900 replies to this topic

[flyingswan]

Liquid Gardens, on 31 October 2012 - 10:24 PM, said:

Q, real quick, I'm having trouble finding a truther rebuttal to the idea that the molten flow may be partly a result of a rack of batteries Fuji Bank had at that location.

Here are a couple of threads on the subject:
http://www.unexplain...7
http://www.unexplain...3

[Q24]

skyeagle409, on 31 October 2012 - 06:37 PM, said:

But, there was no evidence of thermite in the rubble of the WTC buildings. And, thermite is not an explosive nor widely used by demolition companies.

This is not worth responding to.

skyeagle409, on 31 October 2012 - 06:37 PM, said:

Were you aware that the CIA was tracking terrorist in Malaysia and unaware the terrorist had slipped into Thailand?

Skyeagle, it’s sad that you don’t even get to first base in the ‘discussion’ but this is still worth repeating…

After following the terrorists in Malaysia, the CIA, and later the FBI, were both aware of the terrorists (future hijackers) inside the U.S. prior to 9/11.  I don’t care about any grey spot in Thailand between.  The CIA failed to place the terrorists on a block list to prevent them entering the U.S. (the official reason being a paperwork snafu) and for undisclosed reason consistently and aggressively forbid the FBI from taking action against the terrorists.  It is no coincidence that the terrorists met and received assistance from a Saudi government agent who passed them on to the rented accommodation of a U.S. intelligence informant all under protection of the CIA inside the U.S.

This information comes from on record testimony, is backed by U.S. senators and a member of the 9/11 Commission, and is the same conclusion reached by former State Department and counter-terrorism chief, Richard Clarke: -

http://www.thedailyb...-up-charge.html

It was well within the CIA’s grasp to stop 9/11.  Instead of foremost protecting the people, the CIA protected the terrorists!  Where is the accountability?  It’s not good enough.  And again, rather than invoking yet another disparate explanation, this is exactly the situation that would be expected of a false flag setup.  I want to say ‘wake up people’… the Bush administration was full of hawks bursting at the seems to use American military might to launch a war (or two)… then the pretext for a global ‘War on Terror’ arrived only six months into their four year guaranteed window of opportunity under the described circumstances… give me a break.  It was a setup; a false flag, all over, A-Z.

[Q24]

Liquid Gardens, on 31 October 2012 - 10:24 PM, said:

Q, real quick, I'm having trouble finding a truther rebuttal to the idea that the molten flow may be partly a result of a rack of batteries Fuji Bank had at that location.  I tried searching on the posts here, but I must be screwing it up, I'm getting weird results, and I didn't see anything on 911truth.org or in google countering it.  I'm sure you've heard of it, but if you had any resources on your side you can point me to easily so I can take a look at the counter argument to it, it might save you some time.  Or of course feel free to provide your thoughts on it also.  The first note I saw of the suggestion seems to be from around 2008 I think, I'm sure you guys have already talked about it so sorry if I'm retreading very worn or banal ground, I thought it was an interesting explanation at least.

The aluminium/debris mix theory never lasts long.

Yes, the UPS batteries have been discussed before. You could follow over the 4-5 pages starting from my post #914 here.  To summarise the argument against this being cause of the WTC2 molten metal flow: -

• It is unlikely that random damage will conspire to cause a short circuit, where the positive and negative battery terminals must be connected, in the first place.
  
• If a short circuit does occur, the inbuilt circuit breakers make it unlikely that the batteries will be short-circuited indefinitely.
  
• If a short circuit does occur and the circuit breaker fails (I don’t know why this should be the case for the whole system so we will have to assume numerous individual battery short circuits from here on in) then the circuit will still cease to exist and generate heat when the electrolyte fails at 100^oC.
  
• If a short circuit does occur and the circuit breaker fails and the electrolyte survives, the circuit will cease to exist and generate heat when the lead fails at 327^oC.  Due to this point and the last, there is no way the battery can continue to generate heat to produce the large 1,000^oC+ molten metal flow observed before melting itself and ceasing to function.
  
