1665 replies to this topic

[DONTEATUS]

RaptorBites, on 13 February 2013 - 10:40 PM, said:

Can you provide me with a link or reference to the amount of aluminum oxide found in testing of WTC dust samples.

Thanks

BEtter yet can he provide any logic in his post?
Little Fish ? Hum sounds like a can of loose worms ?

Edited by DONTEATUS, 13 February 2013 - 10:51 PM.

[Little Fish]

DONTEATUS, on 13 February 2013 - 10:49 PM, said:

BEtter yet can he provide any logic in his post?
Little Fish ? Hum sounds like a can of loose worms ?

isn't it time you put on some long trousers.

RaptorBites, on 13 February 2013 - 10:40 PM, said:

Can you provide me with a link or reference to the amount of aluminum oxide found in testing of WTC dust samples.

Thanks

USGS study showed the dust to be 2.71% - 4.13% aluminium, and coupled with the high iron content is anomalous and consistent with thermite being used at the wtc.
http://911research.w.../dust.html#usgs

since aluminium readily oxidizes to aluminium-oxide in air in pico-seconds i don't see how the test you suggest would be meaningful.

Edited by Little Fish, 13 February 2013 - 11:13 PM.

[frenat]

Babe Ruth, on 13 February 2013 - 01:53 PM, said:

I was referring to your post #436 in which you mentioned, regarding the hijackers identities, "...final list with pictures was released".  I was commenting on the editing and evolution of the various lists, passengers, victims, hijackers, whatever, that happened.  First passenger lists, derived from airline passenger manifests, did not include the hijackers, were then called 'victim list' to distinguish the artificial difference.  The story is the hoax, not the events.

First, they were ALWAYS called victims lists.  But that is NOT the list I was talking about.
I should be a psychic.  I said I bet you wouldn't even try to prove that there were reports about hijackers being alive after the official list was released by the FBI and I was right.  All you do is continue to go off topic about the victims list which AGAIN is not the list in question.  Thanks for proving you still haven't bothered to read the link I posted.

Babe Ruth, on 13 February 2013 - 01:53 PM, said:

Here Frenat, for the umpteenth time, I will explain my position on the so-called Hani Maneuver.

Given the right airplane and pilot combination, and a number of practice sessions, the maneuver itself is certainly POSSIBLE.

What makes it IMPOSSIBLE is the combination of the following: a rookie pilot with a very bad reputation amongst flight instructors, out of a Cessna and into a Boeing for the FIRST TIME IN HIS LIFE (and that is something a nonpilot cannot fully appreciate), completing it successfully and perfectly on his first try.

Prove it.  I bet you can't.  Prove he did exactly as he intended.  I'll bet you can't.  Prove it was "perfect".  I'll bet you can't.

[skyeagle409]

Little Fish, on 13 February 2013 - 10:35 PM, said:

I see a problem with your's and your followers' story.

You have to understand the evidence supports the official story, not claims of 911 conspiracist. We can run down the list of conspiracist claims that have been corrected with evidence.  

Quote

iron microspheres unique to the wtc dust as identified in the RJ lee report, unreacted thermitic material which ignites at the low temperature of 400c to produce molten iron, molten glass silicates, molten molybdenum, condensed ultra fine lead oxide residues. all these suggest temperatures capable of melting steel.

Now, for the rest of the story keeping in mind that I have said that thermite could not have demolished the WTC buildings and in fact, is less effective than RDX.

Quote

The RJ Group

The RJ Lee Group report considers samples taken several months after the collapses, and it is certain that torch-cutting of steel beams as part of the cleanup process contributed some, if not all, of the spherules seen in these samples.

Quote

in your alice in wonderland world, the 2500 C steel melting temperature from thermite cannot bring down the wtc, but the much lower temperature from ordinary 250C fire can. I'm embarrassed for you.

Thermite could not have brought down the WTC buildings. Ever wondered why demolition crews must structurally pre-weaken steel columns and use explosives in conjunction with RDX, which is more effective than thermite and why thermite is not widely used by the demolition industry? Learn to place the pieces of the puzzle in their rightful places.

If you are going to say something, at least do some homework in order to understand what you are saying.

Edited by skyeagle409, 14 February 2013 - 02:49 AM.

[DONTEATUS]

I can prove the the people that took over the Planes did Do it ! Look the @#CK at the Footage !

