great source of SO2 and/or H2S to sulfide the steel, and remember that the recovered pieces of structural steel were heavily OXIDIZED as well as sulfided.

yada yada
GeToChKn
2.3 / 5 (6) Sep 27, 2011
Is everyone referring to the "molten" metal pics that went around a while ago? The ones that have been proven to be a fake and photoshopped with everyone starring into a hole and some truther went and made the hole glow? That debunked molten metal? Amazing how truthers have to make up evidence all the time and fabricate photos to justify their ideas. If it was so true, why do they have to lie and make up stuff then?
Rip_Harvest
2.3 / 5 (6) Sep 27, 2011
"How did Bush get his evil cronies into 3 buildings without anyone noticing people drill through wall, putting explosives in, for what have taken a year or so to wire properly? Why go through all the elaborate work needed just for a pretense to war? Why not just put a suitcase nuke in the building and say the Arabs did it? Why has not 1 whistleblower came forward and said I wired it."

That's the point of an investigation. An authentic criminal investigation.

Wouldn't you want such an investigation? Think of the validation!

Why did Germany go through the trouble of staging a false flag before invading Poland?

Ah, whistleblowers. Which one would you like? Sibel Edmonds? Kevin Ryan? Norman Minetta? Barry Jennings? Susan Lindauer? Indira Singh? Field McConnell? William Rodriguez? Max Cleland? Scott DeCarlo?

Are you looking for someone to confess and implicate himself in a crime? My choice would be not to sit around and wait 30 years for an E. Howard Hunt style deathbed confession.
Claudius
2.2 / 5 (13) Sep 27, 2011
That's like saying you don't believe car's can drive because you don't understand a combustion engine.


No, that's like saying that I don't believe a steel framed building can demolish itself from small office fires, down into its own footprint, because I understand how buildings are built.

I don't know exactly how the demolitions were performed. You would have to ask the perpetrators how they did it, but they aren't talking.

Defenders of the perpetrators like to draw 9/11 critics out to get them to explain exactly how it was done. This is unknown. What is known is the official story doesn't even begin to hold water, and the government is acting to cover up the evidence and squash dissent. And that's very telling.
Claudius
2.5 / 5 (13) Sep 27, 2011
Is everyone referring to the "molten" metal pics that went around a while ago? The ones that have been proven to be a fake and photoshopped with everyone starring into a hole and some truther went and made the hole glow? That debunked molten metal? Amazing how truthers


How about the video interviews of firemen discussing how the molten metal was running in channels "like in a foundry." How did they photoshop that? Or videos of the towers while still standing showing molten metal dripping down the side of the building, did they photoshop that, too? Or overhead photographs of the WTC site showing intense underground heat 3 weeks after the collapses?

So,,, truthers, eh? Well, I'd rather be a "truther" than a "falser" anyday.
Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (13) Sep 27, 2011
Conspiracy dolts will never accept truth no matter how many independent investigations are conducted and show there was no inside job,... because they are not motivated by the search for truth to begin with. They offer only questions as if they were facts, and revel in perpetual mystery.

Everything can be 'questioned' endlessly,.. even the moon landing. Eventually you have to resolve to a reasonable conclusion given the facts available, not the questions available.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.9 / 5 (9) Sep 27, 2011
according to the nuts, is they had to wire the building secretly for a year before with explosives


Speaking as one of the nuts, I have no clue how it was done. I just reject the idea that small fires could produce results that exactly mirror controlled demolition.


Thanks for expert opinion. Do you also form hard-headed opinions on things you don't understand, have no idea how it was even done. That's like saying you don't believe car's can drive because you don't understand a combustion engine.
Harhar that's a good one. The fires look pretty massive to me as the whole damaged side appears to be smoking.
Is everyone referring to the "molten" metal pics that went around a while ago? The ones that have been proven to be a fake and photoshopped with everyone starring into a hole
Uh links please? Or exerpts(sic)?
Claudius
2.1 / 5 (11) Sep 27, 2011
Harhar that's a good one. The fires look pretty massive to me as the whole damaged side appears to be smoking.


Ever set a camp fire with wet wood? If it burns, it produces a lot of smoke, because the fire is not hot. Conversely, if you use dry wood, little smoke is produced because it is burning hot.

The fires at the WTC were cool fires, producing heavy black smoke. A hot fire would have produced little or no smoke. There have been skyscrapers that have burned very hot for much longer times and have never collapsed.

So the fires were not massive. But the smoke was impressive, and that is all that is important, not the temperature of the fires.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 27, 2011
No, that's like saying that I don't believe a steel framed building can demolish itself from small office fires, down into its own footprint, because I understand how buildings are built.

I don't know exactly how the demolitions were performed.
Adm leahy to President Truman; "The bomb will never go off, and I speak as an expert in explosives. ..." hawhaw

-I see a few important issues which need resolving. First, could any of the 3 bldgs be caused to fail asymmetrically and if so, how? (B) Could controlled demolitions have caused them to fall in the ACTUAL manner they did, and what would these systems have needed to be?

And lastly, what would the effects of the tower collapses have been without the bathtubs in place to contain the debris? This one would indicate to me whether the towers were designed to be brought down in the manner that they were - by damage and fire from planes, the easiest to do by far and the easiest to sell.

Were any of these explored?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 27, 2011
Demolitions would have had to work surreptitiously and convincingly enough despite the extensive damage and fire in all 3 bldgs, in order to keep dweebs arguing about it for decades.

If these issues haven't been explored in depth by qualified professionals then I myself would be happy to assemble a team. But I have to say that it would cost a LOT of money. In part, you know, so that we couldn't be bought off.

How about we set up a foundation?
Rip_Harvest
1 / 5 (4) Sep 27, 2011
Does Homeland Security get its budget from a foundation?
Do you? I don't think so.
Cave_Man
1 / 5 (3) Sep 27, 2011
According to TV hitler or his top scientists escaped using time travel. In order to believe that you have to believe a lot of other things, like aliens, time travel, and it leads you to believe he's still making a lot or all of the decisions in politics.

I personally find it much easier to believe that we are all a bunch of delusional monkeys under the influence of mind altering substances and/or phenomenon.

Got silver fillings? Congratulations it's illegal to spit according to the EPA. http://www.youtub...nQ-T7oiA

I try to inhale through my nose and spit as much as I can, if I don't then over the next few weeks I start to notice small symptoms of memory loss, stomach ache, occasional headache and sleepiness.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 27, 2011
The fires at the WTC were cool fires, producing heavy black smoke. A hot fire would have produced little or no smoke.
And what would a combination of both look like? Apparently there were numerous diesel generators in wtc7 to fuel hot fires near to critical structure.

Also, wet wood will soon dry and burn very hot when insulated and in the presence of convection. As the article states, we can assume these conditions were present.
Vendicar_Decarian
2.8 / 5 (9) Sep 27, 2011
"The fires at the WTC were cool fires, producing heavy black smoke." - Claudius

Which is proof that those fires were started by missiles fired by UFO's.
Vendicar_Decarian
2.8 / 5 (9) Sep 27, 2011
"How about the video interviews of firemen discussing how the molten metal was running in channels "like in a foundry." How did they photoshop that?" - Claudius

Fire hot. Fire melt metal. Fire good.

What makes you think that melted steel is proof that Da Gubdermet done did melted it?
Vendicar_Decarian
2.6 / 5 (10) Sep 27, 2011
"Speaking as one of the nuts, I have no clue how it was done." - Claudius

Speaking as a rational person I know it wasn't done, and that you indeed are a nut.
Rip_Harvest
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 27, 2011
"Fire hot. Fire melt metal. Fire good.

What makes you think that melted steel is proof that Da Gubdermet done did melted it?"

Critical thinking isn't for everybody.
Claudius
2.3 / 5 (6) Sep 27, 2011
According to TV hitler or his top scientists escaped using time travel.


Shows what TV knows. Hitler escaped to Spain.
Claudius
2.3 / 5 (6) Sep 27, 2011
"Speaking as one of the nuts, I have no clue how it was done." - Claudius

Speaking as a rational person I know it wasn't done, and that you indeed are a nut.


Say, is a nut better than a tard?
TehDog
5 / 5 (3) Sep 27, 2011
No, but it's probably tastier
jimmytrain
5 / 5 (1) Sep 27, 2011
THE HEGELIAN DIALECTiC (Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel August 27, 1770 November 14, 1831), for those who are interested breaks down like this: All change, good or bad, can be expressed in three phases, 1 thesis (how things are) 2 antithesis (how opponents of the thesis would like things to be) 3 synthesis (the result of the discourse between proponents of the thesis and the antithesis). As soon as the synthesis is achieved it becomes the new thesis and invariably spawns a new antithesis, this cycle repeats infinitly.
To control the outcome you must control the antithesis in other words to change things to how you want them you need to control both sides of the process, this is known as hijacking the hegelian and has been the bedrock of conflict since the dawn of man, war is the natural human reaction to the threat of destruction, not the reality of it, people in fear are easy to control and they will part with all of their freedoms to feel safe. Go figure.
hush1
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 28, 2011
http://pubs.usgs....r09.html

Solid science.

Q.
Has any recorded demolition, incl. uncontrolled, ever display what this research labels "Themo Hot Spots" (16th/23th of Sept.)?
Is this what sets - if postulated - this 'demolition' apart from all other demolitions ever recorded?
Fionn_MacTool
2.1 / 5 (11) Sep 28, 2011
If anyone wants to know how the buildings collapsed watch the film "The Towering Inferno".

kochevnik
2 / 5 (12) Sep 28, 2011
This also explains the hundreds of vehicles that spontaneously burst into flames up to 7 blocks away. Inducted electromagnetic eddies were prominent in the aluminum engine blocks, from which the fire spread. I would like a scientific explanation for this. To date there's only been silence. Not very scientific.

@Fionn_MacTool Come back when you graduate elementary school.
kochevnik
2.2 / 5 (13) Sep 28, 2011
From the article: "This, in turn, would lead to the top section of each tower to fall down on the sections below."
This is the perennial pancake theory spouted by the echo chambers of the corporatist US. It was summarily dismissed by the president's own NIST investigation, but it's the bankster moll's mantra recited for brainwashing.

A more factual motive for 9/11 is simply to note that the UNITED STATES is bankrupt, and has been from before the revolution.

The 1st bankruptcy was officially declared in 1791, before the Bill Of Rights and Constitution signed that year. The 2nd was exactly 70 years later, in 1861 and the Civil War. 3rd was 70 years later in 1931, with the great depression. The last was in 2001, with the 4th restructuring of the US corporate government.

The towers were brought down with Tesla howitzers which transmuted the steel, softening it to a butter consistency in places. Video shows solid steel transforming into dust in seconds. Melts aluminum too.
Fionn_MacTool
2.3 / 5 (9) Sep 28, 2011
@kochevnik The ability to recognise a joke is considered by some to be indicative of intelligence.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.9 / 5 (9) Sep 28, 2011
THE HEGELIAN DIALECTiC...
To control the outcome you must control the antithesis in other words to change things to how you want them you need to control both sides of the process, this is known as hijacking the hegelian and has been the bedrock of conflict since the dawn of man, war is the natural human reaction to the threat of destruction, not the reality of it, people in fear are easy to control and they will part with all of their freedoms to feel safe. Go figure.
Ah. Someones been reading David Icke.
http://www.davidi...spiracy-

-Pleasant enough nutter, popular, solid researcher... So you think it was lizards do you?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.5 / 5 (8) Sep 28, 2011
If anyone wants to know how the buildings collapsed watch the film "The Towering Inferno".

Or 'Earthquake' (marjoe gortner) or '2012'. This is where the strongest public misperceptions can originate, an apt replacement for the bible ('The Exodus' -Heston). Which is why so many people are science- and reality- illiterate. Roadrunner cartoons.

THIS also is conspiracy.
kochevnik
2.2 / 5 (10) Sep 28, 2011
@kochevnik The ability to recognise a joke is considered by some to be indicative of intelligence.
Unfortunately there are plenty of willfully retarded people who think your joke is a serious and valid argument, and upon reading will go back to uttering their mantras. I could display some of their asinine opinions here, but won't. Also I believe the towering inferno still stood in the movie. Back to comedy central you go.

I ceased seeking out intelligence in the USA long ago. More brains can be found in my Moscow apartment building, than in Houghton-Muffin educated S&P rated USA [same people]. Goals should be plausible.
BUILDING SEVEN, HOLY SHIT. Seriously, how can you not put that together?
Also the Marriott collapsed inexplicably. It didn't even have Larry Silverstein there to "pull it."
Claudius
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 28, 2011
Also the Marriott collapsed inexplicably. It didn't even have Larry Silverstein there to "pull it."


Marriott World Trade Center...4 stories left standing after a huge amount of debris crashed down on it. No catastrophic collapse. Hmmm.. this is interesting. Why didn't it pancake, like all steel framed buildings are supposed to? Maybe it wasn't "designed to fail" like all the other WTC buildings?
Fionn_MacTool
2.2 / 5 (10) Sep 28, 2011
@kochevnik Well, I hate to have to explain a joke but that was the point. The building in the towering inferno never collapsed. It burned for hours and no one ever thought of writing that scenario into the script for some reason. It remained structurally sound from beginning to end! And what was their crazy solution to put out the fire? Release tons of water from water tanks on the top floor.

In the remake of the film they decide to go through with this same plan only to find that aluminium causes the entire building to explode into a cloud of dust killing everyone. The End.
omatumr
1.6 / 5 (10) Sep 28, 2011
The towers were brought down with Tesla howitzers which transmuted the steel, softening it to a butter consistency in places. Video shows solid steel transforming into dust in seconds. Melts aluminum too.


Thank you for the information.

1. Could you briefly describe Tesla howitzers?

2. Who do you think used the Tesla howitzers?

3. Airplanes did not cause buildings to burn and collapse?

4. Are Tesla-like howitzers used at the HAARP facility?

http://www.youtub...SU-5Iwd0

Thanks again for the information.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.5 / 5 (8) Sep 28, 2011
Here you go tumor, this gentleman describes it pretty well
http://www.youtub...EzpMWkyQ

-I found it using GOOGLE.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 28, 2011
Marriott World Trade Center...4 stories left standing after a huge amount of debris crashed down on it. No catastrophic collapse. Hmmm.. this is interesting. Why didn't it pancake
Hhhmmmmmmm maybe because it was a different bldg hit differently with different debris and thus tended to react... differently.
Claudius
2.2 / 5 (10) Sep 28, 2011
]Hhhmmmmmmm maybe because it was a different bldg hit differently with different debris and thus tended to react... differently.


I can certainly understand that it was hit differently, because basically WTC1 and WTC2 fell on top of it, unlike WTC7 which had a small chunk taken out of one corner. So WTC7 reacted differently by collapsing at free-fall speed into its own footprint, but the Marriott Hotel which was clobbered over its head with much of the WTC1 and WTC2 debris, was able to avoid collapse. This is the same debris that supposedly collapsed the lower 80% of the towers.

This is the kind of reasoning that demonstrates the length that some people will go to in order to avoid objectively examining the evidence. Instead, conclusions are determined in advance and evidence is "adjusted" to fit the conclusion.
omatumr
1.7 / 5 (9) Sep 28, 2011
this gentleman describes it pretty well

http://www.youtub...EzpMWkyQ


Thanks.

I thought kochevnik was talking about a Tesla discharge directly into the structural steel frame, "softening it to a butter consistency".

Is that possible?

Perhaps we all need 'de-programming' to question rather than accept the programs that distracted us from noticing that our powerful nation was collapsing while we sat watching any of 400 channels on:

a.) Gladiator shows for macho males
b.) Soap operas for abandoned wives
c.) Computer models for scientists
d.) PBS programs for highbrows
e.) Sex/violence for youth, etc.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Video summary of research career (1961-2011)
http://dl.dropbox...reer.pdf

TheGhostofOtto1923
1.4 / 5 (10) Sep 28, 2011
unlike WTC7 which had a small chunk taken out of one corner
And a large percentage of its front face, leaving its footprint effectively 'C' shaped. Not unlike the Murrah Bldg.
was clobbered over its head with much of the WTC1 and WTC2 debris, was able to avoid collapse.
Because it was a different bldg, hit differently, damaged differently? The reasons WHY it didnt collapse can only be discerned through detailed analysis by trained professionals; not gross and spurious generalizations.
This is the same debris that supposedly collapsed the lower 80% of the towers.
I am not sure what you mean by 'same debris'. Same quantity? exactly the same material? Same velocity? From the same direction? What?

This selective use and interpretation of facts is the kind of reasoning that demonstrates the length that some people will go to in order to avoid objectively examining ALL the evidence.
Claudius
2.3 / 5 (6) Sep 28, 2011
The reasons WHY it didnt collapse can only be discerned through detailed analysis by trained professionals; not gross and spurious generalizations.


You are referring to the kind detailed analysis by trained professionals such as done by NIST, than when asked how they determined that no evidence of explosives was found at the 9/11 site, explained that they had NOT LOOKED for evidence of explosives.

Give me a break.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.5 / 5 (8) Sep 28, 2011
The reasons WHY it didnt collapse can only be discerned through detailed analysis by trained professionals; not gross and spurious generalizations.


You are referring to the kind detailed analysis by trained professionals such as done by NIST, than when asked how they determined that no evidence of explosives was found at the 9/11 site, explained that they had NOT LOOKED for evidence of explosives.

Give me a break.
The Marriot was a different bldg, hit differently, damaged differently. The reasons WHY it didnt collapse can only be discerned through detailed analysis by trained professionals; not gross and spurious generalizations by someone who isnt one.

And their analysis probably wouldnt include the phrase 'clobbered over its head'. Whats that? Its a metaphor is it? Is it illuminating in any way?
kochevnik
2.3 / 5 (6) Sep 28, 2011
unlike WTC7 which had a small chunk taken out of one corner
And a large percentage of its front face, leaving its footprint effectively 'C' shaped. Not unlike the Murrah Bldg.
was clobbered over its head with much of the WTC1 and WTC2 debris, was able to avoid collapse.
These photographs of WTC7 were faked. Badly photoshopped. A Russian expert imaging expert proved that the solar spectrum of the official photos was artificially altered. Other video and photos that day prove WTC7 was unscathed. No government response was forthcoming about our revelations.
3. Airplanes did not cause buildings to burn and collapse?
The architect of the WTC himself spoke on video that the buildings were designed to withstand multiple impacts of planes larger than those of 9/11.
The reasons WHY it didnt collapse can only be discerned through detailed analysis by trained professionals;
You mean paid liars afraid that their licenses will be revoked?
kochevnik
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 28, 2011
1. Could you briefly describe Tesla howitzers?
2. Who do you think used the Tesla howitzers?
4. Are Tesla-like howitzers used at the HAARP facility?

Tesla howitzers employ to scalar wave sources to produce constructive interference at the target. They displace energy from elsewhere, like the mantle, and require little power. They are longitudinal waves, like sound. Instead of the usual transverse EM waves which are repelled by electron shells and Faraday cages, scalar waves directly excite atomic nuclei and transmute them. This changes the iron into softer elements and the enormous energy from the quantum vacuum can vaporize much of the material.

When Tesla died his works were returned to Soviet Serbia. In Russia we did not study the silly Lorentz and Heavyside equations but the original from Maxwell. This technology then fell into Israeli hands and their bankers. http://video.goog...32314597
Claudius
2.3 / 5 (6) Sep 28, 2011
The reasons WHY it didnt collapse can only be discerned through detailed analysis by trained professionals; not gross and spurious generalizations.


You are referring to the the kind of detailed analysis by trained professionals such as done by NIST, that when asked how they determined no evidence of explosives was found at the 9/11 site, explained that they had NOT LOOKED for evidence of explosives.

You give too little credit to the layman with a scientific education (I majored in Physics.) And since NIST and similar governmental "investigators" are demonstrably corrupt, we must apply our educated opinions instead. Besides, we have Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth to point the way.

And their analysis probably wouldnt include the phrase 'clobbered over its head'. Whats that? Its a metaphor is it? Is it illuminating in any way?


It is a colloquialism. Something the morlocks at NIST couldn't produce if their lives depended on it.
Claudius
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 28, 2011
@omatumr

a.) Gladiator shows for macho males
b.) Soap operas for abandoned wives
c.) Computer models for scientists
d.) PBS programs for highbrows
e.) Sex/violence for youth, etc.


Good list. I always think of the scene with the housewives in the movie version of Fahrenheit 451, gathering to watch other people's lives on the television. Just more panem et circenses.
Fionn_MacTool
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 29, 2011
I wonder if there were good decent people in Nazi Germany who continually insisted that the Jews, Gypsies and Homosexuals were all going to the east to live nice happy lives. Like, to believe that the German government was gassing people, they would first have to believe that their own government could do that. Secondly, they would then have to believe that no one would come forward to admit it. How could you possibly keep a secret like the gassing of millions of Jews a secret? It would be IMPOSSIBLE right? Therefore, all Germans must have known.

Or is it possible for people to be ignorant, or even wilfully ignorant of the truth, even in the face of overwhelming evidence? Perhaps the problem here is that the government wears the mask of authority. They must find it difficult...those who have taken authority as the truth, rather than truth as the authority.
Rip_Harvest
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 29, 2011
Leave for one day to find TheGhostofOtto1923 still busy selling the official story.

I'm sure he knows better. Working awfully hard...
mikiewooliebugger
1 / 5 (4) Sep 30, 2011
How deep the tentacles of the Beast. reaching around the world like a dragon. back into time like a phantom. into every heart with his deceit. deep in our minds like eidolon.
we wrestle not agaisnt flesh and blood. The Evil one is grinning upon us all as we challenge one another. All the guilt will be shouted at the last loud trump.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 30, 2011
Leave for one day to find TheGhostofOtto1923 still busy selling the official story.

I'm sure he knows better. Working awfully hard...
And I think I do know better than the official state-sponsored story, or the official state-sponsored anti-story that you guys have latched onto. Otto has his own theories which seem to make the most sense of all.

1) the bldgs were designed to fall when hit by jets
2) the Event was thus Planned far in advance, to happen at the Proper Time, to define the Enemy and to justify actions against it
3) because this is how it is always Done
4) because proper strategy dictates that if war is inevitable then you must decide when, where, and how it starts
5) and most importantly, how it turns out.
6) wtc7 is immaterial to the Event

@Fiona
It's much much Bigger than that, and much much older. Cultural destruction is not pretty but it is unfortunately essential for Progress. And without Progress we End.

@mikie
-So Donald trump is Satan?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 30, 2011
Oh I see I forgot an important point;

5.5) War is ALWAYS Inevitable because of our tropical reproductive rate. This Fact is essential to understanding how the world actually functions in light of ongoing Efforts to prevent this Condition from destroying it. Efforts which necessarily include concealment and deception.
Claudius
2.3 / 5 (6) Sep 30, 2011


1) the bldgs were designed to fall when hit by jets
2) the Event was thus Planned far in advance, to happen at the Proper Time, to define the Enemy and to justify actions against it
6) wtc7 is immaterial to the Event


1) This raises the question of WHO designed the buildings to fall.
2) This raises another question, who PLANNED far in advance.
3)4)5) No issues.
6) WTC7 perhaps is immaterial to the overall PURPOSE, but must have also been designed to fall, so what was the purpose? Why was there an announcement of its unexpected fall 30 minutes before it actually fell? Why is there a news blackout of the WTC7 collapse?