• Notwithstanding the above, it is possible that elements within the battery may experience a very rapid and severe increase in temperature and explode or even vaporise (which again destroys the battery).  Whilst this indicates the presence of isolated 1,000^oC+ temperatures, these occur only in small components of the battery or even on the molecular scale, i.e. it is never going to produce a significant quantity of 1,000^oC+ molten lead.  Think of it this way - inside the tip of a lit cigarette it is 700^oC, but you aren’t going to melt any metal with it.

In all I cannot see how the UPS batteries have any hope of creating the effect observed of the WTC2 molten metal flow and neither is it best fit to the features previously described.

If you still believe otherwise then please set up a rack of batteries, light and sustain a bonfire under them (as much jet fuel as you like permitted) and throw as much metal debris at it as you like… you will never get a significant/observable quantity of 1,000^oC+ molten metal spewing out.  I’ll even waive points 1 and 2 - forget throwing metal debris; you can short the batteries deliberately - you still won’t get the effect.  I’d do it myself but prefer not to waste my time - apparently flyingswan deduced the same when challenged also.

Don’t forget to repeat the experiment with homemade thermite in a flowerpot.

Please let us know which provides the match.

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 01 November 2012 - 12:59 PM, said:

This is not worth responding to.

That is  because you can offer nothing to refute the fact that thermite was not found within the rubble of the WTC buildings. To sum that up; you were duped by such folks as Steven Jones.

Quote

After following the terrorists in Malaysia, the CIA, and later the FBI, were both aware of the terrorists (future hijackers) inside the U.S. prior to 9/11.

Yes indeed, and later, the CIA and the FBI admitted to their mistakes, which resulted in intelligence failures leading up to the 9/11 attacks and I have posted their confessions as well. And since it was known that the CIA was a target of those terrorist, I fail to understand why you think the CIA was supporting the very terrorist who made it clear they intended to attack the CIA.

Were you aware that the CIA attempted to capture Osama bin Laden in the late 1990s and bring him to the United States to face justice, but was overruled by then, President Clinton, because the mission was deemed too risky? That doesn't sound like the CIA was supporting the terrorist at that time, which it wasn't supporting because a few years earlier, the Philippines revealed terrorist intentions to attack CIA headquarters with an airplane and yet, you say the CIA was supporting the terrorist?!?!?!

Seems to me you have fallen victim those conspiracist websites as well.

Edited by skyeagle409, 01 November 2012 - 05:51 PM.

[Q24]

skyeagle409, on 01 November 2012 - 04:56 PM, said:

That is  because you can offer nothing to refute the fact that thermite was not found within the rubble of the WTC buildings. To sum that up; you were duped by such folks as Steven Jones.

Actually, because your previous comments could be countered by a ten year old.

skyeagle409, on 01 November 2012 - 04:56 PM, said:

Yes indeed, and later, the CIA and the FBI admitted to their mistakes, which resulted in intelligence failures leading up to the 9/11 attacks and I have posted their confessions as well. And since it was known that the CIA was a target of those terrorist, I fail to understand why you think the CIA was supporting the very terrorist who made it clear they intended to attack the CIA.

Were you aware that the CIA attempted to capture Osama bin Laden in the late 1990s and bring him to the United States to bring him to justice, but was overruled by then, President Clinton, because the mission was deemed too risky? That doesn't sound like the CIA was supporting the terrorist at that time, which it wasn't supporting because a few years earlier, the Philippines revealed terrorist intentions to attack CIA headquarters with an airplane and yet, you say the CIA was supporting the terrorist?!?!?!

Seems to me you have fallen victim those conspiracist websites as well.

No, you posted a very vague top-level description about a failure to share intelligence, which is not what my complaint is about so you‘re off the mark by a long shot.  What the CIA have not provided explanation for are the actions that I have laid out - namely allowing the terrorists free rein inside the United States whilst aggressively blocking FBI attempts to act against them.