[skyeagle409]

Just a short note:

Quote

No Thermite Found

The R.J. Lee Company did a 2003 study on the dust and didn't find thermitic material. Other sampling of the pulverized dust by United States Geological Survey and RJ Lee did not report any evidence of thermite or explosives. It has been theorized the "thermite material" found was primer paint.

No evidence has ever been found of explosive charges and there are no recordings of a series of very loud explosions that would have been expected with controlled demolition. Furthermore, there is an alternative explanation for the "thermitic material" the sceptical scientists found in the dust - it is just a type of primer paint. It's calculated 1,200,000 tonnes of building materials were pulverised at the World Trade Center and most minerals are present in the dust (not necessarily in a large quantity).

More extensive sampling of the dust has not found any evidence of thermite or explosives, says a report from the US Geological Survey and another from RJ Lee.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...gazine-14665953

Edited by skyeagle409, 14 February 2013 - 06:47 AM.

[skyeagle409]

DONTEATUS, on 14 February 2013 - 02:45 AM, said:

I can prove the the people that took over the Planes did Do it ! Look the @#CK at the Footage !

Yepper! On another note;

Quote

Seismic Spikes

Claim: Seismographs at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, N.Y., 21 miles north of the WTC, recorded the events of 9/11. "The strongest jolts were all registered at the beginning of the collapses, well before falling debris struck the earth," reports the Web site WhatReallyHappened.com.

A columnist on Prisonplanet.com, a Web site run by radio talk show host Alex Jones, claims the seismic spikes (boxed area on Graph 1) are "indisputable proof that massive explosions brought down" the towers. The Web site says its findings are supported by two seismologists at the observatory, Won-Young Kim and Arthur Lerner-Lam. Each "sharp spike of short duration," says Prisonplanet.com, was consistent with a "demolition-style implosion."


FACT: "There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."
The report issued by Lamont-Doherty includes various graphs showing the seismic readings produced by the planes crashing into the two towers as well as the later collapse of both buildings. WhatReallyHappened.com chooses to display only one graph (Graph 1), which shows the readings over a 30-minute time span.

On that graph, the 8- and 10-second collapses appear—misleadingly—as a pair of sudden spikes. Lamont-Doherty's 40-second plot of the same data (Graph 2) gives a much more detailed picture: The seismic waves—blue for the South Tower, red for the North Tower—start small and then escalate as the buildings rumble to the ground. Translation: no bombs.

Read more: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories - Debunking the Myths - World Trade Center - Popular Mechanics

Edited by skyeagle409, 14 February 2013 - 06:51 AM.

[coldboiled]

Hmm this is going nowhere. We know the government had some foreknowledge. Now as to involvement.  That is up for debate. For a few years now. Lets get some funding. Build a tower. Fly a plane into it. See what happens. Any volunteers? As far as I'm concerned its about the only way to see the truth now. Recreate it as accurately as possibly. SInce the facts so far have been and can be distorted to suit either sides argument.

Edited by coldboiled, 14 February 2013 - 08:00 AM.

[skyeagle409]

coldboiled, on 14 February 2013 - 07:46 AM, said:

Hmm this is going nowhere. We know the government had some foreknowledge.

Countries had warned the United States that terrorist were planning to attack America, but complacency ran rampant in the Bush administration. One Philippine official became upset after the 911 attacks, because he felt the United States ignored the warnings from the Philippine government.

Our intelligence services also dropped the ball because of complacency, and other problems that persisted between the CIA and the FBI for decades and continued even after 911.

Quote

Now as to involvement.  That is up for debate. For a few years now. Lets get some funding. Build a tower. Fly a plane into it.

First of all, how are you going to convince American Airlines and United Airlines to ground two B-767s and two B-757s from six months to up to a year for the purpose of modifying those aircraft? In fact, how are you going to modify B-767s and B-757s knowing the type of systems they use and not draw attention to the flight crew? Remember, both aircraft do not have fly-by-wire controls.

If that cannot be done, how can you acquire two B-767s and two B-757s that cannot be traced? It only took me a few minutes to trace the first aircraft that I have ever flown and that was back during the 1960s. Another thing, how are you going to switch aircraft in controlled airspace above 18,000 feet and not draw attention from ground controllers? Turning off the transponder will not render an aircraft invisible to radar, especially a B-767 and the B-757 and understand that they are not stealth aircraft. Turning off the transponder just makes it difficult to track an aircraft, not make it invisible.