What difference does it make whether the buildings were designed to fall or if they were remote controlled or timed demolitions? Either way there is a conspiracy. The only question that remains is who were the conspirators?

Next question. Have you watched War By Deception? What is your opinion of it?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 30, 2011
"Make no little plans. They have no magic to stir men's blood and probably will not themselves be realized." D Burnham, architect
http://en.wikiped..._Burnham

Architects and engineers can be and are often members of secret societies. They can also wield great power. Albert Speer and Amenhotep come to mind.

Freemasons refer to god as The Great Architect of the Universe.
What difference does it make whether the buildings were designed to fall or if they were remote controlled or timed demolitions?
Obviously, its a lot cleaner and simpler to pick a structural system which is vulnerable to certain kinds of damage rather than some complex system of concealed demolitions which is prone to damage, decay, and discovery.

Steel joists was unprecedented in high-rises at the time wasnt it? It could not be effectively fireproofed back then. Impact blew off the fire insul. allowing them to soften and sag.

An economical and especially vulnerable system. Also note gwb firewalls
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 30, 2011
The only question that remains is who were the conspirators?
No, that is a typical diversion for the starstruck majority who just want to see the bad guys on the news. It doesnt MATTER who. You waste time trying to track them down, by the time you find out youre old and theyre dead, and the next gen is fawning over the new stars and doesnt really care about old and dead men.

What matters is WHY these things are done. Yeah just like the Merovingian said, it is the WHY of things. It is enough to realize that Planning of the scale that Burnham was implying can take decades, generations, centuries. Entire dynasties, economic and political systems, even religions can be created or destroyed in order to accomplish a Goal, if that Goal is important enough.
GeToChKn
5 / 5 (1) Sep 30, 2011
Designed to fall? So they had this planned in the 60's or 70's when it built? The great illuminati had this planned since the 1400's right?
Claudius
2.3 / 5 (6) Sep 30, 2011
What matters is WHY these things are done.


Well, when we are all dead and buried, the why won't matter either.

If what we are seeing in the world today is the result of a long-range plan, I question the sanity of those who created it.

There is no nobility in sneaking around in the shadows stabbing the populace in the back for its own good. Noble actions are done in the light of day, where everyone can witness and admire. This business is slimy and ignoble and should be condemned. The conspirators should be found and slain like the vermin they are.

(I can find no reference to a person named Merovingian.)

Claudius
2.3 / 5 (6) Sep 30, 2011
@GeToChKn

Designed to fall? So they had this planned in the 60's or 70's when it built? The great illuminati had this planned since the 1400's right?


No, it's the Elders of Zion.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 30, 2011
If what we are seeing in the world today is the result of a long-range plan, I question the sanity of those who created it.
That is BECAUSE you FAIL to REALIZE what a CRITICAL state the human race has been since the advent of agriculture. Vast areas of the world were stripped bare in a very short time.
There is no nobility in sneaking around in the shadows stabbing the populace in the back for its own good.
There is no nobility in LOSING. There is no nobility in letting civilization collapse.
Noble actions are done in the light of day, where everyone can witness and admire.
You are naive. 'All of war is deception.' -Sun Tzu
This business is slimy and ignoble and should be condemned. The conspirators should be found and slain like the vermin they are.
Which is exactly how you would be wasting your time. 'The Godfather' is the #1 movie of all time. Why is that?
Merovingian.
Eh? You need to get out more I think
http://www.imdb.c...8/quotes
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 30, 2011
But wait! Here he is in the 'flesh' so to speak...
http://www.youtub...a_player
Claudius
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 30, 2011
CRITICAL state the human race has been since the advent of agriculture. Vast areas of the world were stripped bare in a very short time....There is no nobility in letting civilization collapse.


Pardon my abstruseness, but haven't you contradicted yourself?

a) Agriculture is stripping the world bare, creating a crisis.
b) Agriculture = civilization
c) Civilization must be preserved. ??

It would be more logical to say: Agriculture/civilization is creating a crisis and making human survival problematic, hence agriculture/civilization must be abandoned to preserve humanity.

I have said before, civilization is a curse. It is a bad trip, with seemingly no way out.

re: Merovingian. Was aware of the Matrix character. Thought you were trying to quote a real person.
Claudius
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 30, 2011
the bldgs were designed to fall when hit by jets


I have an issue with this statement.

First, there's no evidence to support it. It is also hard to imagine insurers not noticing a deliberate mis-design of a building.

Second, molten metal. This is documented dripping from the side of one of the towers, and it is NOT aluminum, as it glows red. Also multiple accounts by firemen of molten metal.

Third. Sounds of explosions in videos and many reliable (police, firemen, reporters, etc.) eyewitnesses of numerous flashes and explosions.

Fourth. Presence of unignited nanothermite, a military explosive (http://en.wikiped...hermite) , in the dust, collected by various sources, analyzed by numerous experts, cannot be explained by a deliberate mis-design in the 1970s.

"Designing to fail" can't explain any of this. And there's more, of course, this is a short list.
kochevnik
2 / 5 (4) Oct 01, 2011
1) This raises the question of WHO designed the buildings to fall.
The architect of the Twin Towers repeatedly that the buildings were designed to take MULTIPLE hits from planes larger than those of 9/11. He also noted that he was assigned to give the Bin Laden construction family a tour of the core columns. He mentioned that the sole interest of the Bin Laden family was installing holes in the core columns for cutting charges.
omatumr
1 / 5 (6) Oct 01, 2011
Perhaps a related part of the puzzle is unfolding.

WikiLeaks information suggests that the UNs Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) was but a fig leaf for wealth transfers from industrialized nations to poor developing nations, and much to my surprise, the story was published in Nature.

http://www.nature...20110929

http://www.powerl...arce.php
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 01, 2011
It would be more logical to say: Agriculture/civilization is creating a crisis and making human survival problematic, hence agriculture/civilization must be abandoned to preserve humanity.
No, it is more logical to say that agriculture began to destroy major parts of the world soon after it gained widespread use 12,000 years ago due to overfarming and overgrazing. Leaders were well aware why this was happening and WROTE about it.

Civilization - that is, Order - was and is the only Mechanism large enough to prevent global ruin. Only it provides the Means to control populations. It provides overall Stability which enables Progress. Without Progress we are stuck here and doomed to eventual extinction, one way or another.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 01, 2011
The architect... designed to take MULTIPLE hits from planes larger than those of 9/11.
'The architect' was I M Pei. A team of architects were involved in the production of the Bldg. Who was the architect who said these things? Was he involved in the selection of the steel joist structural system? Was he only familiar with the design reports and not actually privy to their creation? Was he actually a typical suckup salesman type aping his bosses? Was he lying or were his bosses lying to him? Etc.

The steel was not able to be adequately fire-protected. The core gyp board disintegrated on impact. Fire and damage brought down the bldgs.
He also noted that he was assigned to give the Bin Laden construction family a tour of the core columns He mentioned that the sole interest of the Bin Laden family was installing holes in the core columns for cutting charges.
Heresay. Players playing their Parts.

Bin Laden was on OUR side. There is only ONE Side at the Top. Empire.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 01, 2011
Actually, when you think of it, in terms of Adequate Provocation the bldgs need not have fallen for the Event to have served it's Purpose. They would have been damaged beyond repair and would have had to be demolished, and there would be the same nice park and solemn memorial for the few thousand who would've died anyway.

The west would still have had it's excuse to reoccupy the ME and the public would still have supported it. And bin laden would still have been busy inspiring all the idle hotheads in the region to march into the guns of western forces, thereby quiesing the region and solving everybody's Primary problems just like he did in Afghanistan, Somalia, and Egypt. As was done to similar Effect in China, and Korea, and Vietnam, and cambodia, and nicaraugua, etc etc et al ad infinitum.

STILL no nanodemostuff required.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 01, 2011
A few problems with your nanothermite theory:

"A critical aspect of the production is the ability to produce particles of sizes in the tens of nanometer range, as well as with a limited distribution of particle sizes. In 2002, the production of nano-sized aluminium particles required considerable effort, and commercial sources for the material were limited"

The towers were finished in 1973. It seems this nanomaterial was not available until a few decades later?

"In general, super thermites are extremely hazardous to handle because of its high sensitivity to electrostatic discharge (ESD) that is usually less than 15 microjoules."

-So I am thinking that the charges would have to be well-shielded from EM radiation.

They would also have needed to be installed in all areas where planes could be expected to hit, and selectively triggered remotely to maintain the illusion that fire and damage did the work. And the entire system would have had to evaporate afterward.
Claudius
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 01, 2011
And the entire system would have had to evaporate afterward.


The system left behind iron microspheres and chips of unignited super thermite. The chips of super thermite have been analyzed and found to contain uniform nanoparticles of iron and aluminum. It has been ignited under laboratory conditions and revealed explosive properties.

Having been recently developed, it could not have been installed in the 1970's. Nor was it home-brewed.
Claudius
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 01, 2011
Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe
Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley and Bradley R. Larsen Pp 7-31

We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in this paper. These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all four samples. One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later.

(cont)
Claudius
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 01, 2011
The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains grains approximately 100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 °C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic.

- The Open Chemical Physics Journal
ISSN: 1874-4125
Claudius
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 01, 2011
Claudius
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 01, 2011
"In general, super thermites are extremely hazardous to handle because of its high sensitivity to electrostatic discharge (ESD) that is usually less than 15 microjoules."


"These results indicate that under ambient conditions the hybrid inorganic/organic energetic
composite is very stable to impact, is spark insensitive,
and only very slightly friction sensitive.
As noted in the Experimental section of
this report, in our hands wet hybrid nanocomposites
are safe to handle and difficult to thermal
[sic] ignite. However, once dry the material
burns very vigorously and rapidly with the evolution
of significant amounts of gaseous species
[24]."
Claudius
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 01, 2011
Based on these observations, we conclude that the red
layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC
dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating
nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or
explosive material.
omatumr
1.4 / 5 (10) Oct 02, 2011
Based on these observations, we conclude that the red . . . . .


Claudius, Big Brother's actions are not limited by principles of science.

Today I parked next to a new Ford hybrid with government labels still in the windows, including a sticker that was new to me:

GLOBAL WARMING SCORE

This illustrates Big Brother's contempt for the scientists that showed there is no valid scientific basis for the Global Warming story promoted by world leaders, Al Gore and the UN's IPCC.

Government science has become a tool of government propaganda, despite President Eisenhower's warning about this danger on 17 Jan 1961:

www.youtube.com/w...ld5PR4ts

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
http://myprofile....anuelo09

hush1
2 / 5 (4) Oct 02, 2011
Otto not longer parks in empty church parking lots whiling iPoding, ever since he was approached by a person asking if he was o.k.

Stickers can be a traumatic experience. Daily, people blog over what they felt when they read one.
Ethelred
2.2 / 5 (6) Oct 02, 2011
layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC
dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating
nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or
explosive material.
Or it could be some idiot mixed two kinds of paint together because that is exactly what you are describing. Red and silver paint. Paint with a STANDARD red undercoat and you get get a layer of iron oxide and the a silver layer you have the aluminum. Thermite. Nothing super about it. You can buy the kinds of paint anywhere.

Ethelred
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 02, 2011
Good point ET. I notice claudius's excerpts do not include comparisons to products readily available from the period. Was this done? The nanotech to make true superthermite was apparently not available back then, except maybe in secret underground area 51 alien black ops labs?

Perhaps even the explosion scenario in the above article could have been a source? I think we need another study.

And no evidence in the debris pile at all for the EM shielding, wiring, or control systems necessary to initiate a convincing demo from possible plane hits from any direction, at any of 80 or so floors.
Claudius
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 02, 2011
layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC
dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating
nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or
explosive material.
Or it could be some idiot mixed two kinds of paint together because that is exactly what you are describing. Red and silver paint. Paint with a STANDARD red undercoat and you get get a layer of iron oxide and the a silver layer you have the aluminum. Thermite. Nothing super about it. You can buy the kinds of paint anywhere.

Ethelred


The paper I referenced is available online. It compares the chip with paint. Read the article. It was peer reviewed, by the way.

http://www.bentha...OCPJ.pdf
Claudius
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 02, 2011
And no evidence in the debris pile at all for the EM shielding, wiring, or control systems necessary to initiate a convincing demo from possible plane hits from any direction, at any of 80 or so floors.


There was also no evidence of the black boxes from the airplanes, and those things could not have vaporized. There is a witness who saw the FBI removing the boxes from the pile, but officially they do not exist.
Claudius
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 02, 2011
Or it could be some idiot mixed two kinds of paint together ...


Read the following section from the article:
"7. Could the Red Chip Material be Ordinary Paint?"

Several tests were done.

"We measured the resistivity of the red material...several orders of magnitude less than paint coatings we found tabulated which are typically over 10^10 ohm-m [31]."

"Another test, described above, involved subjection of red
chips to methyl ethyl ketone solvent for tens of hours...The red material did swell but did not dissolve, ...paint samples in the same exposure to MEK solvent became limp and showed significant dissolution, as expected since MEK is a paint solvent."

"Further, we have shown that the red material contains
both elemental aluminum and iron oxide...Red chips when ignited produce very high temperatures...as shown by the bright flash observed and the production of molten iron-rich spheres"

hush1
2 / 5 (4) Oct 02, 2011
Reverse engineer the chips. The goal is two paints, that when painted to each other have the properties of the original chips.

Then take various shaped steel of the sort use to construct the fallen buildings and paint those steel pieces with the paints - the steel painted anyway your intuition dictates.

Ignite the variously painted various shaped steel at different points on the various shaped steel.

The goal is to replicate any sequence of destruction exhibited during any part of the destruction observed at the original sites.

Experiment. Allowed is the combination of conventional demolition techniques/substances and paints.

If successful, the paints will be sold for profit and the profits used to rebuilt the fallen buildings.

If the new buildings are to meet new "design for demise" building codes, the new buildings will be painted with paints this research brought forth that originally and successfully reversed engineered the found chips.
Claudius
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 02, 2011

If the new buildings are to meet new "design for demise" building codes, the new buildings will be painted with paints this research brought forth that originally and successfully reversed engineered the found chips.


Are you suggesting that all new buildings be rigged with demolition charges so as to avoid the need to hire controlled demolition engineers when a building needs to be brought down?

If you have read the paper mentioned above, you will see that only the red layer is super thermite. The purpose of the grey layer isn't known, and may be a substrate.
Claudius
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 02, 2011
The nanotech to make true superthermite was apparently not available back then, except maybe in secret underground area 51 alien black ops labs?


That's a bit of a moot point, since unignited pieces of superthermite were recovered from the scene.
hush1
2 / 5 (4) Oct 02, 2011
The premise is: One paint is innocuous alone until an added paint prepares a building for demolition - when the owner wants what was built destroyed.

The owner hires demolition engineers. The demolition engineers hires painters.

Or the owner simply hires painters and supplies paint.

The hypotheses is: A super thermite as paint is possible.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.9 / 5 (9) Oct 02, 2011
From claudines paper:

"The results indicate that the small particles with very high BSE intensity (brightness) are consistently 100 nm in size and have a faceted appearance. These bright particles are seen intermixed with plate-like particles that have intermediate BSE intensity and are approximately 40 nm thick and up to about 1 micron across. Furthermore, by comparing the BSE image in Fig.(8a) to the SE image in Fig.(9), it can be seen that all of the particles are embedded in an unstructured matrix which gives a dark BSE intensity."

From wiki:
"A critical aspect of the production [of nanothermite] is the ability to produce particles of sizes in the tens of nanometer range, as well as with a limited distribution of particle sizes."

It appears the particles are 10x too big. Further, the point of nano-sized particles is to increase contact between active material and oxidizer. Yours are imbedded in a matrix and are not in contact.
cont
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 02, 2011
You may have seen this entertaining video:
http://www.youtub...=related

-In which an engr plays with regular thermite/thermate in clever ways. He needs to use devices to focus the reaction in order to cut steel. Surface paint containing even superthermite would not affect steel. Superthermite can be ignited by EM fields and so must be encased. A matrix cannot be used as shielding as it suspends the particles and prevents them from interacting.

This engr implies a system configuration of 3 columns with demo devices separated by 6 without, as pics seem to show. So: 80 floors @ ? cols per floor with say 1 lb of thermite each = ? devices total, ? total lbs thermite? Do internal connections also need melting? How much superthermite can aliens make in a day?

Any evidence of concealed wiring for this massive system in construction or cleanup pics; like wires dangling from steel components?

I am already doing work which I should be getting paid for I think.
crhylove
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 03, 2011
Anybody with even a novice's grasp of basic physics knows that building do not spontaneously explode from the top down. There was evidence of thermite for christ's sake. I have to delete my connection with this article, I'm getting too much spam. Don't worry though kids, the government apologists and Zeitgeist handlers have already lost the public opinion. EVERYONE knows it was an inside job now, no matter how much some paid assholes in here rant and rave that it was two light weight aluminum planes and jet fuel that doesn't burn hot enough to weaken steel EVEN IN THE LAB UNDER IDEAL CONDITIONS!!
omatumr
1 / 5 (6) Oct 03, 2011
This week WikiLeaks exposed [1] the Trojan Horse and SPACE.com revealed the truth about Earth's unstable heat source:

www.space.com/131...ing.html

Environmentalism was a Trojan Horse we welcomed unaware that science [2,3] would be sacrificed for:

Redistribution of wealth [1] under a one-world government.

Conclusions:
A. The Great Reality [4] is greater than world leaders and dogmatic science.
B. Communion is greater than dogmatic communism.
C. God is much greater than any dogmatic religion.
D. Cowards hide under these dogmatic cloaks.

Regretfully it took me forty years (1971-2011) to decipher this.

1. www.nature.com/ne...20110929

2. www.nature.com/na...9a0.html

3. www.omatumr.com/a...nces.pdf

4. www.youtube.com/w...vJiyeLIo

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://myprofile....anuelo09
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 03, 2011
The Spammer strikes again. How many threads this time?

Space.com did no such thing. That article did not support you in anyway. For that matter neither have you.

So just how do Neutron Stars form when neutron repulsion is alleged by you to be so powerful that it stops Black Holes from forming no matter how large the mass?

Ignoring the question won't magically make you right Oliver. The ideas are contradictory and I bet even the Plasma Universe Cranks can see that now that it has been pointed out.

Ethelred
Claudius
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 03, 2011
Anybody with even a novice's grasp of basic physics knows that building do not spontaneously explode from the top down.


There were explosions in the lower levels before the top-down explosions.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 03, 2011
Anybody with even a novice's grasp of basic physics knows that building do not spontaneously explode from the top down.


There were explosions in the lower levels before the top-down explosions.
No they were pressure pulses and dust puffs. Did you complete my calcs? How many tons of thermite was needed?
Claudius
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 03, 2011
From wiki:
"A critical aspect of the production [of nanothermite] is the ability to produce particles of sizes in the tens of nanometer range, as well as with a limited distribution of particle sizes."


"Nanostructured composites are multicomponent
materials in which at least one of the component
phases has one or more dimensions
(length, width, or thickness) in the nanometer
size range, defined as 1 to 100 nm."

Gash AE, Satcher JH, Simpson RL, Clapsaddle BJ. Nanostructured energetic materials with sol-gel methods. Mater Res Soc Symp Proc 2004; 800:
55-66. [Accessed February 7, 2009].

Perhaps the definition has changed since pre-9/11.
Claudius
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 03, 2011
No they were pressure pulses and dust puffs. Did you complete my calcs? How many tons of thermite was needed?


This disagrees with what witnesses reported.

In any case, the presence of chips of unignited thermite in the dust puts to rest the idea that the buildings were rigged to fall back in the 1970's. This would be seen as evidence of the presence of explosives by a fire investigation, which was curiously not performed at the time.
kochevnik
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 03, 2011
Large buildings like the Twin Towers are built to be easily destroyed. The cost of demolition exceeds construction costs. Inserts are build in construction to shear key columns and the building is designed to collapse in a controlled demolition. And that's exactly what we saw the Twin Towers and WTC7 doing: collapsing in a controlled demolition. Silverstein even ordered "pull it" on video.

A notion that fire caused the controlled demolition is absurd. From my window is the 1st Interstate building which had a 14 floor intense flaming fire overnight. Yet we still bank and work out there two decades later. The building occupants peered out from these alleged molten fire-pits, proving that aircraft temperatures were in the range of health-spa saunas. The fact that many continue to promulgate metaphors to towering infernos only highlights their willful delusion. Of course there were secondary fires looking much like planted pyrotechnics. Any child can make that distinction.
Claudius
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 03, 2011
Large buildings like the Twin Towers are built to be easily destroyed.


What Otto is saying is that they were designed to fall when impacted by a large jet.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 03, 2011
Perhaps the definition has changed since pre-9/11.
There was no definition of this back when the Bldgs were constructed. The tech to manufacture it purposefully did not exist. Perhaps the disingenuous use of the prefix 'nano' is meant to evoke visions of black ops and discourage the idea that it was created in other ways?
This disagrees with what witnesses reported
Witnesses were scared shitless and their judgement thus impaired.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 03, 2011
Large buildings like the Twin Towers are built to be easily destroyed. The cost of demolition exceeds construction costs. Inserts are build in construction to shear key columns and the building is designed to collapse in a controlled demolition. And that's exactly what we saw the Twin Towers and WTC7 doing: collapsing in a controlled demolition.
Kochnevik, I am going to accuse you of making up these statements unless you can produce a source for them

You think you can come here and just make shit up or ape obvious lies? This site is frequented by scientists and engineers. Back up your statements or you are a liar.

We saw the ancillary damage caused by the fall of these bldgs. Because of the density of the neighborhoods in which they are built, bldgs of this scale need to be dismantled and not dropped. That is why they are typically designed with 100 year lifetimes.

To me the towers with their steel joist construction were built more like walmarts than high rises.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 03, 2011
In any case, the presence of chips of unignited thermite in the dust puts to rest the idea that the buildings were rigged to fall back in the 1970's.
The material you refer to was not nanothermite as it could not have been manufactured by the ton back in the 1970s. As it was in matrix it could not have been made to burn thermitically. As there was no evidence of the tons of nanothermite necessary to create the illusion that fire or damage brought the bldgs down, or any sort of system with which to ignite it, the nonsense that controlled demo brought the bldgs down can indeed be laid to rest.
hush1
2 / 5 (4) Oct 03, 2011
Superthermite can be ignited by EM fields and so must be encased. A matrix cannot be used as shielding as it suspends the particles and prevents them from interacting. - O


Is there a source for this information that is accessible?
Is there a minimum EM field strength for ignition?
Fionn_MacTool
2 / 5 (8) Oct 03, 2011
@Otto1923 Ok, let's take you at face value and that your agenda is really to get to the truth of this event and not just build up an alternative in which the planes actually brought down the buildings. If the building was designed to collapse when it was hit by a plane, why did building 7 collapse?