It is also clear from your post that you have a very poor understanding of large organisations like the CIA - an obvious error is to assume they are a single entity where the right arm knows what the left is doing.  Here is news for you - the CIA is comprised of individual units, people and report structures who may have very different values and aims to one another.  The fact that terrorists might like to attack the CIA in general does not mean some individuals within the organisation do not have use for said terrorists or find benefit in an attack.  I am further aware that the CIA would have captured bin Laden in 2001 if not for the intervention of Secretary of Defense and PNAC/Neocon associate, Donald Rumsfeld, which allowed him to slip over the border into Pakistan, which was itself a pre-arranged deal between the U.S. and Pakistan.

And since when did the sources I mentioned have anything to do with ‘conspiracist websites‘?  I don’t think you properly read or take onboard a thing anyone says.  In reference to our ‘discussion’ about CIA and Saudi assistance to the hijackers, which ‘conspiracist websites’ have I referenced?

Edited by Q24, 01 November 2012 - 05:58 PM.

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 01 November 2012 - 05:54 PM, said:

Actually, because your previous comments could be countered by a ten year old.

Let's put some facts on the table. First of all, thermite was not found in the rubble by Steven Jones. Not even the American Society of Civil Engineers nor the Architects Institute of America, support the findings of Steven Jones, and to add to that, his colleages at BYU have distanced themselves from him as well.

On another note, lets take a look at what is required to demolish a building with explosives and not that thermite is not even in the picture.

How Building Implosions Work

Demolishing steel columns is a bit more difficult, as the dense material is much stronger. For buildings with a steel support structure, blasters typically use the specialized explosive material cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine, called RDX for short. RDX-based explosive compounds expand at a very high rate of speed, up to 27,000 feet per second (8,230 meters per second). Instead of disintegrating the entire column, the concentrated, high-velocity pressure slices right through the steel, splitting it in half. Additionally, blasters may ignite dynamite on one side of the column to push it over in a particular direction.





Concrete columns (on the left) are blown apart with conventional dynamite or a similar sort of explosive. Steel columns (on the right) are sliced in half using a high-velocity explosive called RDX.
Photo courtesy ImplosionWorld.com

To ignite both RDX and dynamite, you must apply a severe shock. In building demolition, blasters accomplish this with a blasting cap, a small amount of explosive material (called the primer charge) connected to some sort of fuse. The traditional fuse design is a long cord with explosive material inside. When you ignite one end of the cord, the explosive material inside it burns at a steady pace, and the flame travels down the

http://science.howst...g-implosion.htm

http://entertainment...ourced-quiz.htm

Edited by skyeagle409, 01 November 2012 - 06:07 PM.

[Q24]

skyeagle409, on 01 November 2012 - 06:06 PM, said:

Let's... [snip]

What did any of that have to do with anything I’ve said?  If I had made the claim that thermite was found and confirmed to be present in the rubble or if we were discussing conventional demolitions, or even if anything I have said were reliant on/affected by those points, then it might be relevant.  As that is not the case, you are once again trailing your muddy and confused footprints over an otherwise coherent discussion.

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 01 November 2012 - 06:44 PM, said:

What did any of that have to do with anything I’ve said?

What did you say about my comments could be countered by a ten year old?

It has been over 11 years since the 9/11 attacks and yet, facts and evidence pertaining to my comments have yet to be refuted, which explains why demolition experts and recovery crews found no evidence of thermite nor explosives in the rubble of the WTC buildings.

Steven Jones does not know what he is talking in regards to thermite, which explains why even his colleagues have distanced themselves from him.

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 01 November 2012 - 05:54 PM, said:

No, you posted a very vague top-level description about a failure to share intelligence, which is not what my complaint is about so you‘re off the mark by a long shot.

What the CIA have not provided explanation for are the actions that I have laid out - namely allowing the terrorists free rein inside the United States whilst aggressively blocking FBI attempts to act against them.

t is also clear from your post that you have a very poor understanding of large organisations like the CIA - an obvious error is to assume they are a single entity where the right arm knows what the left is doing.  Here is news for you - the CIA is comprised of individual units, people and report structures who may have very different values and aims to one another.  The fact that terrorists might like to attack the CIA in general does not mean some individuals within the organisation do not have use for said terrorists or find benefit in an attack.