Now, ask the question as to why demolition companies do not use thermite over RDX and dynamite. During the demolition process, where does the initial collapse begin? Ground level?

[coldboiled]

I didn't say anything about thermite or anything sky eagle. So why bring that up? Seems to me like even a reasonable out come you will do anything to steer away from. I've said before since those that have admitted dropping the ball have efectivly caused some part of this and should be prosecuted should they not. I'm sure you will find some way to disagree.

[Q24]

coldboiled, on 14 February 2013 - 07:46 AM, said:

Hmm this is going nowhere. We know the government had some foreknowledge. Now as to involvement.  That is up for debate. For a few years now. Lets get some funding. Build a tower. Fly a plane into it. See what happens. Any volunteers? As far as I'm concerned its about the only way to see the truth now. Recreate it as accurately as possibly. SInce the facts so far have been and can be distorted to suit either sides argument.

It’s a nice idea.  I reckon we should rig the building for demolition also, for when the plane fails to take it down.  Though there might be a problem finding anyone prepared to fund and lose a few billion dollars.

Fortunately this is not actually required - NIST already tested the case for us through state of the art computer simulation.  What they found is that a ‘best case’ match to the 9/11 buildings, airliners, impacts and fire did not induce a collapse in the model.  The parameters such as aircraft speed, weight and building strength all had to be ratcheted toward a ‘more severe case’ along with further manual adjustments to the simulation to induce a collapse.  This might have been acceptable, had not the extended damage exceeded that actually observed on 9/11.

Funnily enough, the above is in agreement with multiple previous studies carried out by the WTC engineers, all of which concluded the building structure would remain safe in an assumed airliner collision.  Before anyone says it – that included both low speed and high speed impact cases along with accounting for the resultant fire situation to the best of their ability at the time.

Yet on 9/11, against this study and precedent, it is claimed by some that the towers came down two for two as result of the airliner impacts, with a bonus WTC7 thrown in due to the fallout for good measure.  The scientific studies mentioned prove this occurrence somewhere between ‘against the odds’ and ‘impossible’.

Of course, a correctly planned demolition setup would produce the results 100% of the time.  Indeed, even forgetting the heavily tilted odds, that is what a large body of additional evidence and circumstance indicate occurred.

[flyingswan]

Q24, on 14 February 2013 - 11:01 AM, said:

Fortunately this is not actually required - NIST already tested the case for us through state of the art computer simulation.  What they found is that a ‘best case’ match to the 9/11 buildings, airliners, impacts and fire did not induce a collapse in the model.  The parameters such as aircraft speed, weight and building strength all had to be ratcheted toward a ‘more severe case’ along with further manual adjustments to the simulation to induce a collapse.  This might have been acceptable, had not the extended damage exceeded that actually observed on 9/11.

This might be a reasonable point if you ignore the way that engineers have to build in safety factors to allow for unknown variations in building materials and construction and also ignore the unknowns in the actual building damage.  The NIST calculations showed a situation where there was considerable overlap between the range of damage calculated and the conditions that would lead to collapse.  I can only marvel at your perpetual failure to grasp this point.

[Little Fish]

skyeagle409, on 14 February 2013 - 06:32 AM, said:

It has been theorized the "thermite material" found was primer paint.

"It has been suggested, that the red/grey chips discovered in the dust from the WTC
collapse catastrophe1 could originate from rust-inhibiting paint (primer paint) applied to the
steel beams in the towers. This letter compares the elemental composition and the thermal
stability of the two materials based on the description of the protective paint in the NIST report
and observations on the red/grey chips.....
....The properties of the primer paint and the red/gray chips are inconsistent.
The red/gray chips cannot be the primer paint as it is characterized by NIST."
http://www.thevertig.../9-11/paint.pdf

[flyingswan]

Little Fish, on 14 February 2013 - 12:08 PM, said:

....The properties of the primer paint and the red/gray chips are inconsistent.

Depends which primer you test.  This one gives a good match:
http://oystein-debat...e-standard.html

[Little Fish]

flyingswan, on 14 February 2013 - 12:15 PM, said:

Depends which primer you test.  This one gives a good match:
http://oystein-debat...e-standard.html

the properties of that primer are also inconsistent with the thermitic material analysed by jones and harrit, as is evident even in the comments in your above blogpost.

there is plenty more here which shows oystein and millette are just blowing smoke.
http://911blogger.co...y-chip-analyses