Why did the engineer who built it go on record to say it would survive plane strikes? - http://911researc...ngineers

How do you explain reports of power downs in the buildings before 911 and reports of the removal of bomb sniffing dogs?

- http://whatreally...ity.html

One could I suppose believe the original engineers were in on it, but if they were thinking ahead, they should have realised such statements would fuel alternative theories, no?

The power downs and removal of bomb sniffing dogs makes no sense.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 03, 2011
Is there a source for this information that is accessible?
Is there a minimum EM field strength for ignition?

"In general, super thermites are extremely hazardous to handle because of its high sensitivity to electrostatic discharge (ESD) that is usually less than 15 microjoules."
http://en.wikiped...thermite

-Im being polite.
If the building was designed to collapse when it was hit by a plane, why did building 7 collapse?
My contention is that the events of 9/11 were intended as justification for the reoccupation of the ME. Bldgs hit by planes was sufficient justification for this. None of the bldgs needed to have fallen, let alone wtc7.

WTC7 was severely damaged and burned for 9 hours. The debunking video I posted offers a convincing explanation of why it fell. It fell asymmetrically, toward the towers, after giving onlookers many signs that its structure was beginning to fail.

Further it was entirely incidental to the impact of the 9/11 events.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 03, 2011
Why did the engineer who built it go on record to say it would survive plane strikes?
"John Skilling was the head structural engineer for the World Trade Center. In a 1993 interview, Skilling stated that the Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a large jetliner such as Boeing 707 or Douglas DC-8."

Fact: When the planes hit the fire protection on the floor joists was blown off. The tech did not exist when the towers were built to effectively protect joists from this kind of damage. This exposed them to fire which weakened them, causing them to sag and pop the (2) 5/8" bolts holding them in place at either end. This caused floors to fall onto the floor below, which were not designed to support this type of load.

Why was this potential not explored in the design reports? Did fireproofing suppliers misrepresent their product? Its deficits were apparently not known at the time it was being used. The tech has since been improved.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 03, 2011
Fireproofing specs may not been the responsibility of the engr. At any rate his design would only have included the requirement for fire-protected joists to support such-and-such a load.

Fact: the fireprotection of core elements including egress and shaftwalls was composed of steel studs and drywall which could NOT have been selected to resist damage from PLANES. This was also blown away leaving stairwells unusable and allowing for vertical travel of fire, smoke, and apparently molten aluminum.

Inadequate structural fire protection and drywall fire protection are OBVIOUSLY not selections made to resist PLANE IMPACTS. An engr who claims his structure was designed for this may have been totally unaware that it was being left unprotected and so would not function as he INTENDED it to.

The initial selection of this unique and unproven structural system was no doubt made by a very few people including owner, 1 archt and 1 engr who then handed it off to lackeys for number crunching.
kochevnik
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 03, 2011
Kochnevik, I am going to accuse you of making up these statements unless you can produce a source for them
Seems your bias is showing. Not very scientific of you. Google is your friend. Architect at 30:00 http://www.mikeha...OLEY.mp3
We saw the ancillary damage caused by the fall of these bldgs. Because of the density of the neighborhoods in which they are built, bldgs of this scale need to be dismantled and not dropped. That is why they are typically designed with 100 year lifetimes.

Actually the Twin Towers were at the end of their life. The Port Authority faced a massive bill to remove asbestos from the columns of an aging building. Dismantling would have cost about eight billion dollars. That's why large skyscrapers have access along shear points to be brought down in their own footprint on a budget.
To me the towers with their steel joist construction were built more like walmarts than high rises.
Imagin
kochevnik
2.3 / 5 (9) Oct 03, 2011
Fact: the fireprotection of core elements including egress and shaftwalls was composed of steel studs and drywall which could NOT have been selected to resist damage from PLANES. This was also blown away leaving stairwells unusable and allowing for vertical travel of fire, smoke, and apparently molten aluminum.
Anyone who thinks that an aluminum wing will penetrate steel columns knows nothing about munitions. Aluminum against steel deforms and shreds like so much confetti. You can see blasts with foil emerging on the North Tower. On the South Tower you can see blasts without any airplane striking: http://rutube.ru/...3044119a Other MSM videos are plainly forged, such as the plane nosecone emerging unscathed and the wing-holes spreading like cracking glass.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 03, 2011
Seems your bias is showing. Not very scientific of you. Google is your friend. Architect at 30:00
Right. I didnt have a counter on playback so I couldnt tell where 30:00 was.

But Paul Laffoley was a lackey-type archt in Roths office who was assigned a small part of the interior design of one of the towers. He apparently suggested to someone the idea of connecting the towers with bridges, whereupon yamasaki the design architect had him removed from the project for presuming to exceed the bounds of his lackeytude I would surmise.

The roth firm was hired, again I assume, to create the construction docs for yamasakis design. Laffoley would not have been privy to selection of structural systems. He said nothing specific about bldgs being designed to be dropped. As I said this involves complex matters about location, proximity, construction, and SIZE.

Youve offered nothing to support your claim that bldge of this sort were being designed to be dropped.
kochevnik
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 03, 2011
Fireproofing specs may not been the responsibility of the engr. At any rate his design would only have included the requirement for fire-protected joists to support such-and-such a load.

Fact: the fireprotection of core elements including egress and shaftwalls was composed of steel studs and drywall which could NOT have been selected to resist damage from PLANES.
Yet more of your imaginary fire in areas where occupants were clearly seen standing, meaning the conditions were more that of of a sauna. Again the pancake theory you resurrect against all evidence was dismissed by NIST itself in their report. The floor joists were not critical support. The exterior or the towers and flooring could completely fall away and the core columns would stand. That's why small bolts attached them to the building columns, which were designed to take the ENTIRE load of the building.
kochevnik
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 03, 2011
The roth firm was hired, again I assume, to create the construction docs for yamasakis design. Laffoley would not have been privy to selection of structural systems. He said nothing specific about bldgs being designed to be dropped. As I said this involves complex matters about location, proximity, construction, and SIZE.

Youve offered nothing to support your claim that bldge of this sort were being designed to be dropped.
Paul was one of the architects and oversaw the construction. Obviously you missed the interview at 39:00 http://www.mikeha...OLEY.mp3
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 03, 2011
Laffoley did say some revealing things however. He mentioned that asbestos fireproofing was being eliminated, and that the steel would be bolted rather than welded. These would BOTH have made the bldgs more vulnerable to damage from planes.

He also discussed saudi curiosity about structural vulnerability to explosions in the basement. The first attack involved a truck bomb in the basement. Perhaps the lackey gave them the wrong info?
Actually the Twin Towers were at the end of their life. The Port Authority faced a massive bill to remove asbestos from the columns of an aging building.
More bullshit kochnevik? Asbestos was commonly used in 1000s of bldgs. Where abatement is impractical owners are usually relieved of the need. If health is in danger, alternatives such as encapsulation are explored. Was asbestos a health problem in these bldgs? Source please.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 03, 2011
Anyone who thinks that an aluminum wing will penetrate steel columns knows nothing about munitions. Aluminum against steel deforms and shreds like so much confetti.
Anything who knows anything about munitions knows lead bullets can penetrate steel armor.
Paul was one of the architects and oversaw the construction. Obviously you missed the interview at 39:00
Sorry in the interview he said he was removed from the project and he then returned to boston. Was his design work taking place during the bathtub construction. Quite likely. This is called fast tracking. They were very eager to get the bldg up which is why they were cutting corners.

Are you talking about the saudi tour of the bathtub?
kochevnik
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 03, 2011
Anything who knows anything about munitions knows lead bullets can penetrate steel armor.
What lead bullets?

Are you talking about the saudi tour of the bathtub?
Bin Laden Construction was contracted for building the WTC. Slightly damning, in conjunction with their relentless questioning about places to install the cutting charges.
http://www.youtub...mBavoQzE
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 03, 2011
The floor joists were not critical support. The exterior or the towers and flooring could completely fall away and the core columns would stand.
MORE outrageous BULLSHIT kochnevik??

Can you actually imagine the floors and shell of a 110 story bldg falling safely out of the way of the core without causing it any damage??

You obviously have no familiarity with bldg design or construction, but anyone can see that this it simply not possible. The floors failed causing chaotic damage to the shell and core BOTH. The towers then began their collapse. Floors provided lateral support of both shell and core. Neither could have stood without this support from a minimum number of floors.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 03, 2011
What lead bullets?
Jesus. You stated that aluminum could not penetrate steel. I pointed out that an even softer metal could.
Bin Laden Construction was contracted for building the WTC. Slightly damning, in conjunction with their relentless questioning about places to install the cutting charges.
So youre dodging the fact that Laffoly was not present during tower construction, when you said he was. Correct?
kochevnik
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 03, 2011
You obviously have no familiarity with bldg design or construction, but anyone can see that this it simply not possible. The floors failed causing chaotic damage to the shell and core BOTH. The towers then began their collapse. Floors provided lateral support of both shell and core. Neither could have stood without this support from a minimum number of floors.
So says you. Actually I have an architect in the family. In reality, the cores main purpose, which was to support most, if not all, of the gravity load (weight) of the building and to reduce it to just "an entrance and exit". The core provided the strength needed to support the weight of the structure, while the outer wall provided the necessary rigidity to resist lateral loading due to the wind. The architects have a more informed opinion. http://www.youtub...e#t=294s
kochevnik
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 03, 2011
Jesus. You stated that aluminum could not penetrate steel. I pointed out that an even softer metal could.
Density gives lead penetrating ability. Seriously now you're comparing aluminum foil to lead bullets?
So youre dodging the fact that Laffoly was not present during tower construction, when you said he was. Correct?
Architecture is part of constructing a building. You need to listen to the interview, not just make it up in your head. You obsession with minutia shows you're now just trolling. Again Bin Laden Construction was hired to build the towers and their initial concern was where to put the explosives.
Claudius
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 03, 2011
The material you refer to was not nanothermite as it could not have been manufactured by the ton back in the 1970s.


The article dates from 1999. What does that have to do with the 1970's?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.9 / 5 (9) Oct 03, 2011
So says you. Actually I have an architect in the family. In reality
So I have a cousin in the CIA. So what?? I suppose this means I know more about black ops than you? (I do you know.)
Density gives lead penetrating ability. Seriously now you're comparing aluminum foil to lead bullets?
No, mass times velocity gives terminal energy which indicates a projectiles penetration potential. Other factors include hardness and shape. The plane parts which destroyed wtc columns had good velocity and a lot of mass. They did not 'penetrate' as much as cause failure of structural components from buckling.
Architecture is part of constructing a building. You need to listen to the interview
I did. This is heresay from an aging lackey. He did again mention some interesting things: he described his isolation from actual design decisions as well as the control that the head archt yamasaki in chicago had over design decisions. Yamasaki also worked in saudi arabia, home of the bin ladens.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 03, 2011
The material you refer to was not nanothermite as it could not have been manufactured by the ton back in the 1970s.


The article dates from 1999. What does that have to do with the 1970's?
What are YOU talking about? What article? The bldgs were built in the 70s before nano anything had been invented. The ability to make nanothermite components did not exist until the 21 century although materials of that size certainly existed before then. Therefore the material must have been generated some other way.

The question is not whether nano-sized particles of AL and iron oxide could have existed back then, but whether they were purposely manufactured as superthermite.

Further this material was contained in matrix and could NOT have acted as thermite as the particles were not in CONTACT with each other.
Claudius
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 03, 2011
The article I referenced above about nanothermite chips recovered from WTC dust.

The issue was whether nanothermite existed in 2001. The article referenced dates to 1999, so yes it could. I do not belive explosives of any kind were installed in the 1970's, that is your contention.
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 03, 2011
TESLA HOWITZEWR EXPERT - there is no such thing. That guy you linked to, Otto, he is an idiot.

After rewatching it today, including the part where he showed it intact, no one yelled 'fire in the hole. Two people, at least, yelled ROCKET. Which is quite unlike fire in the hole which I never heard on the tape.

At 6:43 someone yells rocket and at 6:46 it is yelled again only louder. Also the person he claims yelled 'fire in the hole' isn't visible. Neither are the people that actually yelled rocket. And what he calls a blue flash from the soldiers postion is a lens flare and there is NO SOLDIER there. There is truck with its hood up which is hard to see in when he is showing commenting and pointing with his finger by filming the screen. Easier to see later at 6:40.

No soldier. A truck. Really.

No fire in the hole.

Rockets not magic weapons.

It is amazing just what crap people are willing convince themselves of. Especially the Tesla Cranks.

Ethelred
Tomas57
3 / 5 (2) Oct 04, 2011
I still maintain that this collapse violates the law of conservation of momentum absent a precise sequence of explosions.


And you're still wrong. You're assuming the WTC was a closed system without an external force. That external force was gravity, pulling down on the accumulating mass of the top portion of the building. Remember, falling objects accelerate at 32ft/sec/sec. Speed increases an objects mass. So, the mass of the "top" section not only increase by virtue of the material gained, but also by the increased velocity of the fall. It's an exponential increase.

You are also forgetting that the building is NOT a solid mass. It is mostly air. As the top section fell, its only obstacle was the floor immediately below it, not the entire building. Each floor was not designed to support the weight of the entire structure above it, even at rest.

The WTC collapsed one floor at a time. Once you see this, you will understand your mistake.

hush1
2 / 5 (4) Oct 04, 2011
ESD. Electrostatic Discharge.

The conjecture that the mysterious unknown purpose of the chip's substrate is "an efficient way to prevent ESD, the substrate being not too conductive and slowly conducting static charges away. These materials are called static dissipative and have resistivity values in the range of 10^5 to 10^11 ohm-meters." can be resolved.

http://en.wikiped...ischarge

Q.

Have the researchers measure the substrate's resistivity?
hush1
2 / 5 (4) Oct 04, 2011
The WTC collapsed one floor at a time. - T


For WTC 7 this description is incorrect.
Fionn_MacTool
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 04, 2011
@Otto1923 Regarding building 7 "it was entirely incidental to the impact of the 9/11 events."

It is not incidental to the events of 911. The many odd facts associated with building 7 have been listed ad nauseam above, many of which you do not address. You then reference a less than reliable video for how it collapsed in what visibly appears to be a controlled demolition (at least to experts in controlled demolition who have been shown the video, and the vast majority of lay men who look at controlled demolitions and then look at the collapse of building 7).

Fionn_MacTool
2.3 / 5 (9) Oct 04, 2011
@Otto1923 Oddly, your focus with the twin towers is the fire proofing and how it was removed by the impact of the planes. Now, it may be possible that not one engineer in the design of high rise buildings up until 911 was aware of this possibility, although most rational persons would say that the buildings were over engineered for such events. But you are right, it is not outside the realm of possibility. But why focus so strongly on this argument for the twin towers and completely ignore it for building seven, as if the two events exist in two separate realities each needing their own set of explanations? Anyone who looks at the buildings collapses can SEE they ALL fell in what looks to the layman and to the expert in controlled demolitions, like a controlled demolition.

Otto, I can't help but get the impression (perhaps wrongly) that you are attempting to play a game of sleight of hand here.
Fionn_MacTool
2 / 5 (8) Oct 04, 2011
@Otto1923 And lets assume you are right about the fire proofing. We know what happens when a plane is found to have bad engineering. Al other planes are recalled and the fault design element is replaced, or some some new design element is introduced to address the fault.

Can you tell me, from your expertise (as you must have looked into this to justify your argument), how many buildings post 911 and built pre trade centre, have undergone renovation to avoid collapses similar to ANY of the buildings that collapsed on 911? I imagine, if this is a real risk, which would result in complete collapse of the entire structure, this would have been done with very many.
Claudius
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 04, 2011
Have the researchers measure the substrate's resistivity?


"We measured the resistivity of the red material (with very little gray adhering to one side) using a Fluke 8842A multimeter in order to compare with ordinary paints, using the formula: Specific resistivity = RA / L where R = resistance (ohms); A = cross-sectional area (m2); L = thickness (m). Given the small size of the red chip, about 0.5 mm x 0.5 mm, we used two probes and obtained a rough value of approximately 10 ohm-m. This is several orders of magnitude less than paint coatings we found tabulated which are typically over 10^10 ohm-m [31]."
Claudius
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 04, 2011
The WTC collapsed one floor at a time. - T

For WTC 7 this description is incorrect.


It is also incorrect for WTC1 and WTC2
Claudius
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 04, 2011
@Tomas57

You are also forgetting that the building is NOT a solid mass. It is mostly air.


Steel (or any material) is mostly empty space. So what is your point? Unless it was intentionally designed to fall when exposed to an airline impact (a la Otto) it was designed to stand. I side with those who say it was built to remain standing. All high rise buildings are, and all of them when exposed to intense fire and airplane crashes (eg.Empire State Bld.) have remained standing. Except on 9/11, when the laws of physics and structural engineering were all suspended.
Claudius
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 04, 2011
@Fionn_MacTool
Otto, I can't help but get the impression (perhaps wrongly) that you are attempting to play a game of sleight of hand here.


The picture that comes to my mind is a row of monkeys, one placing hands over eyes, the next over ears, and the last over mouth. I guess you could call that sleight of hands(s).
blanereigns
1 / 5 (1) Oct 04, 2011
this collapse violates the law of conservation of momentum absent a precise sequence of explosions.


You're assuming the WTC was a closed system without an external force. That external force was gravity, pulling down on the accumulating mass of the top portion of the building. Remember, falling objects accelerate at 32ft/sec/sec. Speed increases an objects mass. So, the mass of the "top" section not only increase by virtue of the material gained, but also by the increased velocity of the fall. It's an exponential increase.

The WTC collapsed one floor at a time.


I'm obviously aware gravity was in play. It doesn't change the fact that the top section should have been decelerating as it crushed floors, not accelerating because of gravity. 32ft/s/s is the acceleration for free-fall, not falling thru a web of steel and concrete. Watch a Verinage Demo. Take note of the floor they remove to ensure complete demolition. It wouldn't work any other way.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.9 / 5 (9) Oct 04, 2011
@Ethelred
Re TESLA HOWITZEWR
Yeah funny but entertaining but informative but sad. He mentions something like a quakein the street which is obviously the shock from the explosion.

I should like to point out that just because videos like that exist does not mean that tesla howitzers or other iterations of weaponized vacuum energy do not exist... 8-0 (emoticon for shock and awe/shekinah)
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.9 / 5 (9) Oct 04, 2011
@Otto1923 Oddly, your focus with the twin towers is the fire proofing and how it was removed by the impact of the planes. Now, it may be possible that not one engineer in the design of high rise buildings up until 911 was aware of this possibility, although most rational persons would say that the buildings were over engineered for such events.
Overengineering costs money. They were vulnerable.
But you are right, it is not outside the realm of possibility. But why focus so strongly on this argument for the twin towers and completely ignore it for building seven, as if the two events exist in two separate realities each needing their own set of explanations?
Well obviously the towers and wtc7 collapsed for different reasons
Anyone who looks at the buildings collapses can SEE they ALL fell in what looks to the layman and to the expert in controlled demolitions, like a controlled demolition.
The layman would think that fire and damage brought them all down.
Cont
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.9 / 5 (9) Oct 04, 2011
The layman has no idea what controlled demo is and so would not suspect this unless it was sold to them by CTs, and they would then be intrigued because many laymen love sci fi mysteries and hate authority. This is why the X Files was so popular.

Meanwhile experts who are not unemployed bloggers or lackey architects and who have taken the time to educate themselves on all sides of the issue, have weighed in and found the 'controlled demo' theory to be pretty much absurd. See the wtc7 debunking video posted above.
...how many buildings post 911...have undergone renovation
Ha! I would say none. You obviously have no idea how expensive and IMPOSSIBLE this would be. You expose the bottomless depths of your cluelessness. Unfathomable depths? Deep dark abyss maybe?
Claudius
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 04, 2011
Meanwhile experts ... have weighed in and found the 'controlled demo' theory to be pretty much absurd."


Depends on whose experts you mean. If you mean NIST and their ilk, remember that they didn't even consider the POSSIBILITY that explosives were used. They didn't' even look for evidence. They adjusted the evidence to fit their pre-determined conclusion. If you mean these kinds of experts, they have little weight.

Then, we have testimony of other experts, experts in controlled demolition, who, after viewing the video of the collapses say that it was unquestionably controlled demolition.

This doesn't even include the 1,600 architects and engineers who all have come forward to add their opinion that the buildings were controlled demolition.

So as far as weight goes, the experts agree it was controlled demolition.
Fionn_MacTool
2 / 5 (8) Oct 04, 2011
@Otto1923 "The layman would think that fire and damage brought them all down....The layman has no idea what controlled demo is and so would not suspect this unless it was sold to them by CTs"

And this assumption of yours is based on what? You seem to have very little regard for the laymans ability at critical thought. So I assume you believe that if the layman was told that they pancaked or aluminium reacted with water, or whatever the next theory is then they will believe that as well, without any critical thought.

What do you think would be the result of the following experiment? Show a layman any other example of any other burning steel building. Then show them a controlled demolition. Then show them three buildings collapses. Do you think they might say that they look like a controlled demolition?
Fionn_MacTool
2 / 5 (4) Oct 04, 2011
@Otto1923 "Ha! I would say none. You obviously have no idea how expensive and IMPOSSIBLE this would be."

Impossible? Well now...that is quite a statement for a scientist to make. Of course it would not be impossible. And given the IMPACT of 911 (2 wars of rising costs), surely it is something worth considering for high risk buildings IF we are actually serious about the risk.

I think the real reason why it is not discussed or considered is that there is no risk. Because everyone knows a 911 event conducted by a couple of Islamic terrorists is so highly improbable, that it remains as unlikely to happen again today as when it occurred in 2001.
Fionn_MacTool
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 04, 2011
"occured" :D
Claudius
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 04, 2011
----------------
"Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues?"
"NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel."
NIST Responses to FAQs, August 2006
-----------------
"NIST spokesperson Michael E. Neuman was challenged by Hartford Advocate reporter Jennifer Abel on this glaring omission in the WTC report

ABEL: what about that letter where NIST said it didn't look for evidence of explosives?

NEUMAN: Right, because there was no evidence of that.

ABEL: But how can you know there's no evidence if you don't look for it first?

NEUMAN: If you're looking for something that isn't there, you're wasting your time."
-----------------

THIS is the scientific approach? THESE are the EXPERTS you so highly esteem?
Claudius
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 04, 2011
So in other words, Michael E. Neuman (any relation to Alfred?) of NIST is saying that the the possibility of explosives being a part of the 9/11 event was so remote as to be a waste of time to investigate. He equates it the status of space aliens. He says this knowing that there were hundreds of witnesses who saw and heard explosions before the towers and WTC7 blew up. Knowing that molten steel had been seen, photographed and videoed, something that can't be explained by kerosene fires.

Perhaps he really believes that the public will accept his pronouncement at face value. No, wait, that is what happened! He's completely right, he can say and do anything with complete impunity, because even if some of us detect the lie, the vast majority are too busy to notice.
Claudius
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 04, 2011
Do you think they might say that they look like a controlled demolition?