Let's take another look.

Quote

CIA boss admits intelligence failures over 9/11 attacks

THE HEAD of the CIA yesterday admitted that his agents had flatly failed to penetrate the September 11 plot and said it would be at least five years before America developed the sort of intelligence capabilities to take on terrorists such as al-Qa'ida.

George Tenet, whose agency was roundly criticised by the commission investigating the attacks, said that he and his colleagues had failed those people who died in the strikes in New York and Washington.
"We all understood bin Laden's attempt to strike the homeland. We never translated this knowledge into an effective defence of the country," Mr Tenet testified before the commission.
"No matter how hard we worked, or how desperately we tried, it was not enough. The victims and the families of 9/11 deserved better."

The commission's report said the CIA missed the big-picture significance of "tell-tale indicators" of impending terrorist attacks, partly because of its culture of a piecemeal approach to intelligence analysis.

Ihttp://www.independent.ie/world-news/americas/cia-boss-admits-intelligence-failures-over-911-attacks-176015.html

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wedge: The Secret War between the FBI and CIA

Wedge - The Secret War Between the FBI and CIA, a nonfiction book by American historian and policy analyst Mark Riebling, explores the conflict between U.S. domestic law enforcement and foreign intelligence. The book presents FBI-CIA rivalry through the prism of national traumas—including the Kennedy assassination, Watergate, and 9/11 -- and argues that the agencies' failure to cooperate has seriously endangered U.S. national security.

http://en.wikipedia....the_FBI_and_CIA

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9/11 commission faults U.S. intelligence

U.S. intelligence gathering was fragmented and poorly coordinated before the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the 9/11 commission reported Wednesday, adding that it remains unclear how such crucial information is managed.

"A question remains: Who is in charge of intelligence?" reads the final line of a critical report by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, as the bipartisan 9/11 panel is formally known.
The report, examining the performance of the intelligence community, described a "loose collection" of intelligence agencies that often operated independently of one another with little communication or cooperation. And it faulted CIA Director George Tenet for not having a management strategy to battle terrorism before the 9/11 attacks.

http://articles.cnn....=PM:ALLPOLITICS

Nothing there implicating the U.S. government in a 9/11 conspiracy.

Edited by skyeagle409, 01 November 2012 - 10:04 PM.

[Q24]

skyeagle409, on 01 November 2012 - 09:44 PM, said:

What did you say about my comments could be countered by a ten year old?

It has been over 11 years since the 9/11 attacks and yet, facts and evidence pertaining to my comments have yet to be refuted, which explains why demolition experts and recovery crews found no evidence of thermite nor explosives in the rubble of the WTC buildings.

Steven Jones does not know what he is talking in regards to thermite, which explains why even his colleagues have distanced themselves from him.

Your comments have no relevance to what anyone has said.

skyeagle409, on 01 November 2012 - 10:04 PM, said:

Let's take another look.

What’s the point in taking another look at something you’ve already spammed half a dozen times on the thread and of which I have clearly said my complaint is not about?

skyeagle409, on 01 November 2012 - 10:04 PM, said:

Nothing there implicating the U.S. government in a 9/11 conspiracy.

Then try reading and understanding what I’ve actually said instead of looking over, under and around it.

The issue is not about intelligence sharing which your links all pertain to.

If it were simply a case of the FBI saying “Give us intelligence” (which did happen in regard to the 9/11 hijackers) and the CIA saying, “No, get lost, it’s our case” that would be fine, kind of.  If it were simply a case of the CIA withholding classified intelligence that should perhaps be passed to the FBI (which also happened in regard to the 9/11 hijackers), that would also be fine, kind of.  At least, these examples could be excusable under explanation of a territorial war between the agencies which we all know exists.  Then you see your links would be relevant.  Though if you have read my previous link, it is clear that Richard Clarke found it unusual enough that the CIA withheld information from him about these two specific Al Qaeda terrorists.