No, you don't get it. Otto believes the towers were demolished. He thinks that some people conspired to build the towers so that they would fall in a controlled demolition manner when hit by an airplane. He claims the 9/11 event was being implemented at the time of the construction of the towers.

In the meantime, he is busy trying to shoot down anyone who suggests that the towers might have been brought down with explosives planted months before the event.

Somehow, it is easier for him to believe the towers were built with the knowledge that they would have airplanes colliding with them some day, and that they planned for the towers to react by collapsing in a manner suggestive of controlled demolition, so as to throw us off the trail.

Even though there is no evidence to support his theory, and a great deal to support the controlled demolition theory.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 04, 2011
Depends on whose experts you mean.
Real experts who have taken the time to educate themselves on the issues?
If you mean NIST...consider the POSSIBILITY that explosives were used.
Because, after all, it IS pretty silly. And there was already all that damage from those planes...and the fires and all...
They didn't even look for evidence.
They were being prudent with taxpayer money? Did they also look for evidence of tesla howitzers? Phaser strikes?
They adjusted the evidence to fit their pre-determined conclusion.
I dont believe that is true. But I believe you guys have done so. Like ignoring video showing wtc7 falling asymmetrically.
If you mean these kinds of experts, they have little weight.
In the opinion of somebody who is not qualified to judge the qualifications of experts, who is only parroting the opinions of others similarly unqualified? Their evaluation process principally depends on whether the opinions of those experts agree with their own.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 04, 2011
he is busy trying to shoot down anyone who suggests that the towers might have been brought down with explosives planted months before the event.
I am trying to disprove the alleged evidence for such, which is very easy to do.
...it is easier for him to believe the towers were built with the knowledge that they would have airplanes colliding with them some day
Exactly! Now youre getting it.
and that they planned for the towers to react by collapsing in a manner suggestive of controlled demolition
No I think you have this inside outwards. The bldg collapses are easily explained as a result of impact, fire, and damage. You guys are trying to make them appear the result of controlled demo. Nobody with any clue would believe this after looking at all the evidence and the arguments against it.
so as to throw us off the trail.
Who cares what trail you are on? You post silly stuff and otto has debunking fun, while reinforcing his own excellent theories. I appreciate this.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 04, 2011
"Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues?"
"NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel."
NIST Responses to FAQs, August 2006
-----------------
"NIST spokesperson Michael E. Neuman was challenged by Hartford Advocate reporter Jennifer Abel on this GLARING!!! omission in the WTC report

ABEL: what about that letter where NIST said it didn't look for evidence of explosives?

NEUMAN: Right, because there was no evidence of that.

ABEL: But how can you know there's no evidence if you don't look for it first?

NEUMAN: If you're looking for something that isn't there, you're wasting your time."
-----------------

THIS is the scientific approach? THESE are the EXPERTS you so highly esteem?
Exactly again! It seems Ottos proselytism is more effective than he thought-

Did he say anything about testing for green alien snot like in the sigourney weaver movies? You saw what that stuff did to bulkheads man-
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 04, 2011
Even though there is no evidence to support his theory, and a great deal to support the controlled demolition theory.
-And if we use the reciprocal of this statement we have a truthful one:

'Even though there is NO EVIDENCE to support the controlled demolition theory, and a GREAT DEAL to support his Theory...'

-There. Thats better.

-I will give you this: there is a great deal of misinterpretation, heresay, misquoting, prevarication, deception, outright fabrication, and theatrics in support of the controlled demo hypothesis, which IS indeed a great deal of stuff.

But like imaginary supernanothermite from the future, it is not worth a whole lot.
Claudius
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 04, 2011
Exactly again! It seems Ottos proselytism is more effective than he thought-


Let's hypothesize about a fire investigator named Otto who is responsible for the investigation of a warehouse fire. Otto employs the scientific method. He is an expert.

When he arrives at the scene, there are many people who tell him that they saw and heard explosions coming from the building before the fire started. They have photographs and pieces of physical evidence of explosives. Otto applies his scientific mind and determines that the witnesses are misinterpreting what they saw and heard, that they had Photoshopped the images, and faked the physical evidence.

He then decides that the possibility of explosives was so remote as to be a waste of time to his investigation. He concludes that the building was designed to combust spontaneously. He later explains he found no evidence for explosives because he hadn't looked for any.

Knowing this, who would hire Otto to investigate fires?
hush1
2 / 5 (4) Oct 04, 2011
"Thermal Hot Spots" makes this destruction unique.
So now we have two categories:

.1)All other destruction including demolition.
.2)Thermal Hot Spot destruction.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 04, 2011
When he arrives at the scene, there are many people who tell him that they saw and heard explosions coming from the building before the fire started. They have photographs and pieces of physical evidence of explosives. Otto applies his scientific mind and determines that the witnesses are misinterpreting what they saw and heard, that they had Photoshopped the images, and faked the physical evidence
But wait! Otto notices a large plane sticking out of the buidings roof. Could this be the source of the explosion sounds? Otto does much investigating of the damage and fires in light of this plane sticking out of the roof and finds that this unfortunate accident ALONE explains everything he sees. Otto concludes his report, and those who funded his study applaud his brevity and thrift.

Others do however examine the photos and other evidence presented by people of dubious intent, and one by one find conventional explanations for all of them. Except of course the ones which were faked.
Claudius
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 04, 2011
Otto does much investigating of the damage and fires in light of this plane sticking out of the roof. and finds that this unfortunate accident ALONE explains everything he sees.


At this point, Otto shuts the investigation down, even though guidelines require fire investigators to always look for evidence of explosives, no matter how improbable. Since he disregarded the eyewitness and physical evidence, and didn't follow guidelines to look for evidence of explosives, he came to the wrong conclusion because he did not have all of the evidence available. He congratulated himself for his instant diagnosis with the airplane, which later investigators determined to be a coincidence.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 04, 2011
What guidelines are those Claude? You have a source? And guidelines are not regulations or codes or laws or statutes. Perhaps you used the wrong word.

As with the term 'coincidence' - are you saying that the plane impacts and the buildings falling were unrelated, as in 'the bldgs would have fallen whether planes had hit them or not'? 'WTC7 would have fallen even if it hadn't been severely damaged and on fire for 9 hours? Is this what you're saying?? These are significant points to clarify.
Claudius
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 04, 2011
1. NFPA 9.3.6 The maintenance of the integrity of evidence at any suspicious fire. The record shows that the majority of the evidence was destroyed.

2. NFPA 19.2.4 Exotic accelerants. Explosives and incendiaries were not tested for in the presence of molten steel and powdered concrete. Testing for Thermite Mixtures and residues are a requirement.

3. NFPA 18.15 Analyze fuel source. One single fuel source that must account for the types of damage you find in materials must be identified. They did not find a fuel source that met all criteria for the damage observed.

4. NFPA 19.4.8.2.6 If Extremism is expected you must test for exotic accelerants and explosives. They did not.

5. NFPA 14.3 Preservation of the physical evidence. The entire fire scene is considered to be physical evidence and must be preserved. They destroyed evidence immediately and transported most of the steel to China.

Claudius
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 04, 2011
As with the term 'coincidence' - are you saying that the plane impacts and the buildings falling were unrelated, as in 'the bldgs would have fallen whether planes had hit them or not'? 'WTC7 would have fallen even if it hadn't been severely damaged and on fire for 9 hours? Is this what you're saying?? These are significant points to clarify.


It was a hypothetical situation. In that scenario, the explosions started the fire, the airplane arrived later and Otto in his hubris came to a conclusion without conducting a complete investigation.
Fionn_MacTool
2 / 5 (4) Oct 05, 2011
"Did he say anything about testing for green alien snot like in the sigourney weaver movies? You saw what that stuff did to bulkheads man-"

:) Otto continually resorts to straw men arguments. Indicative perhaps of a sense that he is loosing control of the debate? I will point out what he is doing for those who don't understand:

Perhaps a single magic bullet fired from Oswalds gun somehow skipped through time and arrived at the twin towers only to ricochet of the support beams making people THINK they heard explosions and also weakening the structure just enough to cause it to collapse in what APPEARS to be a controlled demolition. Is that what you believe Otto? That a time travelling bullet knocked down the twin towers man?

Please stop resorting to such infantile tactics, it only lowers the tone of the entire discussion and if you were as confident in your theory as Claudius is, you (like him) would have no need for them.
Fionn_MacTool
2 / 5 (4) Oct 05, 2011
I will also give Otto the benefit of the doubt and assume he either did not have time to address my point and not that he is being wilfully ignorant. And I do think it is an important point.

@Otto What do you think the result would be of the following experiment. Place a layman in front of a screen. Show them examples of sky scrapers on fire (starting with these examples - http://911researc...res.html

Next show them controlled demolitions of buildings. There are again plenty of examples. Finally show them the collapse of the twin towers and building 7. Now ask them, what appears to have happened to the trade centre buildings?

Otto, so, these are laymen, so they are only going on what APPEARS to have happened. What do you think they might say? And I would like an honest reasoned answer here.
Ethelred
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 05, 2011
Perhaps a single magic bullet fired from Oswalds gun
No magic bullet was needed. A single bullet lines up just fine in the Zapruder film. Mark Lane just made up a bunch of crap and people bought into it.

There that's done it. Conspiracy fans just hate the truth about Oswald. He shot Kennedy. Twice.

Ethelred
Fionn_MacTool
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 05, 2011
@Ethelred, that is out of context and you have missed the point which was about straw man arguments and really had nothing to do with JFK...just like 911 has nothing to do with aliens. SO, lets stop bringing up things that have no relation to the topic.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 05, 2011
Sorry Fiona no videos exist of bldgs of anywhere near the type and scale of the towers or wtc7 collapsing from the particular damage and fire they sustained. This is not because they were demoed intentionally, but because the same circumstances never occurred previously.

Just because something vaguely resembles something else means nothing. Only an examination of specifics leads to the proper conclusion.

And that was no strawman just a comparison of your demo theory to something equally absurd. Obviously.
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 05, 2011
@Ethelred, that is out of context
Nonsense. It was reply to something you said.

SO, lets stop bringing up things that have no relation to the topic.
So quit claiming the buildings free fell. That has no relation to reality.

If you don't want other things brought up then don't do it. I got the reaction I expected from Claudius. He gave a it a one but didn't give YOU a one for bringing it up in the first place. So I have to assume that really thinks Oswald didn't kill Kennedy.

How about you? Otto doesn't. I consider this a way to see who is so far into conspiracy that they can't deal with reality. Like the Free Fall claim.

And of course Aliens were involved. The guys that hijacked the planes were ALIENS. From the Middle East not space but still aliens.

Ethelred
mikiewooliebugger
2 / 5 (4) Oct 05, 2011
All of you sound like idiots! whats not important is how the bldgs fell or what tactics were used. those that did this are laughing away at you fools! there are nearly 3000 souls that are crying out from under the alter. you all keep guessing but miss the point. we need to know who not how, the damage has been done and the dead will not return. Please look at all the events of that day and realise that all is not as it seems. I was with the commishioner of the Port Authority of NY-NJ that morning and had access to information being sent for three weeks after before being redirected in my duties. please understand that you are all wasting you time and energies by going in this direction.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 05, 2011
Sorry Claudius you'll have to do a little better than that. NFPA docs are constantly being changed. You will need to cite the specific docs AND the date when your paragraphs were added or changed.

This is important because the wording you are implying is there, may have been added post-9/11, which is what I suspect.

Further you have to ascertain whether the govt agencies involved actually acknowledged these specific NFPA sections and changes. Some authorities will cite codes of a certain date even though they have been superseded because the later codes may not have been properly reviewed, stray from the jurisdictions intent, etc.

The Feds have their own regs for many things. You need to make sure a federal reg wasn't being used instead of the docs you think apply. This may all have already been done by somebody who in fact didn't know how to do these things. If you are just copying their shit you ought to check these things before just copy pasting them. If that's what you did.
Fionn_MacTool
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 05, 2011
@ Mikie, true...we here can do very little. But still, it is a shame when people can no longer report what they see.

@ Ethelred "Nonsense. It was reply to something you said." Read it again so and try and understand it this time. "So quit claiming the buildings free fell." Please point out where I said that? "If you don't want other things brought up then don't do it." That's a fair point, I shouldn't have. But remember, I only brought JFK up to elucidate what Otto was doing by bringing up aliens. Why didn't YOU jump on that?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (8) Oct 05, 2011
@Fiona
Ethelred knows I enjoy making fun of silliness. Your credibility bottomed out a few posts ago.
Fionn_MacTool
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 05, 2011
@Otto "Just because something vaguely resembles something else means nothing. Only an examination of specifics leads to the proper conclusion."

Well, if the resemblance is so vague, why don't you answer the question? You still haven't answered what you as a rational person think would be the likely conclusion to the proposed experiment. I can rationalise why this is so, but until you answer I can only guess.

My guess is that you realise that they do in fact APPEAR to be controlled demolitions, and once you admit that you are left with buildings collapsing in a manner which APPEARS to be controlled demolition and also (and this was originally ignored by the official enquiry) with multiple reports of the sound of explosions. At which point, one begins to loose all credibility by denying even an investigation into the possibility of controlled demolition.
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 05, 2011
All of you sound like idiots!
Would you mind learning how to make a coherent post.

At the very least you search your keyboard for the ENTER key and USE IT. Monoblock posts are difficult to parse.

Oh and there is no Beast or Evil One just humans that sometimes do evil things. How much else of what you write is a figment of your imagination?

Ethelred
Fionn_MacTool
2.7 / 5 (7) Oct 05, 2011
@Otto1923 If you had any credibility, you would be the first to be asking for a proper independent investigation to prove us all wrong.

TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (8) Oct 05, 2011
@Otto1923 If you had any credibility, you would be the first to be asking for a proper independent investigation to prove us all wrong.

Blah?
Fionn_MacTool
2.5 / 5 (8) Oct 05, 2011
P.s. The fact you spell my name Fiona instead of Fionn...is it because they "vaguely" resemble each other? Maybe this entire argument would be solved if you purchased a new pair of glasses.
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 05, 2011
Read it again so and try and understand it this time.
I understood it the first time.

Please point out where I said that?
Sorry if you didn't. Almost all the people that think demolition was involved make that claim. You seem unique in this discussion on that.

up aliens. Why didn't YOU jump on that?
There is this 1000 character limit. And I skip over a lot of Otto's posts as it helps me retain my sanity. So I didn't see it. HOWEVER I did deal with the WORD aliens.

Where is Helen Ripley when we need her?

I gave up taking this discussion seriously some time ago. You, Claudius and Otto play nice now. I do reserve the right to look in and take pot shots at particularly absurd remarks. I am busy trying to get Oliver K. Manuel to engage in rational discourse. This effort is likely to remain futile but I feel the need as he is a total ass and that is the GOOD part.

Tesla Howitzer indeed.

Ethelred
blanereigns
1 / 5 (1) Oct 05, 2011
Ethelred, I was the one that said building 7 reached free fall acceleration on its way down. I didn't make it up, its part of the official story. It's spelled out in black and white on page 45 of NIST's NCSTAR 1A. 9.81m/s/s for a full 2.25 seconds. You should at least familiarize yourself with the official narrative before deciding whether or not you agree with it.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 05, 2011
P.s. The fact you spell my name Fiona instead of Fionn...is it because they "vaguely" resemble each other? Maybe this entire argument would be solved if you purchased a new pair of glasses.
As if that's your real name. Spellcheck decides these things not me
Freefall blahblah
As I recall tis was debunked in one of the videos I posted above. The guy who timed it off the video did not use the brute sequence, just the part which seemed to reinforce his (spurious) claim.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 05, 2011
See how spellcheck thinks brute is a ore appropriate word than whole?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 05, 2011
Where is Helen Ripley when we need her?

What you mean this?
http://www.youtub...a_player

-Is this some kind of a cruel JOKE?!!???

Perhaps it was these aliens
http://www.youtub...a_player

-black metal - right for any occasion. 
Claudius
2.2 / 5 (10) Oct 05, 2011
@TheGhostofOtto1923
Blah?


ACK! Ack! Ack!Ack! Ack! ACK!

ACKACKACKACK!
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 06, 2011
Yo Claudius! Enough flummery. What has your investigation of NFPA produced? Anything? Ready to acknowledge the spurious nature of your reference to such? [silence]
Fionn_MacTool
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 07, 2011
The question Otto refuses to answer. What would the layman think APPEARS to happen by comparing the following? -

Examples of burning sky scrapers:
- http://www.youtub...=related

(More info on other burning sky scrapers)- http://911researc...res.html

Examples of controlled demolitions
- http://www.youtub...Q3AkRetI
- http://www.youtub...eb-Gqyes
- http://www.youtub...WRHe4AKs

And then the collapse of Building 7 -
http://www.youtub...rn4k55lA

And twin towers -
http://www.youtub...uTjRNdVI

You still say after comparison it doesn't even APPEAR to look like controlled demolition? My guess is Otto you will avoid answering the question I asked for the THIRD time, which exposes your bias.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (8) Oct 07, 2011
You mean again don't you Fiona? I'll answer this same question AGAIN for you, sure

Your examples are all of bldgs which had their own structural systems and unique fires. They were all of different sizes, contained different materials, and were built to different codes snd standards. NONE of them sustained damage from planes or debris.

The ONLY way to understand why each didn't collapse and why Wtc did is to analyze each individually. If you knew how to do this you would understand why the argument you are making only makes your camp appear less credible and not more.

Your Wtc7 clip, as usual, is from the angle which does not show it collapsing toward the towers, asymmetrically, as it did. Why is that? Why dont you link videos which clarify and not obscure?

Something which merely LOOKS like something else means nothing. Dogshit LOOKS like ground chuck but only flies will eat it. Yes?

If you need the same correct answer to your same misleading question again, let me know ok?
Claudius
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 07, 2011
@TheGhostofOtto1923

I do not have access to the NFPA guidelines that were in effect at the time of the 9/11 incident. Do you?

If you really want to know, which I doubt, you can inquire at this address and probably get an authoritative answer: http://firefighte...e_id=474

Enough obfuscation! It is completely inconceivable that any agency charged with investigation (eg. NIST) would not look for evidence of explosives at the site of a terrorist attack. Especially when there were hundreds of reliable witnesses (firemen, police, reporters, etc.) who made public statements as the events of 9/11 were unfolding, that they had heard and seen multiple "secondary" explosions before and during the fall of the three buildings. Later evidence only reinforced those reports. In an honest investigation, NIST would have checked for traces of explosives, instead they entirely disregarded reliable witness testimony, thus failing in their duty.
Claudius
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 07, 2011
Something which merely LOOKS like something else means nothing.


Here's a video of Danny Jowenko, a controlled demolition expert, who, after viewing a video of WTC7's collapse, was ready to conclude it was controlled demolition: http://www.youtub...gr6xtQIc

Interestingly, he did not know it was a 9/11 event video.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 07, 2011
I do not have access...
Well then you shouldn't be citing them should you? Please link the source you got them from so I can discredit it please.
...didn't check for explosives ... crazy Nazi aliens... NIST hiding commie takeover...
They didn't explore the potential for aluminum/sprinkler water explosions either. They apparently didn't have to, as there were no regs in place requiring them to use special methods for terrorist attacks. Unless you can produce some that shows they were required to do so.

I think you'll find that the bulk of them were instituted post-9/1.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 07, 2011
Danny jowenko. Yeah. Danny is 'unprejudiced' because this is the first he's heard about wtc7. He watches ONE clip, a typical one showing the Bldg face-on, and right away concludes it collapsed from the bottom.

But as we know (and Danny does not), the penthouse collapses first, from one end, before the good face starts to go. This tells us (and not Danny) that the structure which supports the penthouse failed first.

This asymmetricity is clearly visible from other angles and proves that Danny didn't know near enough about the Bldg to be deciding things about it. Which makes him a poor source indeed.

-And you know this Claud but failed to mention it. How come?
Fionn_MacTool
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 07, 2011
@ Otto "If you need the same correct answer to your same misleading question again, let me know ok?"

You still refuse to answer the question I ASKED, so no change there. If you could give ONE example of a steel structured building collapsing in the manner that fits any of your theories (which one are you supporting now? they keep changing you see, no doubt to deal with the OVERWHELMING evidence of the sound of explosions) I might be able to take you seriously.

Fionn_MacTool
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 07, 2011
@Otto "Something which merely LOOKS like something else means nothing."

What utter rubbish. Of course it means something. In the original trial of OJ Simpson, all the observable evidence may have made it LOOK like OJ killed his wife. Do you know how they determined it wasn't OJ Simpson? They had a proper investigation into the possibility that he killed his wife. They didn't investigate whether she somehow mysteriously fell on her knife in a manner which has never occurred before. While you could probably come up with a scenario in which she did repeatedly fall on her knife, no matter how unlikely that is...they investigated the incident on how it APPEARED, that someone had murdered her.

So to spell it out to you, because I know you are having difficulty with this. If it appears to people like a controlled demolition, investigate that possibility! Don't be afraid of the investigation. Sure, you are so sure it isn't you should welcome it! I would love to see you proved right.
Fionn_MacTool
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 07, 2011
@Otto And your incorrect use of my name just makes your argument look weaker. Why resort to such childish behaviour?
Claudius
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 07, 2011
Well then you shouldn't be citing them should you? Please link the source you got them from so I can discredit it please.


More obfuscation. You still miss the point.

Claudius
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 07, 2011
From the Jowekno interview:

Interviewer: "Could this building spontaneously collapse for example because these columns are damaged in this way?" (Showing diagram of WTC and which columns were believed to have been damaged)

Jowenko: "No, I don't believe that. No, I don't believe that."

Then later:

Jowenko: "This is the work of man."
JOwenko: "NO, this is also a hired... sir said it himself, you hear him saying pull it down, away with it."

Interviewer: "No in the WTC you saw the plumes of smoke at the sides of the building. You saw it from top to down; here you see the reverse thing. It starts at the bottom and goes up."

Jowenko: "Those are the charges, they damage the structures and at the other one the mass says: I can't hold you, I can't hold you and it pulverizes the cement from it."
Claudius
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 07, 2011
More from the interview:

Interviewer: "The strange thing about this story is that the official report, made by FEMA, they have investigated how this building could have imploded. They say, it appears the collapse was due to, primarily to fire rather than any impact damage from the collapsing towers. They don't mention explosives at all. Because according to the official report it hasn't been pulled down by explosives"

Jowenko: "I think this is obviously a building that has been imploded. If this is the consequence of the coming down of the WTC towers...that would greatly astonish me. I can't imagine it. No."

and later:
Jowenko: "But why did they lie about it?"
Claudius
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 07, 2011
@TheGhostofOtto1923
They didn't explore the potential for aluminum/sprinkler water explosions either.


They didn't look for midgets attacking the columns with hacksaws, either. However, this could be justified because there were no witnesses that said they saw a group of little men sawing away at the columns.

In the case of not looking for evidence of explosives, they don't have this excuse, as there were numerous reliable witnesses to explosions. So the idea that they felt the possibility of explosions was so remote as to not require investigation is totally without merit.

Claudius
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 07, 2011
@TheGhostofOtto1923
You mean again don't you Fiona?


Fionn is right. It IS childish. In a reasonable, civil discourse, we should refrain from making ad hominem references or childish innuendos.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 07, 2011
The video says jowenko first became aware of wtc7 for the interview. He did not mention nor did he ask about the extent of damage or fire.

If he was a structural Eng'r or knew anything about other ways bldgs can fail besides controlled demo, he would have asked about these things. He did not. Did he review the structural plans? Did he study how the steel was fireproofed? Did he see the debunking video I posted above wherein it was described how the Bldg fell due to fire and damage...by an Eng'?

No. He was not paid to do these things. He was only paid to offer an opinion supporting the CT video made in - where - Poland?

Sorry. You say many many engrs and Archts who took the time to study A LOT more evidence than Danny, are wrong. I say Danny who sees one video, a few diagrams, and asks no detailed questions, is wrong. Because his conclusion differs with what obviously happened.

@dionn so sorry you're so easily upset dear.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 07, 2011
And you're right. Explosives were indeed as improbable as midgets.

NO ONE ever saw evidence of the tons of thermite in hundreds of charges, nor the elaborate remote control system necessary to selectively set them off to simulate a plane collision or collisions at any of the thousands of places they could have hit; either during construction, occupancy, maintenance and renovation, or collapse.

Planes and fire make lots of things go pop and bang. Overpressure and deformation explode windows. Elevators fall. Structure starts to fail in places. Stuff falls through floors. An imaginary demo system which would have been impossible to build is not needed to account for them.
Claudius
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 07, 2011
If he was a structural Eng'r or knew anything about other ways bldgs can fail besides controlled demo, he would have asked about these things. He did not.


As someone with many years experience in controlled demolition, he knew what a controlled demolition "looked like." In the same manner as a cowboy can recognize a cow at a glance, without needing to test its DNA.

You are quibbling and nit-picking to no effect. First you say we should rely on experts, then when we offer you an expert opinion, you criticize the expert.

At this point we are going around in circles. I and others have put forward our opinions of what happened on 9/11. Why don't you take the time to give your opinion of what happened on 9/11? It might be helpful to the discussion, as it seems we have less than perfect communication.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 07, 2011
That's right he knew what a controlled demo looked like but he had no idea how else bldgs could fail or whether they might resemble the only thing he was familiar with. A cowboy might see some water buffalo for the first time and think he could herd them, with unfortunate results for him and his horse.

Jowenko is NOT an expert on all the ways bldgs could fail, certainly not by plane strikes, fire, and structural damage. If he was he would have asked about these things. As he falsely represented himself as such, his opinion has even less credibility than if he had said 'Well I've never studied whether Bldg could collapse from fire or damage but...'

The gentlemen who did the wtc7 debunking video did study these things. They make sense, he does not. The firemen who heard the Bldg creak and saw the corner bulge were not the terrified tower occupants and made a more rational judgement that wtc7 was going to collapse from the fire and damage that they had been watching all day.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 07, 2011
And post links to your NFPA info. You made a point of using it and I want to see where it came from.
Claudius
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 07, 2011
NO ONE ever saw evidence of the tons of thermite in hundreds of charges


First of all, I don't think we know if thermite was the only agent used. But to suggest that we need to see explosives in situ before we can suspect the presence of explosives is ridiculous.

If you have a witness who knows what an explosion looks like, like a fireman, for instance, and he sees what he believes is an explosion, you have to at least consider the possibility that there may have been an explosion. When you have hundreds of such witnesses, to ignore their testimony is either fraud or incompetence, or both.

You seem to deliberately avoid addressing the evidence. Are you aware of the witnesses to explosions on 9/11, or is this completely new to you?
Claudius
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 07, 2011
And post links to your NFPA info. You made a point of using it and I want to see where it came from.


I got it somewhere on this site: http://firefighte...uth.org/

The point of using it was in response to your question as to whether there was a rule or regulation that required looking for evidence of explosives at a fire. The NPFA codes are not readily available, you have to purchase them. Hence I need to rely on third parties such as firefightersfor911truth. THEY claim there were such codes in place at the time of 9/11, and being firefighters, one would think that they would know.

Claudius
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 07, 2011
Jowenko is NOT an expert on all the ways bldgs could fail


To quote Bugs Bunny: "It is to laugh."

He IS an expert in one way a building can fall, because he made his career in making buildings fall. Of course, he would be familiar with other ways buildings fall, and he could tell the difference. The reason he can tell the difference is because there IS a difference. Controlled demolition is UNIQUE, there is no other way to make a building fall in the same manner.

I challenge you to show me one example of a building falling in the same manner as controlled demolition due to fire or any other cause, that did not happen on 9/11.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 07, 2011
So... would you let an auto mechanic fix your plane engine just because he says it looks a lot like the one in the datsun he worked on the other day? First off, FAA regs wouldn't allow it. You may know it but he probably doesn't.

There are also laws and statutes governing who is allowed to design bldgs and structures, and who is not. Someone who is licensed to do these things is the kind of expert, at a minimum, who is properly qualified to evaluate bldgs and their structures. NOT someone like Jowenko, who acts like Jowenko, who talks like Jowenko. He is not qualified to judge and you are not qualified to judge whether he is or not.

You reveal this by saying
...there is other way to make a building fall in the same manner.
If you were qualified to make that statement you would not in fact have made it.

And as I said before there ARE no precedents for collapse of bldgs of this type and scale from the same effects. None. Yours don't apply EITHER.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 07, 2011
And thanks for your freaking NFPA link to nowhere. As I go through sections I am tripping over nonsense like dead bodies in a lobby. Here is one:

"I'm just confused about one thing, and one thing only, why World Trade Center 7 went down in the first place. I'm very confused about that. I know what I heard, I heard explosions. The explanation I got was it was the fuel-oil tank. Im an old boiler guy, if it was a fuel-oil tank, it would have been one side of the building."

So where was this old boiler guy when he heard these explosions? Was he still in the Bldg? Is he saying that these were the demolitions which brought wtc7 down? Had he ever heard fuel oil tanks go off from deep inside a huge Bldg before?

Again if these were demo charges why did they happen at different times and long before the Bldg fell? Bad design? Black ops warranty expired??
Claudius
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 07, 2011
He is not qualified to judge and you are not qualified to judge whether he is or not.


I wonder who is qualified? No, wait, I know. Just give me a minute... Could it be Otto?

We do not seem to be having a rational discussion. I admit to frustration. I doubt we will ever agree. At times like this I have a strong desire to start writing in Martian again. ACK!

Nevertheless, it has been fun.
Ethelred
3 / 5 (4) Oct 08, 2011
Claudius:

FAIL does not equal FALL. Those are two different words. The man was an expert in making buidings FALL. Otto said he was not an expert in how they FAIL. Which is correct.

Now the real question with this guy is if he still thinks the same thing now that he has had a chance to see it from more angles and without being fed leading questions before he saw it the first time.

Either way it would still be one man's opinion. And CDI thinks that it would have been impossible to do a controlled demolition without it being obvious, in that the preparations would be seen by the people in the building over the long period of time it would take to do them.

Ethelred
Claudius
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 08, 2011
Otto said he was not an expert in how they FAIL. Which is correct.


To me this is a distinction without a difference. You can't make a building fall without first making it fail. Also, he spends a lot of time in the video interview discussing whether the damage to the columns could have caused catastrophic collapse. He also discusses whether fire or other damage from the falling towers could have caused collapse, and gives the opinion that he would be "astonished" if it had.

if he still thinks the same thing now

Unfortunately, he died in a car accident a few years ago.

I am not swayed by argument from authority. It is a logical fallacy. I prefer to use reason and logic. My reason and logic don't need Jowenko telling me that WTC7 was a controlled demolition, it only confirms it. And yes, it is opinion, because an independent investigation, with all the evidence, was never conducted.
Claudius
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 08, 2011
preparations would be seen by the people in the building over the long period of time it would take to do them.


Apparently, the person in charge of security was a relative of G.W. Bush. There were times when security was shut down which would have allowed unhindered access. It is theorized that the elevator shafts were vulnerable, and they were being serviced before 9/11. Residents of the building complained about loud construction noises. So the "preparations" were noticed by the residents.
hush1
2 / 5 (4) Oct 08, 2011
Computer (numeric)simulations approximate real events. If your computer simulation is good you can run your 'film' forward and backwards and get the initial and final condition of an object.

Philosophy of the day.

What is wrong here? No computer simulation will replicate globally recorded temperatures of weather recorded an hour before or after starting with the temperatures measured between those hours.

What is science to be called reconstructing past or future?
Reverse engineering? Recursion? Forensics?Archaeology?Theology?

As a fanboy of 'Thermo Hot Spots', I had fun too.
'Thermo Hot Spots'
Nothing is so wonderful it can not be repeated.
Nothing is so terrible it can not be repeated.
Which is it?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 08, 2011
It is theorized that the elevator shafts were vulnerable, and they were being serviced before 9/11. Residents of the building complained about loud construction noises. So the "preparations" were noticed by the residents.
-Except I don't think you grasp what 'preparations' would entail.

As I described already a tower demo system would have had to locate charges on all 4 faces and within the core for 80 or so floors in order to simulate plane damage at all potential impact locations. These charges would have had to be wired together and connected to a central control system which could select which particular charges needed to be set off AFTER impact, fire, and damage from planes.

Construction would have involved removing drywall and fireproofing in a few hundred locations per floor, installing charges AND running wires protected from fire, throughout; and reinstalling finishes and fireproofing so that these mods would have remained undetected.
Cont
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 08, 2011
Undetected that is, during the course of normal occupancy, maintenance, and subsequent mods for tenant changes. It wouldn't do for some guy working above the ceiling to find a conduit which wasn't on the diagrams while changing outlet wiring.

Maybe charges were radio-controlled you say? They would still have needed to be wired into the electrical system, changing loads and requiring perhaps new transformers and breaker boxes. And secure from Bldg supers, power company people, and construction people after the fact who would be flipping breakers and checking loads.

How would you do all this work Claudiius? Were these union workers? Did stewards or bldg inspectors take issue with the lack of Bldg and street access permits or were they part of the conspiracy? How would you disguise the tons of wiring, conduit, drywall, insulation, gadgetry, paint fumes, weeks of downtime? What does your logic and intuition have to say about this?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 08, 2011
AND how could you have been certain that these systems would have functioned after impact? How could you be certain that impact wouldn't have set them off prematurely, or out of sequence, or in areas obviously not damaged?

You would have needed redundant power supplies. Perhaps battery packs at each location like emergency lights? Those still need to be hardwired to the Bldg electrical grid. And they themselves would have had to be hardened to resist blast, debris impact, fire, sprinkler water, and EM radiation, while remaining undetectable.
Claudius
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 08, 2011
@Otto

It seems like an act of sheerest optimism to respond once again, but I am always hopeful that some may see the light.

1. We know from observation that all 3 buildings collapsed in a suspicious manner highly resembling controlled demolition. (The towers were atypical, in that they exploded rather than imploded, but either way explosives were used.)

2. We know from witnesses that explosives were used.

3. We have physical evidence of explosives.

4. We have several "investigations" (FEMA, NIST, the Commission) that all ignored, dismissed, and suppressed evidence that would have supported the hypothesis that the buildings were demolished. This in spite of the fact that the most likely hypothesis is demolition. To me this is the most damning point, as whenever there is a coverup, there is a conspiracy.

4. Ergo, despite your objections, somehow it was done. If you couldn't think of a way to do it, obviously someone else did. It is a moot point and not worth discussing
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 08, 2011
1) People who know what theyre talking about disagree for very good reasons, as you know.
2) Your witnesses were under extreme duress. NONE of them was ever present in bldgs hit by planes and so they had nothing to compare prior experience to. NONE of them ever heard sounds made by buildings hit by planes as structure began to fail, debris chunks weighing tons dropped between floors, and vessels exploded. None of them saw actual charges being detonated, which is the only way they could have known it was not something else they were NOT familiar with.

3) You have NO evidence for explosives. Your 'nano-scale metal dust was NOT nano-scale and was invaded in matrix which made reaction IMPOSSIBLE. And that's all you got.

4) Nothing irrelevant was ignored. Most bizarre and outlandish theories have all been debunked since.

4) And I just showed you how a demo system was impossible.

Have you seen this?
http://www.debunk...apse.htm

-How towers collapse.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 08, 2011
You know Claudius if you really believe in this demo hypothesis you shouldn't keep posting your flimsy evidence like Polish experts or g w bush relatives or symmetric collapses which are EASILY debunked.

You give as evidence elevator maintenance and security breeches and I debunk them. Your opinions are evidently based on what evidence you have posted here, all of which has been discredited by me and others. You should instead be posting the sources for your nonsense.
Claudius
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 08, 2011
2) Your witnesses


WORLD TRADE CENTER TASK FORCE INTERVIEW
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GREGORY
Interview Date: October 3, 2001

when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down.

Cont.
Claudius
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 08, 2011
WORLD TRADE CENTER TASK FORCE INTERVIEW
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GREGORY
Interview Date: October 3, 2001
Continued

And I didn't broach the topic to him, but he asked me. He said I don't know if I'm crazy, but I just wanted to ask you because you were standing
right next to me. He said did you see anything by the building? And I said what do you mean by see anything? He said did you see any flashes? I said,
yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them, too.

I know about the explosion on the upper floors. This was like eye level. I didn't have to go like this. Because I was looking this way. I'm not going to say it was on the first floor or the second floor, but somewhere in that area I saw to me what appeared to be flashes.
Claudius
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 08, 2011
3) Your 'nano-scale metal dust was NOT nano-scale and was invaded in matrix which made reaction IMPOSSIBLE.


If you took the time to read the paper, you know that they were able to get the red chips to react vigorously.

As to the witness, I picked that one at random from the 9/11 oral histories published by the New York Times. I could cite many more.

Your objections are disingenuous. You are claiming evidence does not exist when it clearly does. You are not being rational.
Claudius
2.1 / 5 (11) Oct 08, 2011
I debunk them.


You only THINK you do. You obfuscate and make ad-hominem attacks on experts ("Polish", for instance,) you give your opinion that it is all nonsense, but your evidence, when you reveal it, is unconvincing. And yes, I do take the time to look at your references.

I was fooled by the 9/11 propaganda at first. I believed the whole conspiracy theory about Al-CIAda attacking the U.S., that guys with box cutters overwhelmed 4 airliners and people made cell phone calls about it from 30,000 feet. Try making a cell call from 3,000 ft, I have. I was so convinced that when someone tried to tell me that the whole business was a pack of lies I wouldn't listen to him. It took me a year before I even looked at the evidence he tried to show me, but it was overwhelmingly convincing. This shows how effective the propaganda is. We have been conditioned not to even look at the evidence.

You are either like I was, completely duped, or allied with the people that did this.
FrankHerbert
2.4 / 5 (87) Oct 08, 2011
I believed the whole conspiracy theory about Al-CIAda attacking the U.S.,


Lol, I see what you did there. Cute.
omatumr
1.4 / 5 (10) Oct 08, 2011
Finally, we are all invited to tell world leaders our opinions !

Help repair this root cause of today's social unrest:

1. US Global Research Program:

http://strategicp...nge.gov/

2. EU Poll on Society's Problems Global Research Program:

http://noconsensu...ducated/

Send a copy of your opinions to strategicplancomments@usgcrp.gov and to candidates for political office and to your current members of Congress.

I shared my opinion (below) and posted it on Climate Etc and Air Vent:

http://judithcurr...t-119713

http://noconsensu...ducated/#comment-55976
omatumr
1.4 / 5 (11) Oct 08, 2011
Thanks for the invitation to comment. What a refreshing change!

Misguided good intentions like these led our society into a maze in 1971 [1] that produced closely-linked losses of:

a.) Citizen control of governments and
b.) Integrity in government science

Can society now be salvaged after 40 years [1] of insanity?

a.) Save the environment: Drive an electric car!
b.) Join the marathon race against racism!
c.) End selfishness: Occupy Wall-street!

We have been trapped like rats in a social maze chasing imaginary cheeses since the time of Kissinger-Mao-Nixon-Breznov secret agreements to save us from mutual nuclear annihilation by adopting:

a.) The Bilderberg model of a stable Sun [2]
b.) Induced climate change as a common enemy to
c.) Unite nations in a one-world government [1].

My 50-year career [3] as a researcher and teacher of science and engineering allowed me to see parts of the maze as it was constructed and put into operation.
omatumr
1.4 / 5 (11) Oct 08, 2011
The skills and talents of great leaders like Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela are now desperately needed to guide society, including many of its most conscientious citizens and government employees, safely away from foolish internal strife, revenge and punishment and restore science and constitutional governments to their pre-1971 state:

a.) Statesmanship,
b.) Wisdom and
c.) Unshakable Faith.

References:

1. The Bilderberg solar model, Solar Physics 3, 5-25 (1968)
http://adsabs.har...oPh.3.5G

2. Deep roots of the Climategate scandal (1971-2011)
http://dl.dropbox...oots.pdf

3. A video summary of my career (1961-2011)
http://dl.dropbox...reer.pdf

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
http://myprofile....anuelo09
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 08, 2011
Hello Claudius

I mentioned Polish because I wonder how people there could be more knowledgable than people here. Certainly their expert was not. And allied with alien black ops power mongers? I wish.

I am looking into your jones paper a little deeper. Initial results are that it may have been a paint but no one seems to know where. Thin film incendiaries do not melt steel.

I AM looking for info on just what that substance might be and I haven't found it yet. Perhaps you'd like to help? Have you seen any scientific rebuttals saying that the red/grey stuff was specifically this or that, commonly found in certain construction matls? Any theories?

And have you seen this?
http://en.wikiped...thermite

Interesting commentary on the ongoing debate and the jones paper.

One way to resolve the thermite issue would be an independent study featuring analysis of different samples from different sources, looking for the same 'reactive' matl in similar quantities.
hush1
2 / 5 (4) Oct 08, 2011
lol
You are relieved of command and/or position and are asked to remove yourself from that location or office.

Only with our consent. To all U.S.government personnel -
You now have our consent. A majority consent.
If you do not consent to our consent you cease to exist.

Due to our consent all invitations are canceled.
Claudius
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 08, 2011
And have you seen this?
http://en.wikiped...thermite

Actually, I have. I always like to look at discussions on controversial subjects at Wikpedia. I have found it interesting that there are certain editors who routinely delete material they find "controversial" even when there is documentation. Often, these same editors show up at different unrelated articles which are controversial for different reasons. Go figure.

The article on superthermite is similar. Discussion seems to be closed to certain lines of thought.
Claudius
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 08, 2011

I am looking into your jones paper a little deeper. Initial results are that it may have been a paint but no one seems to know where.

In the paper, the red chips are compared to paint and not found to be similar. Also, normal paint does not react and leave iron spherules behind.

It isn't really Jones' paper. Here is the Wikipedia citation:

Danish chemist and STJ member Niels H. Harrit, of the University of Copenhagen, and eight other authors, some also STJ members, published a paper in The Open Chemical Physics Journal, titled, 'Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe'. The paper concludes that chips consisting of unreacted and partially reacted nano-thermite ('super-thermite') appear to be present in samples of the dust.
Claudius
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 08, 2011
I mentioned Polish because I wonder how people there could be more knowledgable than people here. Certainly their expert was not. And allied with alien black ops power mongers? I wish.


He has a Polish name but is a Dutch as you can get. Having lived in Europe, I can say that I often wonder how people in America could be more knowledgeable than people in Europe. Their educational system is light years ahead of ours.

The man made his living doing controlled demolitions. I am a little inclined to give what he has to say on the subject some weight, especially since he happens to make good sense.
omatumr
1.4 / 5 (11) Oct 08, 2011
The skills and talents of great leaders like Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela are now desperately needed to guide society, including many of its most conscientious citizens and government employees, safely away from foolish internal strife, revenge and punishment and restore science and constitutional governments to their pre-1971 state:

a.) Statesmanship,
b.) Wisdom and
c.) Unshakable Faith.

References:

1. Deep roots of the Climategate scandal (1971-2011)
http://dl.dropbox...oots.pdf

2. The Bilderberg solar model, Solar Physics 3, 5-25 (1968)
http://adsabs.har....3....5G


References corrected

2. The Bilderberg solar model, Solar Physics 3, 5-25 (1968)
http://adsabs.har...oPh.3.5G


omatumr
1.4 / 5 (11) Oct 08, 2011
I was fooled by the 9/11 propaganda at first.

I believed the whole conspiracy theory about Al-CIAda attacking the U.S.,

that guys with box cutters overwhelmed airliners

people made cell phone calls about it from 30,000 feet.

It took me a year before I even looked at the evidence

This shows how effective the propaganda is.

We have been conditioned not to even look at the evidence.


Yes, Claudius, we have all been treated like rats in a social maze chasing imaginary cheeses since Kissinger-Mao-Nixon-Breznov secret agreements to save us from mutual nuclear annihilation by adopting:

a.) The Bilderberg model of a stable Sun
b.) Global climate change as a common enemy

To unite nations into a one-world government.

We need the statesmanship, wisdom and faith of Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela to avoid the traps of anger, strife, revenge and punishment for 40 years of deceit and to

a.) Restore integrity to science &
b.) Citizen control of government.


Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 09, 2011
To me this is a distinction without a difference
Sorry to hear that but it doesn't surprise me. Failure is what happens when building falls without demolition. A nail is something a person uses a hammer on. An expert in hammers is more likely to use them when other tools would be superior. An expert in demolition is a man that is more likely to see demolition when it was failure.

So put down the hammer and pick up a dictionary and learn the difference between two very different words.

I am not swayed by argument from authority
You were trying to do exactly that. So are you going to stop quoting this guy we can no longer ask questions of?

It is a logical fallacy
No. It is something that SHOULD be listened to CAREFULLY. It is NOT a fallacy. And that is two failures to comprehend what words mean in one post. Producing failed logic.

I prefer to use reason and logic
Please start doing so. Demolition requires TIMED explosions and there is no sign of those.>>
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 09, 2011
that WTC7 was a controlled demolition, it only confirms it.
My reason and logic does the opposite because there was no sequence of explosions.

AND even if WTC7 had been subject to intentional demolition that says nothing about the Twin Towers since there was a FINANCIAL reason to blow up WTC7.

And yes, it is opinion, because an independent investigation, with all the evidence, was never conducted.
I don't see it that way. I see an independent investigation. You just don't like the conclusions thus you call it fraudulent.

Apparently, the person in charge of security was a relative of G.W. Bush.
Thousands of people worked in the buildings. THEY would seen dozens if not hundreds of people working on multiple stories. It is ludicrous to claim no one would notice because on more incompetent Bush was involved.>>
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 09, 2011
Apparently, the person in charge of security was a relative of G.W. Bush.
Thousands of hours? I don't think so. That is what would have taken. OR thousands of people that would talk.

Residents of the building complained about loud construction noises.
What kind complaints? How many? On how many of the floors that the demolition is supposed to have occurred on. Remember the claim it every 15 floors. That's a lot. And this was New York. There is always construction going on. And complaints. How many of the complaints were ex-post facto?