However!  When the FBI are already in possession of specific intelligence enabling them to act alone against the terrorists, and the CIA quite forcefully block that desired FBI action on more than one occasion, this is prevention of the FBI to do their duty, to all intent aiding and abetting the 9/11 hijackers.  When we also discover that the CIA took no positive action of their own to disrupt the terrorists based on their own intelligence and looked on whilst a Saudi government agent and U.S. intelligence informant assisted the hijackers to obtain flying lessons, open bank accounts and provide their accommodation all within the U.S., not to mention allow the terrorists to board internal civilian aircraft when a specific hijacking threat abounds, we really have to ask, ‘whose side were those CIA agents on, and what ever were they aiming for?’  These are the questions that your links do not answer and which you fail to address.

But I am not afraid to answer the question.  Someone within the CIA chain of command was on the hijackers’ side (the top suspect being head of the CIA bin Laden unit, Cofer Black, who had a history of clandestine CIA operations as an arms-dealer to foreign terrorists - blood on his hands already), the aim to ensure that the prerequisite ‘transforming event’/‘new Pearl Harbor’ went ahead, providing a pretext for war in the Middle East, fulfilling long held and stated ambitions of individuals within the Neocon Bush administration.  It is clear to see when we have the full picture.

[flyingswan]

Q24, on 01 November 2012 - 01:05 PM, said:

To summarise the argument against this being cause of the WTC2 molten metal flow: -

• It is unlikely that random damage will conspire to cause a short circuit, where the positive and negative battery terminals must be connected, in the first place.
  
• If a short circuit does occur, the inbuilt circuit breakers make it unlikely that the batteries will be short-circuited indefinitely.
  
• If a short circuit does occur and the circuit breaker fails (I don’t know why this should be the case for the whole system so we will have to assume numerous individual battery short circuits from here on in) then the circuit will still cease to exist and generate heat when the electrolyte fails at 100^oC.
  
• If a short circuit does occur and the circuit breaker fails and the electrolyte survives, the circuit will cease to exist and generate heat when the lead fails at 327^oC.  Due to this point and the last, there is no way the battery can continue to generate heat to produce the large 1,000^oC+ molten metal flow observed before melting itself and ceasing to function.
  
• Notwithstanding the above, it is possible that elements within the battery may experience a very rapid and severe increase in temperature and explode or even vaporise (which again destroys the battery).  Whilst this indicates the presence of isolated 1,000^oC+ temperatures, these occur only in small components of the battery or even on the molecular scale, i.e. it is never going to produce a significant quantity of 1,000^oC+ molten lead.  Think of it this way - inside the tip of a lit cigarette it is 700^oC, but you aren’t going to melt any metal with it.

Q24 is ever the optimist when it comes to batteries, people who actually have to work with them take a more realistic view of the hazards:

What happens if a fully charged lead-acid battery cell is shorted? Hopefully the device shorting the battery becomes hot and melts or vaporizes and clears the short. In large installations, there is enough energy available to vaporize copper buss bars and other circuitry. Vaporizing copper has the same expansion rate as exploding dynamite.
If a shorted battery cell does not clear the external short, the electrical connection between the battery terminals allows for a very rapid chemical reaction as the sulfuric acid converts the lead and lead dioxide to lead sulfate. Now the electrical energy is not dissipated externally, but internally in the form of heat. The resulting temperature rise inside the battery cell literally destroys the cell and actually may vaporize the battery materials including the electrolyte and lead.
When a short is placed across a string of batteries, the resulting fault current will begin discharging all of the cells until one or more cells fail. Now, instead of each cell destroying itself, the cells that have not failed dissipate their energy into the failed cells. Not only do the failed cells typically melt and give off vapors, but these failed cells often become arc furnaces due to the energy contribution from the rest of the battery string. The amount of energy dissipated in the failed cell(s) is usually enough to totally vaporize the whole battery unless the battery fails in such a way as to disconnect the circuit. When the battery cell is on a grounded rack or mounting surface, the circuit continuity is continued through the battery cell’s melted parts and the conductive mounting surface. This type of destruction of the battery cell(s) is typically what is called a battery fire. Substantial clouds of acid mist and vapor will be present during this type of fire and will typically overwhelm a typical ventilation system.

http://www.calicorp....es-hazards.html

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 02 November 2012 - 10:57 AM, said:

Your comments have no relevance to what anyone has said.