Ethelred
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 09, 2011
Hush
Nothing is so terrible it can not be repeated.
I would prefer that there would be no repetition of the Halocaust, Stalin, Ivan the Terrible, President Dumbass, the US Civil War, the use of nuclear weapons, Dresden, chattel slavery, Mohamed, Joseph Smith, The Chinese Civil War, The 30 Years War, The Black Death, Small Pox in the New World, Chixulub, Yellowstone, getting the idea yet Hush?

Ethelred
omatumr
1.4 / 5 (10) Oct 09, 2011
hush1
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 09, 2011
Ethelred
Agreed. Repetition it is, then. Only the wonderful. Condition everyone to live with this onesidedness. Convince the skeptics there is no downside to wonderful. I can vouch for the wonderful. I repeat wonderful as much as humanly possible. Hope wonderful goes viral.
omatumr
1.4 / 5 (11) Oct 09, 2011
I would prefer that there would be no repetition of the Halocaust, Stalin, Ivan the Terrible, President Dumbass, the US Civil War, the use of nuclear weapons, Dresden, chattel slavery, Mohamed, Joseph Smith, The Chinese Civil War, The 30 Years War, The Black Death, Small Pox in the New World, Chixulub, Yellowstone, getting the idea yet Hush?

Ethelred


Some visionaries cannot see the lack of

a.) Integrity in government science, and

b.) Citizen control of our government, or even

c.) Today's news of the unconstitutional killing of a US citizen:

www.nytimes.com/2...emc=tha2
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 09, 2011
The Constitution is not a suicide pact.

[url]http://en.wikiped...ide_pact[/url]

The Constitution is not a suicide pact.

[url]http://en.wikiped...ide_pact[/url]

"[a] strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means."[1]
Thomas Jefferson.

And you are not the sort of person that has any business sneering what others do to protect our nation or denigrating anyone's integrity.

Ethelred
Claudius
2.3 / 5 (9) Oct 09, 2011
And you are not the sort of person that has any business sneering what others do to protect our nation or denigrating anyone's integrity.


"I regret that I am now to die in the belief, that the useless sacrifice of themselves by the generation of 1776, to acquire self- government and happiness to their country, is to be thrown away by the unwise and unworthy passions of their sons, and that my only consolation is to be, that I live not to weep over it."

Thomas Jefferson Letter to John Holmes (22 April 1820)
Claudius
2.3 / 5 (9) Oct 09, 2011
there was no sequence of explosions.


Can you defend this statement?

Once again, there were many reliable witnesses to explosions, there is physical evidence seen by the presence of explosive residues, unreacted thermite and molten metal. In fact the evidence in favor of explosives is so overwhelming that to say there were no explosions is boneheaded, to the point of being funny.
Claudius
2.3 / 5 (9) Oct 09, 2011
there was no sequence of explosions.


"The aluminium-water scenario would also account for explosions from within the buildings just prior to their collapse that have fuelled conspiracy theories"

Even though I don't agree with the authors of the article we are commenting on, even they admit there were explosions. They came up with the lame-brained idea about aluminum and sprinklers to avoid the other conclusions that evidence of explosions would naturally lead to. It seems that ANY alternative explanation to explain the explosions is preferable to the most likely one, that the buildings were demolished intentionally.

But to deny that explosions occurred is beyond funny.
Claudius
2.3 / 5 (9) Oct 09, 2011
And once you come face to face with the fact that there were explosions, you have to deal with it. Explosives were used, get over it. Stop trying to explain it away. Just because you can't figure out how it was done is unimportant. Obviously, someone figured it out, or it wouldn't have happened. So go on to the next question, this one is moot.

For me, like Jowenko, the next question is: "why did they lie about it?"
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 09, 2011
Yeah the paper compares it to paint when trying to dissolve it but it doesn't say what kind of paint or whether it is commonly found in buildings. And it says this stuff does burn but doesn't compare combustion temp to other paints which also burn.

And most glaringly, it is called thermite but the particles ARE encased in a matrix, which the paper does not identify. This matrix is expected to burn off leaving AlO2 platelets and FeO2 particles in intimate contact rather than dispersed which combustion will tend to do.

And thin film thermite has no apparent use. There seems to br the idea that it could have been applied to steel decks to pulverize floor slabs but this was easily discounted.

If this is evidence then so far it seems to be evidence only of stretching to recategorize as thermite what may be only a common Bldg material. You guys should exhaustively eliminate that possibility before concluding it is some type of thermite.

The paper is referred to the jones paper.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 09, 2011
One way of clarifying things may be to test the exposed faces of the chips to determine what the malt was attached to. This would be among the first things an unbiased examination would pursue. Yes?

Polish, Dutch, what's the difference?
I am Sancho
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 09, 2011
Otto?

Out of curiosity, how come you seem to be so intelligent, yet are here every day, all day, commenting on this article? Would someone of your intelligence waste so much of his/her resources on a subject that you consider to be so trivial? With people you claim have logical impairments and that you mock? I wonder what you do for a living or is THIS it? You are here more than everybody. You thus seem to also have placed yourself securely in the idiot category.

Otto, you may win the troll award for this article, but we are not dumb and we will not listen to you any more. You may now continue to post and make sure you have the last *official* word here.
omatumr
1.3 / 5 (12) Oct 09, 2011
"I regret that I am now to die in the belief, that the useless sacrifice of themselves by the generation of 1776, to acquire self- government and happiness to their country, is to be thrown away by the unwise and unworthy passions of their sons, and that my only consolation is to be, that I live not to weep over it."


Thanks for a great quote!

Unfortunately, we have lived to weep for the loss of:

a.) Self-government, and
b.) Integrity in government science.

These seems to have been traded away in negotiations between Henry Kissinger, Chairman Mao, Leonid Brezhnev and Richard Nixon in 1971 [1[ to avoid the threat of mutual nuclear annihilation by agreeing to:

c.) Unite nations against hunan induced climate change [1]
d.) Promote the Bilderberg model of Earth's heat source as a steady H-fusion reactor, "in equilibrium" [2]

1. http://dl.dropbox...oots.pdf

2. http://adsabs.har....3....5G

FrankHerbert
2.4 / 5 (87) Oct 09, 2011
There needs to be a "report child abuse" button in addition to the standard "report abuse" button for omatumr. Please fix this mods. Thanks.
Claudius
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 09, 2011
compare combustion temp to other paints which also burn.


Are you suggesting that combustible paint was used in the WTC?

Also, are you suggesting combustible paint reacts as vigorously as thermite?

"It is striking that some of the red/gray chips release more
energy in kJ/g than does ordinary thermite" -Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 911 World Trade
Claudius
2 / 5 (8) Oct 09, 2011
And thin film thermite has no apparent use.


Ok. Who knows why it is there. But it is there. Did the thin film bring the buildings down? Could there have been other explosives used in addition to the thermite? Who knows? The Shadow?

This is mere quibbling. The important issue is whether explosives were used. Explosive residues answer the question. Along with everything else, witnesses, molten metal, etc.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.5 / 5 (6) Oct 09, 2011
What makes you think paint doesn't burn? Is this something else your logic and intuition told you? Latex paint burns at about 450F, coincidently the tested combustion temp of your superthermite. Per the jones paper. And the burn characteristics of your mystery thermite was not compared to paints which could have been used.

Where was there explosive residue found other than this mystery thermite? And it wasn't thermite - even the (not peer-reviewed?) paper said that the chips burned at only 450 degrees. Thermite matls have oxidizer and reactant in intimate contact. This stuff had them separated by matrix which, when burnt, would only have dispersed them.
and we will not listen to you any more
Who's we Sancho? You and your *boyfriend*?
Claudius
2 / 5 (8) Oct 09, 2011
Where was there explosive residue found other than this mystery thermite?

Iron-rich microspheres in the dust, found before the thermite.

burn characteristics of your mystery thermite was not compared to paints

No, the burn characteristics were compared to "ordinary thermite":

"It is striking that some of the red/gray chips release more energy in kJ/g than does ordinary thermite"

TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 09, 2011
Unacknowledged peer review of the jones paper:

"Now as for the particular spectrum in McCrones's book I forwarded to you, it was just one example of a combustion-related material that has microspheres
and high iron. I will forward the spectrum of the incinerator ash as well.
It shows microspheres and iron is present in significant concentrations too.
But please remember McCrone's sample was NOT magnetically separated. I am
quite sure a magnetically separated ash sample, such as the one you have for
the WTC dust, would show high iron by definition!

And one final point, my good friend Carrol Sanders has reminded me that fly ash is frequently used as aggregate in lightweight concrete, so microspheres may have been present in the Twin Tower's concrete even before the fires of 9/11. Given that so much concrete was pulverized during the collapse of the towers, fly ash debris would be present in large amounts in the rubble pile."
omatumr
1.4 / 5 (11) Oct 09, 2011
Comments here remind me of a famous quote by Michael Crichton in 2003:

1. The greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda. Perceiving the truth has always been a challenge to mankind, but in the information age (or as I think of it, the disinformationage) it takes on a special urgency and importance. - - Michael Crichton [First paragraph, speech to the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco on September 15, 2003: "Environmentalism as Religion"]

http://scienceand...hes.html

TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 09, 2011
The energy density of thermite is relatively low. As nanosuperthermite is basically the same stuff in the same quantities it has the same energy density.

The fact that the matrix has a higher energy density just means -uh- what? Nothing. It says nothing about how this supposed pyrodemo material was supposed to work. Many construction matls have higher energy density

And if you ask me which ones I will say paint, look it up, and show you it matches your matrix stuff.

Here is a discussion about the jones paper and the thermite/paint. The transparent crap about peer review only shows that the poster has no idea what peer review IS. The good stuff is at the bottom. Glaring holes in the jones paper. They could have had a better case for thermite if they had tested the chip in an oxygen-free environment as thermite provides it's own O2. Afraid of what they may have found?
http://forums.ran...t=153478
GeToChKn
4 / 5 (4) Oct 09, 2011
The jones report, published in a vanity journal that will publish and "peer review" anything, including non-sense if the check clears as proven here. http://www.newsci...nal.html

Jones said he was given the dust that people kept in bags in their houses for like 8 years after the event, and gave him all their samples, so no more samples for testing or real peer review. Jones got it and said he found thermite. Well golly-be-golly that must be good enough.

GeToChKn
5 / 5 (2) Oct 09, 2011
The same Jones who said he found evidence that Jesus hung in North America with the Natives and was caught fabricating evidence then left his position for being a big fat phoney.
Claudius
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 09, 2011
Here is a discussion about the jones paper and the thermite/paint.


Read the thread. Seems the main criticism is that the chips were ignited in air, allowing higher energy density than normal thermite.

"Red chips when ignited produce very high temperatures even now, several years after the 9/11 tragedy, as shown by the bright flash observed and the production of molten iron-rich spheres...If a paint were devised that incorporated these very energetic materials, it would be highly dangerous when dry and most unlikely to receive regulatory approval for building use."

I don't buy the idea that paint, in air, could ignite to produce a bright flash and iron microspheres.

Claudius
2.2 / 5 (10) Oct 09, 2011
Re the supposed flakiness of the authors:

"Niels Harrit, Professor of Chemistry at the University of Copenhagen and lead author on the paper, has authored or co-authored more than 50 articles in peer-reviewed publications, going as far back as 1970. This list of articles can be found on this page. Steven Jones, retired professor of physics at BYU, has published over 50 peer-reviewed articles, including publications such as Nature and Scientific American. The list can be found here. I did not find references to peer-reviewed articles by Jeff Farrer; however, he appears well-qualified in his field of electron microscopy (including nanoparticle characterization), according to the reference here. These people appear to be well qualified and experienced in their respective fields, and bring a variety of appropriate skills to the task of analyzing dust for chemical composition, including the possible presence of nanoscale thermitic materials."
Claudius
2.2 / 5 (10) Oct 09, 2011
Fly ash


"components of fly ash vary considerably, but all fly ash includes substantial amounts of silicon dioxide (SiO2) (both amorphous and crystalline) and calcium oxide (CaO)" - Wikipedia

So fly ash used in concrete, produced microspheres that somehow embedded itself in the matrix of the red layer which you say is paint. And the microspheres are supposed to be iron rich?

To me all this seems like grasping at straws in desperation to avoid suggesting that there might have been explosives. If FEMA, NIST and the other agencies involved had listened to the eyewitness testimony and done tests for explosives, we wouldn't be arguing about this.

Claudius
2.2 / 5 (10) Oct 09, 2011
The same Jones who said he found evidence that Jesus hung in North America with the Natives and was caught fabricating evidence then left his position for being a big fat phoney.


He wasn't asked to leave his tenured position because of the religious article, but because of an article he published on 9/11.

Another popular attempt to discredit Dr. Jones is his involvement in cold fusion:

"A New York Times article says that while peer reviewers were quite critical of Pons and Fleishchmann's research they did not apply such criticism to Jones' much more modest, theoretically supported findings. Although critics insisted that his results likely stemmed from experimental error, most of the reviewing physicists indicated that he was a careful scientist. Later research and experiments supported the metallic cold fusion reports by Jones." - Wikipedia

What I see is a man with a tenured professorship who stuck his neck out on the 9/11 issue and suffered for it.
Claudius
2.3 / 5 (9) Oct 09, 2011
It seems to me that as soon as the 9/11 truth movement finds someone who is an expert who has the guts to say what he thinks, he is immediately denounced as an incompetent. And on close inspection I find that the criticisms are simple assertions without evidence.

As an exercise I read Jones' "Jesus" article and if I were a Mormon I might find it interesting. He does present artwork that supports his idea, and to a believer it might have meaning. I think Mormonism is, like most all religion, fantasy. But he is being consistent within his beliefs. The only error he made, apparently, was putting his beliefs into print.

He seems, apart from his religion, to be a rigorous scientist, and had that reputation until he got involved with 9/11.
Fionn_MacTool
2.5 / 5 (8) Oct 10, 2011
One of the tactics of some of those in the "official" camp are to attempt to discredit by association. This is like stating that we should no longer accept anything Jews believe because they believe that god talks through burning bushes...yes, that is what it means to be Jewish, read the old testament!

You know Bush is a born again Christian. So he obviously believes Christ rose from the dead. I assume because Bush supports the official version of events, that discredits them completely!

What is worse is how this is often done in a subtle manner to distract from the observable facts. Otto for example so far has associated any other interpretation of events which stray from the official version with belief in alien intervention (not to be mistaken for godly intervention like his buddy and co believer Bush).
Fionn_MacTool
2.5 / 5 (8) Oct 10, 2011
What needs to be done when this tactic is employed, is to simply drag the argument back to the observable events. Buildings collapsing in what appears to be a controlled demolition. These are the undeniable facts of the situation. If a person is discovered with a knife in their back, and the layman says it looks like someone has stabbed that person. And the policeman says, it looks like someone has stabbed that person. And the forensic expert says, it looks like someone has stabbed that person. You do not investigate the possibility that the person through a series of highly unlikely events managed to fall on a knife and kill themselves. While you could conceive that highly improbable event occurring, the least you should do is investigate the possibility that the person was actually stabbed. Anyone who says otherwise has something to hide and should not be taken seriously.
omatumr
1.4 / 5 (9) Oct 10, 2011
What needs to be done when this tactic is employed, is to simply drag the argument back to the observable events. Buildings collapsing in what appears to be a controlled demolition. These are the undeniable facts of the situation. If a person is discovered with a knife in their back, and the layman says it looks like someone has stabbed that person. And the policeman says, it looks like someone has stabbed that person. And the forensic expert says, it looks like someone has stabbed that person. You do not investigate the possibility that the person through a series of highly unlikely events managed to fall on a knife and kill themselves. While you could conceive that highly improbable event occurring, the least you should do is investigate the possibility that the person was actually stabbed. Anyone who says otherwise has something to hide and should not be taken seriously.


Good analogy! Scientists know too little history to be good detectives.

OM
omatumr
1.4 / 5 (11) Oct 10, 2011
Events of 911 may be related to these background events in Al Gore's AGW scam:

a.) Thomas Jefferson recognized the inherently fragile nature of self-government in 1820 [1] and Dwight Eisenhower noted new dangers from government financing of science [2] in 1961.

b.) A 1998 CSPAN tape recording [3] shows NASA hid isotope data from the Galileo probe of Jupiter data that falsify the Bilderberg model of a hydrogen-filled Sun [4].

c.) In 2003-5, MIchael Crichton exposed the fraudulent science of environmentalism and CO2-induced global warming [5].

d.) After tracing the global climate scandal back to the 1967 Bilderberg model of the Sun [6] and 1971 agreements between Kissinger, Mao, Brezhnov and Nixon to avoid the threat of nuclear annihilation by uniting nations against human-induced climate change [7], I became aware of other intriguing reports [8] about the roles of the Bilderberg group and Henry Kissinger in shaping major world events.

Regretfully, thats where we are today.

OKM
Claudius
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 10, 2011
And the burn characteristics of your mystery thermite was not compared to paints which could have been used.


5. Flame/Ignition Tests
The DSC used in our studies does not allow for visual inspection of the energetic reaction. Therefore tests were also performed with a small oxyacetylene flame applied to red/gray chips. Samples were either heated on a graphite block (Fig. 22)or held with tweezers in the flame. Several paint samples were also tested and in each case, the paint sample was immediately reduced to fragile ashes by the hot flame. This was not the case, however, with any of the red/gray chips from the World Trade Center dust.
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 10, 2011
Thomas Jefferson Letter to John Holmes (22 April 1820)
Claudius I was reminding Oliver that he is on probation for absolutely reprehensible behavior and that is exceedingly hypocritical of him to denigrates anyone's behavior.

there was no sequence of explosions.

Can you defend this statement?
Yes. There was no such thing. You have yet to post anything that shows it. The videos don't show it. NOTHING supports the idea. YOU have to support the idea you are proposing. I am under not obligation to show that something didn't happen if no one has showed that it did happen.

Sorry if that is a bit convoluted but basically YOU are the one that has to show evidence for the existence of a timed series of explosions. I have yet to see such evidence.>>
Claudius
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 10, 2011
Dr. Jones' comments on peer-review:

"Since the days of Sir Isaac Newton, Science has proceeded through the publication of peer-reviewed papers. Peer-review means a thorough reading, commentary and even challenge before publication by "peers", that is, other PhD's and professors. This paper was thoroughly peer-reviewed with several pages of tough comments that required of our team MONTHS of additional experiments and studies. It was the toughest peer-review I've ever had, including THREE papers for which I was first author in NATURE. (Please note that Prof. Harrit is first author on this paper.) We sought an established journal that would allow us a LONG paper (this paper is 25 pages long) with MANY COLOR IMAGES AND GRAPHS. Such a scientific journal is not easy to find. Page charges are common for scientific journals these days, and are typically paid by the University of the first or second author (as is the case with this paper) or by an external grant."

Cont.
Claudius
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 10, 2011

"A peer-reviewed journal is also called a "refereed" journal. Peer-reviewers are almost always anonymous for scientific publications like this -- that is standard in the scientific world. While authors commonly recommend potential peer-reviewers, editors choose the referees and usually pick at least one or two reviewers that the authors did NOT mention -- and that is almost certainly the case with this paper (based on commentary we received from the reviewers). In the end, all the reviewers -- who were selected by the editor(s) -- approved publication. Thus, the paper was subjected to peer review by the editor or editors, and it passed the peer-review process."
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 10, 2011
Once again, there were many reliable witnesses to explosions,
No. Not a one as the many films don't show it and audio doesn't have a series of systematic rhythmic BANGS. Eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable especially when interviewed long after the events. Eyewitnesses whose claims are contradicted by reliable video are utterly worthless.

there is physical evidence seen by the presence of explosive residues,
No. Material that YOU think are explosive residues.

unreacted thermite
No. That is opinion that the facts don't support.

and molten metal
The temperatures were more than sufficient to melt aluminum. Molten aluminum is highly reactive with a number of materials that were on the scene.

favor of explosives is so overwhelming that to say there were no explosions is boneheaded, to the point of being funny.
The amount of evidence that conspiracy fans see things that aren't real is overwhelming.
>>
Claudius
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 10, 2011
Sorry if that is a bit convoluted but basically YOU are the one that has to show evidence for the existence of a timed series of explosions. I have yet to see such evidence.>>

http://www.youtub...=related
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 10, 2011
deny that explosions occurred is beyond funny
Explosive or rather RAPID burning is not the same as a timed series of detonations of pre-placed shaped charges.

Explosives were used, get over it
There is no evidence of sequential explosions from pre-placed charges so there is nothing to get over.

Just because you can't figure out how it was done is unimportant
I don't see you explaining it either. Nor do I see you presenting evidence of actual SEQUENTIAL INTENTIONAL PRE-PLACED explosives.

Obviously, someone figured it out, or it wouldn't have happened
Or it didn't happen which is what the evidence actually supports.

next question is: "why did they lie about it?"
For me the question is why do you see a controlled demolition when I see a building collapse due to structural failure at the zone of the aircraft collision and no timed series going BANG wait BANG wait BANG wait and so on as happens in real demolitions. The sequence is VERY distinctive

Ethelred
omatumr
1.4 / 5 (10) Oct 10, 2011
It seems to me that as soon as the 9/11 truth movement finds someone who is an expert who has the guts to say what he thinks, he is immediately denounced as an incompetent. And on close inspection I find that the criticisms are simple assertions without evidence.


Yes, that is a common tool of Lysenkoism:

www.skepdic.com/lysenko.html

Comrades and other followers of Big Brother use personal attacks to divert attention away from evidence of creeping control by Big Brother.

OM
Claudius
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 10, 2011
The temperatures were more than sufficient to melt aluminum. Molten aluminum is highly reactive with a number of materials that were on the scene.


Molten aluminum is silver in color. The molten metal seen was glowing orange.
Claudius
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 10, 2011
There is no evidence of sequential explosions from pre-placed charges so there is nothing to get over ... no timed series going BANG wait BANG wait BANG wait and so on as happens in real demolitions. The sequence is VERY distinctive


Firefighter Edward Cachia independently reported:

[We] thought there was like an internal detonation, explosives, because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came downIt actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit. (Dwyer, 2005; emphasis added.)"
omatumr
1.3 / 5 (12) Oct 10, 2011
Events of 911 may be related to these background events in Al Gore's AGW scam:

a.) Thomas Jefferson recognized the inherently fragile nature of self-government in 1820 [1] and Dwight Eisenhower noted new dangers from government financing of science [2] in 1961.


Reference:

1: "I regret that I am now to die in the belief, that the useless sacrifice of themselves by the generation of 1776, to acquire self-government and happiness to their country, is to be thrown away by the unwise and unworthy passions of their sons, and that my only consolation is to be, that I live not to weep over it." - Thomas Jefferson Letter to John Holmes

http://teachingam...ment=461

2. "The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded." - Dwight Eisenhower (17 Jan 1961)

http://mcadams.po.../ike.htm

www.youtube.com/w...ld5PR4ts

OM
omatumr
1.3 / 5 (12) Oct 10, 2011
Events of 911 may be related to these background events in Al Gore's AGW scam:

A 1998 CSPAN tape recording [3] shows NASA hid isotope data from the Galileo probe of Jupiter - data that falsify the Bilderberg model of a hydrogen-filled Sun [4].


3. "The Future of Space Science," AAS Address by Dr. Dan Goldin (7 January 1998)

www.youtube.com/w...IFmZpFco

4. "Isotope ratios in Jupiter confirm intra-solar diffusion", Meteoritics 3-A97, 5011 (1998)

www.lpi.usra.edu/...5011.pdf

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
omatumr
1.3 / 5 (12) Oct 10, 2011
[
Events of 911 may be related to these background events in Al Gore's AGW scam:

c.) In 2003-5, MIchael Crichton exposed the fraudulent science of environmentalism and CO2-induced global warming [5].


References:

5. The greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda. Perceiving the truth has always been a challenge to mankind, but in the information age (or as I think of it, the disinformationage) it takes on a special urgency and importance. - - Michael Crichton speech to the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco (23 September 2003)

http://scienceand...hes.html

OM
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 10, 2011
Otto
The energy density of thermite is relatively low.
That is silly at best. Paratroopers in WWII used thermite to destroy German guns on D-Day. Light and effective. That is high energy density. Thermite reactions were used in the solid fuel boosters on the space shuttle where weight is a factor.

Ethelred
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 10, 2011
Otto
The energy density of thermite is relatively low.
That is silly at best. Paratroopers in WWII used thermite to destroy German guns on D-Day. Light and effective. That is high energy density. Thermite reactions were used in the solid fuel boosters on the space shuttle where weight is a factor.

Ethelred
Why I am surprised. Paper has a higher energy density than thermite. Sugar has a higher energy density than thermite. Thermite can release what it has much faster.
http://en.wikiped..._density

-Learn something.
Ethelred
2 / 5 (4) Oct 10, 2011
The YouTube video does is not evidence for explosions. It is evidence for the floors collapsing.

Molten aluminum is silver in color.
this has been pointed multiple times. ALL molten metals glow red if at the same temperature as other metals glow red. The term is BLACK BODY RADIATION. There is very characteristic glow and ALL material that is glowing from heat have, rather than reflected light, have the exact same spectrum for the same temperature. This is physical fact that is inherent in the way light is generated by heat.

Molten iron and molten aluminum at the same temperature, in the dark, have the same color. Though I really don't see why you think molten aluminum would mean thermite when the aircraft was made of aluminum. Now if those had been carbon fiber aircraft you would have a very strong point. But they were aluminum.
>>
omatumr
1.4 / 5 (11) Oct 10, 2011
Events of 911 may be related to these background events in Al Gore's AGW scam:

d.) After tracing the global climate scandal back to the 1967 Bilderberg model of the Sun [6] and 1971 agreements between Kissinger, Mao, Brezhnov and Nixon to avoid the threat of nuclear annihilation by uniting nations against human-induced climate change [7], I became aware of other intriguing reports [8] about the roles of the Bilderberg group and Henry Kissinger in shaping major world events.


6. "The Bilderberg Sun," Solar Physics 3, 5-25 (1968)

http://adsabs.har....3....5G

7. "Deep roots of the global climate scandal (1971-2011)"

http://dl.dropbox...oots.pdf

8. "George Bush - The Unauthorized Biography"
by Webster Griffin Tarpley and Anton Chaitkin

http://tarpley.ne...ography/

OM, Former NASA PI for Apollo
http://myprofile....anuelo09
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 10, 2011
Something else you got wrong:
http://www.youtub...a_player

-Molten aluminum indeed appears silver in daylight. Numerous videos and pics available with GOOGLE.

Really, if you're not willing to research or reference what you say, why are you posting here?
Claudius
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 10, 2011
The YouTube video does is not evidence for explosions. It is evidence for the floors collapsing.


That must be why he kept saying "boom boom boom" and how he thought it was explosions.

That's why a different fireman said:

"[We] thought there was like an internal detonation, explosives, because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came downIt actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit. (Dwyer, 2005; emphasis added.)"

He must have just been confused, you will say. But he is just one of many such witnesses, I've given you two, there are more.

To say there is no evidence of explosives is very boneheaded.
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 10, 2011
[We] thought there was like an internal detonation, explosives, because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom,
There were pressure differentials from the upper floors collapsing onto the lower floors which is what blew out the glass. DROP and then bwooosh is not the same as a BANG and then drop.

gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit.
The collapse started in the zone of the impact and the burning fuel. THEN the floors under the falling floor collapsed as the upper floors fell on them. There is no collapse happening at the bottom of the building until the sequence reached them in a top, or rather zone of collision and burning fuel, down manner.

Ethelred
Claudius
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 10, 2011
@Ethelred

Here's another that I mentioned before:

"but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down."

- ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GREGORY
Interview Date: October 3, 2001
Claudius
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 10, 2011
The collapse started in the zone of the impact and the burning fuel. THEN the floors under the falling floor collapsed as the upper floors fell on them


Tell that to the eyewitnesses. You are just parroting the official story. You don't even know about the lower level explosions. Perhaps you should do some research.
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 10, 2011
Ferro-thermite produces about 930 calories per gram

Sugar is 4000 BUT that is leaving out the oxygen from the air. Rapid burning requires a faster oxidizer unless the fuel is dispersed in the air which defeats the purpose of thermite.

For the purposes of what thermite is used for it has a high energy density. Volume counts not just weight so hydrogen is meaningless in this context.

Molten aluminum indeed appears silver in daylight.
At the same temperature iron and aluminum glow at the same color in the dark. What part of that is wrong?

if you're not willing to research or reference what you say, why are you posting here?
But I do research when needed. Go look up black body radiation. I don't have to on that as I learned it a long time ago and i it hasn't changed. AND as I pointed out already what the heck is the surprise that aluminum might have melted in this instance?

I look things up just fine when I need to Otto.

Ethelred
Claudius
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 10, 2011
@Ethelred

Consider these two again. You say "pressure differentials" account for the "bangs" but flashes were seen as well.

"but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down."

"it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down"

So we have many witnesses to lower-level bangs and flashes in sequence, followed by the building falling. Bangs and flashes due to "pressure differentials" caused by the collapse of the building"? I don't think so.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 10, 2011
Read the thread. Seems the main criticism is that the chips were ignited in air, allowing higher energy density than normal thermite.
I read the thread which is why I posted it. One of the reasons for thermites low energy density is that it contains it's own oxidizer. If the chips had been tested in an inert atmosphere then possibly only the 'thermite' would have burnt. But as this stuff was contained in an unknown matrix (paint) then perhaps nothing at all would have happened.
"Red chips when ignited produce very high temperatures even now, several years after the 9/11 tragedy, as shown by the bright flash observed and the production of molten iron-rich spheres
Again, all this should be repeated independently to be considered valid, by proper scientists and without the errors the jones team made. Did they discard the bags of samples?

I don't buy the idea that paint, in air, could ignite
-Until I informed you that it could. Your 'buying' is based on faulty data.
Claudius
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 10, 2011
Claudius: I don't buy the idea that paint, in air, could ignite

Otto -Until I informed you that it could. Your 'buying' is based on faulty data.

I don't remember you saying paint could ignite with a bright flash and produce molten iron which turn into microspheres. I wonder what they would call such a paint? ArsonPaint? Destroy-O-Paint? "Blow Up The World" paint? I can't wait to find some at my local hardware store. I could use it on the 4th of July.
Claudius
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 10, 2011
But I do research when needed. I look things up just fine when I need to Otto.


It's just that research in certain areas, such as whether there were witnesses to sequences of flashes and bangs preceding the WTC collapses, isn't "needed"?
Claudius
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 10, 2011
Again, all this should be repeated independently to be considered valid, by proper scientists and without the errors the jones team made. Did they discard the bags of samples?


I agree, it should be repeated independently. I think they are hanging on to the samples.

But how are you going to find a research team brave enough to do it? If they publish their findings, they will be pilloried, just like every other scientist who has gone public with this kind of stuff.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 10, 2011
Claudius: I don't buy the idea that paint, in air, could ignite

Otto -Until I informed you that it could. Your 'buying' is based on faulty data.

I don't remember you saying paint could ignite with a bright flash and produce molten iron which turn into microspheres. I wonder what they would call such a paint? ArsonPaint? Destroy-O-Paint? "Blow Up The World" paint? I can't wait to find some at my local hardware store. I could use it on the 4th of July.
Like I said, the samples should be retested and research done on what may have actually been present at the site. Examining the chips to see what they may have been attached to would help. The jones tests apparently contained 20 procedural errors?

Iron microspheres may already have been in the samples from fly ash and other combustion products. The jones results could well have been contaminated
Claudius
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 10, 2011
Otto: Molten aluminum indeed appears silver in daylight.

Ethelred: At the same temperature iron and aluminum glow at the same color in the dark. What part of that is wrong?

Claudius: The molten metal was seen and photographed in daylight.
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 10, 2011
But he is just one of many such witnesses, I've given you two, there are more.

To say there is no evidence of explosives is very boneheaded.
Would you care to explain why there is no such thing in the videos of the Twin Tower collapses? Again if the eyewitness disagrees with the video why should believe the eyewitness was not wrong?

Here's another that I mentioned before:
Yes you did. And it still doesn't make all those amateur and news videos change into something that matches a controlled demolition.

Tell that to the eyewitnesses
Tell it to the videos.

ou are just parroting the official story.
I am going on the actual video evidence not some official story I have not read.

You don't even know about the lower level explosions.
That is because there simply isn't an evidence for them in the videos and there should be.

Perhaps you should do some research.
Perhaps you need to watch the actual videos.

Ethelred
Claudius
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 10, 2011
Iron microspheres may already have been in the samples from fly ash and other combustion products. The jones results could well have been contaminated


The DSC spectra, which are all very similar, look very clean. It is very unlikely that fly ash and other contaminants are present in all of the samples in the same amounts.
Claudius
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 10, 2011
I am going on the actual video evidence not some official story I have not read.

This speaks for itself.

The evidence is in eyewitness testimony by reliable witnesses.

Can you even imagine a trial in which an attorney asks for a motion to dismiss evidence because it is not on a video?
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 10, 2011
This speaks for itself.

The evidence is in eyewitness testimony by reliable witnesses.
It does indeed when you put it that way. The key word being RELIABLE.

The MANY VIDEOS shows the eyewitnesses are NOT reliable.

Can you even imagine a trial in which an attorney asks for a motion to dismiss evidence because it is not on a video?
Can you imagine any attorney telling the jury to ignore the video they saw and go on the eyewitnesses testimony that the video showed to be wrong?

This is just like when you accused me of argument by authority one post after you argued by authority.

I am going on the videos. They do not support the claim of controlled demolition. And the only thing you have been doing in response to that statement is to bring up witnesses that were stressed out and that are not corroborated by the videos.

Ethelred
Claudius
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 11, 2011
I am going on the videos. They do not support the claim of controlled demolition.


The videos show white smoke emerging from the bottom of the towers prior to their collapse. Sounds of explosions are heard on various videos. This is video evidence of explosions at the base.

The videos show molten metal dripping from the side of the towers. This is video evidence of explosives.

The videos show the towers exploding outward, hurling multi-ton beams hundreds of feet laterally at high speed. This is video evidence of explosions.

The videos show the towers falling at or nearly free-fall speed. It is difficult to tell the speed because the buildings have been reduced to dust in mid-air. This is video evidence of explosions.

Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Oct 11, 2011
The videos show white smoke emerging from the bottom of the towers prior to their collapse.
Never seen it and I was just looking at some before I made my last post. Would you care to post a link. However pressure from the collapse at the top might induce a dust burst.

Sounds of explosions are heard on various videos.
No. Sounds of collapse I have heard. Not explosions.

The videos show molten metal dripping from the side of the towers.
Or it could be other things BUT since there was a rather intense fire going on AND this article shows how the fire could be far more intense than a air fuel fire I don't see a problem.

This is video evidence of explosives.
No. This you calling it video evidence. NOTHING in the videos matches real videos of controlled demolition.

The videos show the towers exploding outward,
No. They show them dropping down raising the pressure inside the column of the building which blows out the windows.>>
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Oct 11, 2011
hurling multi-ton beams hundreds of feet laterally at high speed.
30 stories and more of weight produces a LOT of pressure. Though I don't see multi beams in the videos I am willing to assume there is some evidence of then hitting the ground. Which would require them to be at least hundreds of feet out from the base of the building. Don't recall seeing any such thing. Perhaps you have a link. Dozens of feet will not do. You are claiming hundreds of feet in the video which would have them landing at least that far out.

The videos show the towers falling at or nearly free-fall speed.
No it doesn't. How many times are you going to repeat that nonsense? The rate was about half free fall at the start and reached a maximum speed then remained steady.

It is difficult to tell the speed because the buildings have been reduced to dust in mid-air.
No. You do up a lot of crap. GLASS was blown out and concrete pulverized but the steel mostly went straight down.>>
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Oct 11, 2011
This is video evidence of explosions.
This you claiming things that don't fit the actual evidence.

Go look at CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS. See the rhythm of the explosions and the collapse. There is no congruence between the Twin Towers collapse and those videos.

And why the hell did you give Oliver's ridiculous crap fives. It only encourages him to make up more crap. YOU have more evidence then he does. He hates other scientists because he can't get his ludicrous ideas accepted and he thinks everyone else is a lying evil monster like him. I doubt you are and I know I am not.

Oh yes. The fact that Oliver lived a lie for decades is not what makes his theories crap. They are utter crap all on their own. The living a lie part is what makes him unreliable when there is no evidence at all like the claim that Nixon and ALL Presidents since have been conspiring with the Chinese on global warming.

Ethelred
Fionn_MacTool
2.3 / 5 (9) Oct 11, 2011
@ Ethelred "Go look at CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS. See the rhythm of the explosions and the collapse. There is no congruence between the Twin Towers collapse and those videos."

Firstly I am glad you are looking at them and comparing. This shows progress as I think this is a better place for dialogue. What is clear is that both you and Claudius are in disagreement about this. I personally think the words of Jowenko hold some weight here. After all, he was a demolition expert and he watched the videos and said they looked exactly like a controlled demolition. He seemed very sure about this.

I think we should all agree that what is needed is an independent investigation to get at the truth. Nothing less will do.

TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (8) Oct 11, 2011
@'fionn'
An expert with no knowledge of the building or the extent of the damage and fires to it, would not have looked at one face-on video which did not show the lower floors, and a few diagrams, and conclude that he knew how it fell.

An expert would have wanted to know A LOT more and would have SAID so on the video. The people who did the debunk video did a lot more to explore these things and concluded that it was not controlled demo.

By his actions jowenko demonstrated that he was not qualified to comment.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 11, 2011
Iron microspheres may already have been in the samples from fly ash and other combustion products. The jones results could well have been contaminated


The DSC spectra, which are all very similar, look very clean. It is very unlikely that fly ash and other contaminants are present in all of the samples in the same amounts.
You are not qualified to make that judgement. And apparently neither are the jones researchers because they failed to consider it. This, and the 20? procedural errors they made, and the prejudicial bias they exhibited in their opening comments. Etc.

For instance you don't seem to appreciate the amount of concrete present. Every floor in all buildings. It was certainly more ubiquitous than your mystery thermite which the paper said was present in similar quantities in all samples. And there were other potential sources for this iron as the guy who suggested fly ash provided.
Fionn_MacTool
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 11, 2011
@Otto
Well, thank you for getting my name correct. It seems the dialogue has begun to get a bit more civilised.

Jowenko knows from a life times experience of controlled demolitions what a controlled demolition looks like and he called it as he saw it. We can argue about whether we agree with his expert opinion or not, but I think it is time for you to show us whether you are really motivated by getting to the truth. I think all rational persons at this stage would agree that there is a need for an independent investigation to get to the truth. There is no good reason to deny one, other than to hide something. So can we get you to agree to that?
hush1
2 / 5 (4) Oct 11, 2011
A crime scene is evidence. And for both parties - criminal and investigator - you remove,preserve,alter or fabricate evidence.

Those four options provide investigator and criminal with literally everything they want the world to know.

Specifically - speaking only for myself - the removal of all evidence for the sake of search and rescue is acceptable justification for sites WTC 1 and WTC 2. This justification does not exist for WTC 7.

At site WTC 7, no lives were lost and no search and rescue implemented. So when I go there today I expect to find a crime scene unaltered,preserved, nothing removed or added.

Or is somebody going to tell me: Dream on, asshole.

Claudius
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 11, 2011
@Otto

An expert would have wanted to know A LOT more and would have SAID so on the video. The people who did the debunk video did a lot more to explore these things and concluded that it was not controlled demo. By his actions jowenko demonstrated that he was not qualified to comment.


You really should look at the full Jowenko interview. He said over and over again that he wished he had better photos, more evidence. But even so, what he saw was enough to convince him that fire and damage from the WTC towers were not enough to cause what the collapse.
Claudius
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 11, 2011
@Ethelred

White smoke - "Never seen it and I was just looking... post a link" http://www.youtub...rZZvfCEw

"Sounds of collapse I have heard. Not explosions." http://www.youtub...X_8flGeM

"since there was a rather intense ... could be far more intense than a air fuel fire I don't see a problem." Open air fires don't melt steel. You need a blast furnace. Are you suggesting the towers turned into a blast furnace? People are seen standing in the openings, so this is very unlikely. And don't try to say it was aluminum, it's the wrong color.

"NOTHING in the videos matches real videos of controlled demolition." Several experts in controlled demolition disagree with you.

Cont.
Claudius
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 11, 2011
"They show them dropping down raising the pressure inside the column of the building which blows out the windows." Do you think air pressure turned all of the concrete into dust in midair? If so, what amount of air pressure do you think is needed to do that? How would you create that much air pressure without an explosive?

Re: hurled girders: "Don't recall seeing any such thing... Perhaps you have a link." It is in all the videos. Multi-ton girders are seen in the videos flying away from the columns of dust that used to be buildings. One 4 ton girder was clocked at 70 mph. How much energy is required to do that? If you balanced a 4 ton girder at the top of the WTC before it collapsed and pushed it over the side, would it be traveling at 70 mph and embed in buildings 600 ft away? You have to account for the lateral forces that are seen, and explain why you don't see girders flying away from WTC7.

Cont.
Claudius
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 11, 2011
Re: the rate of collapse. "No. You do up a lot of crap. GLASS was blown out and concrete pulverized but the steel mostly went straight down." See above about hurled girders. Look at any video and see that the building turns into powder starting from the top down. Within a few seconds of the beginning of collapse, the top of both buildings are lost to view in the cloud of powdered concrete, making a rate of descent calculation impossible.

"This you claiming things that don't fit the actual evidence." Sounds just like what I am saying about your assertions. The evidence of explosives pervades the entire spectrum of evidence. It is seen in eyewitness testimony, it is seen in the videos, it is seen in the compact rubble piles, it is seen in the residues. It is seen in the efforts of the government to cover it up by removing evidence. There is no aspect of these events that does not contain evidence of explosives.
Claudius
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 11, 2011
You are not qualified to make that judgement.


I have to wonder exactly where in the area of logical fallacy this falls. It seems like an appeal to authority, but instead of relying on an authority to discredit someone, you go straight to the jugular. It also seems like an ad-hominem attack, another logical fallacy. Either way, you have nothing to back up that statement other than your own personal opinion. I haven't made a similar statement about your qualifications, mainly because outside of your statements, I don't know anything about you. But you don't know anything about me either. I don't label you as unqualified, though I often disagree with your conclusions.

But you seem to be an expert at disqualifying everyone, expert or layman, that disagrees with you.

Many people who are well qualified often find themselves disagreeing with each other.
Claudius
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 11, 2011
@Ethelred
And why the hell did you give Oliver's ridiculous crap fives


Are you an administrator for Physorg? How would you be able to access the voting records in this comment section? Please let me know, I would like to analyze how people are voting, too.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (10) Oct 11, 2011
The evidence of explosives pervades the entire spectrum of evidence
Aw now you're just flinging shit like 70 ton girders in a Bldg collapse. There is NO credible evidence for explosives. All the evidence you and the dimwit known as 'fionn' has been convincingly discounted in this thread and elsewhere.

The more I look into these issues the more rank amateurs like you and 'fionn' I find who are drawing conclusions about issues they can't possibly understand, and ignoring direct evidence which obviously proves them wrong.

I started out here thinking that wtc7 indeed looked strange. I looked over a lot of evidence both from debunkers and truthers and concluded that truthers are for the most part fabricators and liars. Only one example needed - they refuse to acknowledge it collapsed asymmetrically even though this is obvious in the videos they DON'T reference.

I do agree there needs to be independent investigations of truther deception, starting with the jones paper.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (11) Oct 11, 2011
@Ethelred
And why the hell did you give Oliver's ridiculous crap fives


Are you an administrator for Physorg? How would you be able to access the voting records in this comment section? Please let me know, I would like to analyze how people are voting, too.
My god man, you see how stunted you are? You would even try to lie about something as easy to check as this. Unbelievable. It doesn't even OCCUR to you, that checking this must be a VERY easy thing to do.

Your judgement on 9/11 issues is similarly hopeless. I must again conclude that truthers on the whole are similarly restricted, or are pandering to people who are.
hush1
2 / 5 (4) Oct 11, 2011
Ratings? I see no ratings here ever. And when I see all the comments commenting on ratings I know I am missing something in life that definitely does not belong in your lives.
Claudius
2.5 / 5 (8) Oct 11, 2011
Aw now you're just flinging shit like 70 ton girders in a Bldg collapse. There is NO credible evidence for explosives.


http://www.youtub...pOavkHg8
GeToChKn
5 / 5 (3) Oct 11, 2011
Great video Claudhopper. I like how it shows the building falling apart all over the place over a huge area and chunks spewing in all directions. That's exactly like a controlled demolition right? That fell into owns footprint right? Look at the spread of debris. You still refuse to say how they got all these explosives into the buildings. Why bother with planes at all. Simply way for a conspiracy is the easiest. Suitcase nuke in the basement, blow it up, blame Arabs, go to war, profit. Why bother with the plane thing into the buildings, blowing up the buildings and all the rest. Why even bother with explosives and the risk of being detected. Why not just fly some planes into the buildings. Do you not think the outrage would have been the same if the buildings came down or not? Would the go to war for oil and profit of the evil Bush and neo-cons not been just as severe if the buildings came down or not?
Claudius
2.5 / 5 (8) Oct 11, 2011
Why not just fly some planes into the buildings.


Good question. Maybe they wanted some "shock and awe"?

I agree that the destruction of the towers is not typical controlled demolition.

Rather than calling names, why not address the issues? Explain how the concrete was pulverized in mid-air, for instance.
Claudius
2.5 / 5 (8) Oct 11, 2011
There is NO credible evidence for explosives.


From the above article: "A mix of sprinkling system water and melted aluminium from aircraft hulls likely triggered the explosions that felled New York's Twin Towers on September 11, 2001, a materials expert has told a technology conference."

To what explosions are they referring?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (8) Oct 11, 2011
I noticed the use of the term 'girder' when the speaker was referring to columns. Then I found this in a Richard Gage article:

"A network of heavy steel girders had to be forcibly removed suddenly across the width of the building for eight floors."

A small clue which says a very great deal:

gird·er 
n.
A beam, as of steel, wood, or reinforced concrete, used as a main horizontal support in a building or bridge.