What’s the point in taking another look at something you’ve already spammed half a dozen times on the thread and of which I have clearly said my complaint is not about?

Why have you tried to paint the CIA as supporter of al-Qaeda when in fact, the CIA did no such thing?

[Q24]

flyingswan, on 02 November 2012 - 12:22 PM, said:

Q24 is ever the optimist when it comes to batteries, people who actually have to work with them take a more realistic view of the hazards:

What happens if a fully charged lead-acid battery cell is shorted? Hopefully the device shorting the battery becomes hot and melts or vaporizes and clears the short. In large installations, there is enough energy available to vaporize copper buss bars and other circuitry. Vaporizing copper has the same expansion rate as exploding dynamite.
If a shorted battery cell does not clear the external short, the electrical connection between the battery terminals allows for a very rapid chemical reaction as the sulfuric acid converts the lead and lead dioxide to lead sulfate. Now the electrical energy is not dissipated externally, but internally in the form of heat. The resulting temperature rise inside the battery cell literally destroys the cell and actually may vaporize the battery materials including the electrolyte and lead.

This confirms everything I have already said and does not result in a large quantity of 1,000^oC+ molten metal.

flyingswan, on 02 November 2012 - 12:22 PM, said:

When a short is placed across a string of batteries, the resulting fault current will begin discharging all of the cells until one or more cells fail. Now, instead of each cell destroying itself, the cells that have not failed dissipate their energy into the failed cells. Not only do the failed cells typically melt and give off vapors, but these failed cells often become arc furnaces due to the energy contribution from the rest of the battery string. The amount of energy dissipated in the failed cell(s) is usually enough to totally vaporize the whole battery unless the battery fails in such a way as to disconnect the circuit. When the battery cell is on a grounded rack or mounting surface, the circuit continuity is continued through the battery cell’s melted parts and the conductive mounting surface. This type of destruction of the battery cell(s) is typically what is called a battery fire. Substantial clouds of acid mist and vapor will be present during this type of fire and will typically overwhelm a typical ventilation system.

http://www.calicorp....es-hazards.html

The reference to acting like an arc furnace is interesting, though not specifically designed for that purpose the circuit will still break after a relatively small amount of the connection becomes molten.  It is not possible for the circuit to survive and create the large quantity of molten metal observed flowing from WTC2.



I mean really it's silly - the idea of an aircraft crash bypassing the circuit breakers and creating an accidental, unbreakable 'arc furnace' circuit - an example of official story explanations becoming ever more desperate and convoluted.  I'm severely tempted to link a dozen car batteries together and short it with an aluminium rod to prove that it will not work but I don't want to waste my time and money, plus it's a little dangerous.  It's your theory - you do it.

Edited by Q24, 02 November 2012 - 04:52 PM.

[flyingswan]

Q24, on 02 November 2012 - 04:50 PM, said:

The reference to acting like an arc furnace is interesting, though not specifically designed for that purpose the circuit will still break after a relatively small amount of the connection becomes molten.  It is not possible for the circuit to survive and create the large quantity of molten metal observed flowing from WTC2.

Typical.  The expert says its possible to "totally vaporise the whole battery", but Q24 knows better.

[Q24]

flyingswan, on 02 November 2012 - 05:14 PM, said:

Typical.  The expert says its possible to "totally vaporise the whole battery", but Q24 knows better.

On the contrary, I’m perfectly accepting that it’s possible to vaporise a whole battery.  However, creating a large quantity of 1,000^oC+ molten metal, many times larger than a battery, is somewhat different.  Do the experiment, it’s easy enough.  Or did you already but don’t want to admit that it failed miserably?