-Proper names for structural members are among the first things A/Es learn in structures class. They use these terms throughout their careers in discussing design issues, and their proper use becomes second nature to them. 

NO A/E with sufficient training and experience, would confuse these terms. It's like an auto mechanic confusing a bolt with a screw. More evidence that truthers are charlatans.

Correct answers to your questions in more pleasant form:
http://www.cool-p...Gage.pdf

-Another CT like me who cannot tolerate bullshit.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 11, 2011
There is NO credible evidence for explosives.


From the above article: "A mix of sprinkling system water and melted aluminium from aircraft hulls likely triggered the explosions that felled New York's Twin Towers on September 11, 2001, a materials expert has told a technology conference."

To what explosions are they referring?
So are you saying you accept this theory instead of the highly implausible 'mission impossible' supernanodemostoff one? In the article the author says that the gypsum and concrete debris from the initial impacts could have created furnace-like conditions and also I suppose muffled explosion sounds somewhat.
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 12, 2011
What is clear is that both you and Claudius are in disagreement about this.
Yes. And I have the videos on my side.

I personally think the words of Jowenko hold some weight here.
I think the words of the head of Controlled Demolition has some weight here. But mostly I think the videos are pretty conclusive.

He seemed very sure about this.
And the boss of Controlled Demolition disagreed with him. HAVE you LOOKED at both. There is NO CONGRUENCE. None. It looks to me that the zone of the collision and just below it failed and collapsed. All that weight dropped on the lower levels and with that drop the towers were pressurized blowing out the walls below the increasingly heavy dropping section of the towers.

I think we should all agree that what is needed is an independent investigation to get at the truth.
I think we had that. You guys just didn't like the answers.

Ethelred
Fionn_MacTool
2.8 / 5 (9) Oct 12, 2011
@Ethelred "I think we should all agree that what is needed is an independent investigation to get at the truth."

"I think we had that. You guys just didn't like the answers."

I just don't see how you can seriously say that. This is an investigation which was originally to be headed by Henry Kissinger (a singular force for truth and honesty in the world), where the majority of the records (including Bush and Cheney's interview) remain indefinitely sealed. Lets be serious about what an independent and OPEN investigation actually means.

If there was any truth in the claim of government involvment, you would have as much chance of getting to the truth through the 911 commission as if the German government had investigated the burning of the Reichstag, i.e. none.

It is becoming increasingly apparent that what everyone on the official side fears is an independent open investigation. One has to ask why that is? It's cost would be insignificant in terms of the event and it's impact.
Claudius
2.5 / 5 (8) Oct 12, 2011
So are you saying you accept this theory instead of the highly implausible 'mission impossible' supernanodemostoff one?


No, just pointing out that even the Ministry of Truth accepts the idea that explosions brought down the buildings.

"War is Peace"
"Freedom is Slavery"
"Ignorance is Strength"

"In this way every prediction made by the Party could be shown by documentary evidence to have been correct, nor was any item of news, or any expression of opinion, which conflicted with the needs of the moment, ever allowed to remain on record. All history was a palimpsest, scraped clean and reinscribed exactly as often as was necessary. In no case would it have been possible, once the deed was done, to prove that any falsification had taken place."
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 12, 2011
Well then you must be very strong indeed. The researcher in the article above is proposing a theory. A plausible one. His alien black ops area 51 connections have little to do with whether his theory is plausible or not.
mikiewooliebugger
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 12, 2011
the two previous weekends the towewers electricity was shut down for repair purposes and allowed the implementation of explosives to go undetected by the cctv systems. on 911 cheney told bush not to come to dc. when does the vp tell the pres what to do? why does the vp lead baby bush around by the hand?
FrankHerbert
2.4 / 5 (85) Oct 12, 2011
You guys know damn well that if the towers fell straight over like Godzilla himself came through and knocked them over, you'd still be claiming that as proof of a conspiracy.

Instead of saying "I know what a controlled demolition looks like and that was one!" you'd be saying "I know what a chopped down tree looks like and trees don't chop themselves!" having neither demolished a building or chopped down a tree.

There is no manner in which those planes could have brought those towers down that you'd believe that was what happened.

It's also obvious (from my first viewing live as it happened) that the towers become structurally compromised before they start to come down. The one visibly leans, as Matt Lauer even notices, a few minutes before it comes down. I've never seen a building lean prior to a demolition. It also doesn't come STRAIGHT down. The top section above the impact kind of sloughs off as the rest begins to crumble. I remember this all very vividly.

7 was collateral, duh.
Fionn_MacTool
2.3 / 5 (9) Oct 12, 2011
By the by, if you are in the official camp you have to believe the following event to be true.

We have all seen the plane hit the building, we saw it explode. What you didn't notice from the video footage was that the passport of one of the terrorists flew out of the wreckage and landed a few blocks away. That's right. Maybe it was in his pocket and when the plane hit it slipped out, or he left it in front of him as he flew the plane. Either way, it managed to avoid the entire internal structure of the building and resulting fireball and then flew through the air to land safely near by to be found and implicate the terrorist who's body was completely consumed along with almost everything else from the plane.

Oh, and why has no one tried to track down those responsible for insider trading before 911? There were the huge surges in purchases of put options on stocks of the two airlines used in the attack -- United Airlines and American Airlines
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.5 / 5 (8) Oct 12, 2011
Ethelred

In trying to find the source for your reference I instead found this:
http://www.youtub...a_player

-A supposed demo expert who was actually an alleged gofer for CDI.

Please provide a proper reference so innocents do not stumble upon this crap, and I can learn something?

This guy nevertheless does point out that in order to drop a Bldg on purpose you have to first have a structural Eng'r tell you how, then you have to cut a lot of steel and set charges throughout 30 pct of the bottom floors. Or whatever the Eng'r says. Which obviously cannot be done on a few weekends.

Or, you can wait until a few thousand tons of debris falls on it and internal fires burn for 9 hours, to do it for you. And then you can watch it fail slowly as it creaks and groans and it begins to bulge in places.

Fionn_MacTool
2.5 / 5 (11) Oct 12, 2011
The official version has to continually rely on highly improbable events occurring. Not just one, but many. And each has such small odds of actually occurring by chance you are probably more likely to win the lottery a few times in a row.

Anyway, I go off topic, as I say....lets have an independent open investigation and shut up the conspiracy theorists once and for all. That's what we all want, right? And no one has anything to loose from such an investigation.

omatumr
1.4 / 5 (9) Oct 12, 2011
"War is Peace"
"Freedom is Slavery"
"Ignorance is Strength"

"In this way every prediction made by the Party could be shown by documentary evidence to have been correct, nor was any item of news, or any expression of opinion, which conflicted with the needs of the moment, ever allowed to remain on record. All history was a palimpsest, scraped clean and reinscribed exactly as often as was necessary. In no case would it have been possible, once the deed was done, to prove that any falsification had taken place."


From my visit to the USSR in 1980 to present the plenary lecture at the Vernadsky Institute of Geochemistry and Analytical Chemistry in Moscow and travel around the country two weeks, I concluded that Big Brother has an especially strong aversion to:

a.) Citizens reading George Orwells book, 1984.
www.online-litera...ll/1984/

b.) Scientists acknowledging a power greater than Big Brother.
c.) Anyone believing there is a power greater than Big Brother.

OM
FrankHerbert
2.4 / 5 (85) Oct 12, 2011
The conspiracy version also relies on highly improbably events occurring. IT WAS a highly improbable event. Why can't you grasp that?

shut up the conspiracy theorists once and for all.


Impossible. Check out the birther movement.

SWEET! THANKS OLIVER! I got post 666!
Fionn_MacTool
2.6 / 5 (10) Oct 12, 2011
@ Frank "You guys know damn well that if the towers fell straight over like Godzilla himself came through and knocked them over, you'd still be claiming that as proof of a conspiracy."

I would love to believe the official version. The amount of time I have spent looking at this is painful...even now I have work I should be doing and I am here writing this! But I honestly come from a genuine desire to know the truth. It is fine for us to disagree about what happened, in fact it is good. I want to be convinced I am wrong. Unfortunately there are still many questions that I have not seen a satisfying answer to.

I would be happy though if people could at least agree there is enough reason to have an open independent investigation, even from your perspective, if only to shut me and others like me up.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (8) Oct 12, 2011
The official version has to continually rely on highly improbable events occurring. Not just one, but many. And each has such small odds of actually occurring by chance you are probably more likely to win the lottery a few times in a row.
I like how you continually repost your dogma in the hopes of duping new people I suppose?
Anyway, I go off topic, as I say....lets have an independent open investigation and shut up the conspiracy theorists once and for all. That's what we all want, right? And no one has anything to loose from such an investigation.
You loonies would never accept it, you know that. Why waste a few million taxpayer dollars?

Save money and retest the samples and debunk the thermite myth. Do some research and show that those chips were part of a standard product used in Bldg construction. Show that iron spheres came from other sources.
Fionn_MacTool
2.6 / 5 (10) Oct 12, 2011
@Frank "IT WAS a highly improbable event. Why can't you grasp that?"

Well, if we agree to that then we are choosing between two highly improbable events. Surely then from an objective point of view both are worthy of equal investigation?

FrankHerbert
2.4 / 5 (86) Oct 12, 2011
No, another investigation won't shut anyone up. Even if you hand picked the people yourself, if they disagreed with you, you would eventually find a reason to discredit them. Maybe you get looking and one of their great grandfathers swept the floors of a Bilderberg mansion or something. You'll find a reason. Maybe another's name is an anagram of nanothermite. Lol, I'm sure whatever you'd come up with would be entertaining.
Fionn_MacTool
2.5 / 5 (11) Oct 12, 2011
@Otto "loonies" You again resort to juvenile tactics. Name calling is usually the last resort when you feel like you are loosing control of a discussion :)

New people can make their own minds up. That's why I recommended they compare videos with controlled demolitions (above).

I think so far I have demonstrated the need for an independent open investigation. As Frank states, we are dealing with highly improbable events. It deserves independent open investigation. The only reason you can give for denying such an investigation is a financial one? That you think a few million is comparable to the continuing cost in lives and money is a little misguided I would say.
FrankHerbert
2.4 / 5 (83) Oct 12, 2011
Well, if we agree


What's different and far more improbable is the burden on the government in your scenario of keeping the secret. Sure bin Laden successfully planning and executing his attack was highly improbable. The passport maybe even more so (things like it happen all the time though). People on the ground who witness plane crashes often comment on the amount of paper and such and the lack of body parts. Odd isn't it?

But employing HOW MANY people to secretly execute such a high profile act? We're 10 years out. No credible leaks? Nothing?
Fionn_MacTool
2.6 / 5 (10) Oct 12, 2011
@Frank Barry Jennings went on film and said he heard explosions in building 7 and was stepping over bodies. He died in unexplained circumstances two days before the release of the NIST Final Report on the collapse of WTC7. As has been stated above, it is quite easy to silence people. First you offer money, then you threaten. When that doesn't work you kill. Anyone else who is smart will accept money knowing they will die otherwise and NOTHING will be done about it.

Here is an improbable event. Many German people claimed not to know that Jews were being exterminated. How do you think they kept that a secret? Surely someone within the Nazi administration would have come out and said something? Or do you think they had moral justification in their own minds for what they were doing? Also, do you think German civilians knew that Germany had created a false flag to justify war with Poland? So, the argument that it is impossible to get away with this types of event does not hold water.
Fionn_MacTool
2.6 / 5 (10) Oct 12, 2011
@Frank, I imagine many German people would have found the idea of mass extermination completely unbelievable...wouldn't you? Yet it happened. And human beings were responsible. Human beings who were doing a good job of keeping it secret. In fact, if the Nazis had won, do you think we would even know who the Jews were? Do you think the German high command or the SS guards would be on tv talking about how they exterminated the Jews. Perhaps there would be a show on conspiracies on German tv that went through the possibility that they had been exterminated. It's interesting to think about...no?

But if you were German you would ask "How could they have possibly done that and not been found out? No...totally unbelievable". That's your argument, right?
omatumr
1.4 / 5 (9) Oct 12, 2011
The two previous weekends the tower's electricity was shut down for repair purposes and allowed the implementation of explosives to go undetected by the cctv systems.

On 911 cheney told bush not to come to DC.

When does the VP tell the Pres what to do?

Why does the VP lead baby Bush around by the hand?


Many agree: VP Dick Cheney was in fact the President.

Many doubt: The two previous weekends the tower's electricity was shut down for repair purposes and allowed the implementation of explosives to go undetected by the Closed Circuit TV Systems.

Please elaborate.

As noted above, Big Brother has an especially strong aversion to:

a.) Citizens reading George Orwells book, 1984.

www.online-litera...ll/1984/

b.) Scientists acknowledging a power greater than Big Brother.

c.) Anyone believing there is a power greater than Big Brother.

Followers of Big Brother will probably give a ranking of 1 to this post too.

OM
http://myprofile....anuelo09
Fionn_MacTool
2.3 / 5 (9) Oct 12, 2011
@Oma

I love Big Brother :)
GeToChKn
4 / 5 (4) Oct 12, 2011
The Hudson building was the tallest building ever CD'd and read up on how much it took.

http://www.contro...nt-store

They had to cut beams, spend 3 months planting charges. How did they manage to cut all the proper beams in the WTC 1 and 2 and 7 and plant all the explosives without anyone knowing. Someone said above they had 2 days without CCTV. 2 days isn't enough time to do anything in the CD world.

Not to mention the hundreds of people doing it, did it knowing it would amount to thousands of people dead and did it, for what, a few bucks? There would have to be thousands of people involved in covering this up and no one comes forward. A few people said they heard explosive sounds. People hear fireworks and call the cops thinking they are gun shots. A boom sounds like a boom, but you can't say what caused the boom.
omatumr
1.4 / 5 (10) Oct 12, 2011
@Oma

I love Big Brother :)


Yes, Big Brother was too dumb to cover his own indelible fingerprints on misinformation about:

a.) Earths heat source The Sun, and
b.) Earths temperature, respectively !

From written [1] and televised [2] reports:

1. The 2009 Climategate e-mails:

http://joannenova...imeline/

2. The 1998 CSPAN recording:

http://www.youtub...IFmZpFco

Anytime you deal with an especially incompetent bureaucrat, you can see Big Brother's personality and lack of creativity.

Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Power also induces stupidity and lose of creativity.

Big Brother's followers identify themselves here.

OM
http://myprofile....anuelo09
http://dl.dropbox...reer.pdf
Claudius
2.2 / 5 (10) Oct 12, 2011
The researcher in the article above is proposing a theory. A plausible one.


This is about as plausible as the idea that the buildings were designed to fall when hit by jets. The BS-O-Meter pegged, can't even measure how deep the BS is on either idea. But The Ministry of Truth is still busy trying to come up with a conspiracy theory that matches the evidence ("the explosions that felled New York's Twin Towers.") Unfortunately, they can't come up with anything even remotely plausible.
Claudius
2.2 / 5 (10) Oct 12, 2011
There would have to be thousands of people involved in covering this up and no one comes forward.

Kevin Ryan comes to mind. Former UL chemistry laboratory manager, fired from his job for going public with information that showed UL and NIST conspired to hide results of fire tests UL conducted on floor assemblies. The test results showed that the floor assemblies could not have failed due to fire as the government asserted.

omatumr
1.4 / 5 (9) Oct 12, 2011
@Oma

I love Big Brother :)


Big Brother has skilled propaganda artists operating here:

a.) Obfuscating information
b.) Spreading misinformation
c.) Attacking people instead of ideas
d.) Using emotionalism instead of logic
e.) Giving a rank of 1 to comments that question dogma

"By their fruits, you shall know them."

See:

1. Skeptics dictionary, Lysenkoism:

www.skepdic.com/lysenko.html

2. "Roadblocks to progress in science (1971-2011)"

http://dl.dropbox...oots.pdf

OM
http://myprofile....anuelo09
http://dl.dropbox...reer.pdf
Claudius
2.1 / 5 (11) Oct 12, 2011
You would even try to lie...


Them's fightin' words, mister.

For your information, I do not lie. If I am mistaken, I am willing to admit it, if you can show me the error of my ways.

I find it interesting that members of the "Truth" movement are almost always polite and careful in their statements. They produce volumes of evidence to support their assertions.

Their opponents are all stereotypical: never produce evidence to support their assertions, never produce credible evidence to discredit "Truther" assertions, frequently resort to argument from authority, ad hominem attacks, and general name-calling. The modus operandi is the same, as if manufactured by the same maker. This gives weight to the idea that they are all running-dog lackeys of the imperialist pig-dogs. In other words, disinfo agents, modern-day unrepentant Winston Smiths.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (9) Oct 12, 2011
I think so far I have demonstrated the need for an independent open investigation.
Youre the same person who thinks bldgs should be retrofitted to protect against plane strikes arent you?
For your information, I do not lie. If I am mistaken, I am willing to admit it, if you can show me the error of my ways.
You imply that you did not uprate tumor because you figured there was no way to check.

You ignore evidence which refutes what you believe. This is self-deception.

You do not post evidence which you know exists which refutes your beliefs. This is lying by ommission.

You continue to misrepresent people like laffoly and jowenko even after being shown they are not what they purport to be.

etc etc. You are a credit to truthers everywhere. Keep up the good work.
hush1
2 / 5 (4) Oct 12, 2011
The Hudson building...


What? Huh? No molten metal? - Demand a refund from CDI.

"Complicating the implosion, engineered by Controlled Demolition Inc. (CDI) of Phoenix, Md., was the fact that construction of the building occurred in 12 stages between 1911-46 and no structural drawings of the building existed.

But the record-setting implosion went off without a hitch. The roughly 2,728 lbs of explosives placed inside the building reduced it to piles of debris in a matter of seconds."

http://www.infopl...hed.html
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (9) Oct 12, 2011
I find it interesting that members of the "Truth" movement are almost always polite and careful in their statements. They produce volumes of evidence to support their assertions.

Their opponents are all stereotypical: never produce evidence to support their assertions, never produce credible evidence to discredit "Truther" assertions, frequently resort to argument from authority, ad hominem attacks, and general name-calling. The modus operandi is the same, as if manufactured by the same maker. This gives weight to the idea that they are all running-dog lackeys of the imperialist pig-dogs. In other words, disinfo agents, modern-day unrepentant Winston Smiths.
This is funny and also informative. Religionists will say these EXACT same things... 'We are more polite and composed... debunkers insult us, never prove what they say, are ALL alike... [insert standard dogma tripe here]...In other words we must be right because we are more pleasant and obviously better than them.'

FOAD
omatumr
1.4 / 5 (10) Oct 12, 2011
Members of the "Truth" movement are almost always polite and careful in their statements. They produce volumes of evidence to support their assertions.

Their opponents never produce evidence to support their assertions, never produce credible evidence to discredit "Truther" assertions, frequently resort to argument from authority, ad hominem attacks, and general name-calling.

The modus operandi is the same, as if manufactured by the same maker. This gives weight to the idea that they are all running-dog lackeys of the imperialist pig-dogs.

In other words, disinfo agents, modern-day unrepentant Winston Smiths.


"By their fruits, you shall know them."

1. Winston Smith

http://en.wikiped...on_Smith

2. Lysenkoism

www.skepdic.com/lysenko.html

3. Roadblocks in science (1971-2011)

http://dl.dropbox...oots.pdf

OM
http://myprofile....anuelo09
http://dl.dropbox...reer.pdf
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (9) Oct 12, 2011
Lets see if we cant flush out just a few of the lies in these statements:
I find it interesting that members of the "Truth" movement ... produce volumes of evidence to support their assertions.
-Evidence which is obviously fabricated and/or easily discredited. Which they ignore when they cant discredit it.
Their opponents...never produce evidence to support their assertions
-Lie.
never produce credible evidence to discredit "Truther" assertions
-Lie.
The modus operandi is the same, as if manufactured by the same maker.
-Reality usually looks the same to different people.
This gives weight to the idea that they are all running-dog lackeys of the imperialist pig-dogs. In other words, disinfo agents, modern-day unrepentant Winston Smiths.
-Standard mindless religio-idealist TRIPE and lie after lie after lie.

You reek man.
hush1
2 / 5 (4) Oct 12, 2011
No infrared imagery temperature gradient fields of any thermal 'detect' data to compare with the 'Thermal Hot Spots' data.

Wondering if absorption/emission spectroscopy was done. That can reveal what substances was a'glowin' and molten for so long.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.5 / 5 (8) Oct 12, 2011
Now if ethelred had done a little more research he would have found out that aluminium does indeed glow bright orange at higher temps:
http://www.youtub...=related

My god is there so much bullshit associated with these events-
Claudius
2.1 / 5 (11) Oct 12, 2011
My god is there so much bullshit associated with these events-

Finally, something we can agree on.

Evidence which is obviously fabricated and/or easily discredited.


It's easy to discredit evidence. All you have to do is say it is nonsense. You don't even have to prove it is nonsense, just say it is. Then when asked for evidence of your assertion, either ignore it or give some evidence that is unconvincing.

Religionists will say these EXACT same things

Well, the difference is, they have no evidence to back up their claims. Just like you.

lie after lie after lie.

Told you about this. If I am mistaken, prove me wrong. Otherwise don't use fighting words. So far you have been strong on rhetoric, weak on evidence. "the bldgs were designed to fall when hit by jets" and no evidence to support it, give me a break. Talk about lies.
Claudius
2.2 / 5 (11) Oct 12, 2011
Now if ethelred had done a little more research he would have found out that aluminium does indeed glow bright orange at higher temps:


Looked at your video. According to the chart of color by temperature, aluminum glows "brown red" at 600 deg C, and progresses up to orange, yellow and then white at the higher temperatures. Of course, in daylight, it looks silver, as you yourself have previously pointed out. The idea that the molten metal is aluminum is hereby discredited.

What the metal is, is not known. No samples are available. But what one CAN know is that it is NOT aluminum.
hush1
2 / 5 (4) Oct 12, 2011
Around this time of year children of all ages go around asking for tricks or treats. Let's knock on the doors of the ten biggest skyscrapers builders and ask them for a treat:
What are their structures design for? How many hoops of 'what ifs' are carried out?
Will we be told secret tricks of the trade(corners cut) or treated to scenarios worst than the worst scenarios?
The paper bag for the hand outs are not for the hand outs.
The paper bag is handy when ingesting too much and barf.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.6 / 5 (10) Oct 12, 2011
Well, the difference is, they have no evidence to back up their claims. Just like you.
Which is a lie because evidence has been posted here which you dont choose to accept. This certainly does not invalidate it.
But what one CAN know is that it is NOT aluminum.
Even though many reputable people claim that it is, per the video. This is at least grounds for doubt. Except for claudius the self-delusionist.

Have you been through these vids? Go through them again.
http://www.youtub...About911
Claudius
2.1 / 5 (11) Oct 12, 2011
Even though many reputable people claim that it is, per the video. This is at least grounds for doubt. Except for claudius the self-delusionist.


"-Molten aluminum indeed appears silver in daylight. Numerous videos and pics available with GOOGLE." - Otto's own words.

TheGhos