Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
W Tell

Talking Turkey

901 posts in this topic

I didn't think you had gotten it...........that wasn't the 'fundraisers' I was speaking of. lol..........never mind, you have no clue what I am talking about.

.No matter what fundraiser I have supported, is not going to change reality. :no:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Q, sorry for the delay, I ended up taking an impromptu vacation from work last week as we had a couple days of miraculous October Michigan weather in the 70s, and I needed a break from work anyway. I have been thinking about our points and conversation though, and how to proceed. I do disagree with quite a bit of what you had to say in your previous post here,especially concerning Occam, but I'm going to try and take bite-size chunks; work still looms suckily over my free time and I don't want to shortchange you on responses to the posts you have taken the time to put together.

We have talked a few times about 'circumstantial evidence' and how cases are made in courts of law based on this (with the understanding that really all evidence is pretty much circumstantial, I think we both have an idea what circumstantial evidence means in this context). Do you agree with what I had quoted concerning the responsibilities of someone making a case based on circumstantial evidence, primarily that the onus is on the person making the case to show how other alternatives must be ruled out? I'm not trying to set up a gotcha or anything, I was thinking it might benefit us to have some kind of framework or standard to appeal to and that one to me seems very reasonable, with the understanding that 'ruling out' is still a subjective measure. I'm always open to alternatives also.

I'm going to attempt to apply that standard to the molten flow argument. (FYI - the below is actually from a response you made to sky)

The claim of non-existent explosions in video and audio (not to mention witness statements) is ridiculous and exposed by a brief Google or YouTube search of “WTC explosions”. I will only address the following point for LG lest he make the same mistake…

Aluminium is not a good explanation because it is a silver colour at its relatively low melting point in daylight conditions. Please spare me the pictures of molten aluminium in poor light, molten aluminium far above its melting point and photos that are not aluminium at all - these are irrelevant. For aluminium to attain the near white hot colour seen, it would first need to be somehow contained within the tower so that it could not pool on the floor away from the highest temperatures, flow away from the fire or exit the building, whilst an extremely efficient heat transfer took place, before then somehow being ejected in sporadic bursts.

Aluminum is a good explanation because it is a silver color which is the color of the material at the lowest part and outside the center of the flow in several photos, apparently because it has cooled enough. The flow also originates where the wreckage of the plane logically would have ended up, in the midst of the fire. (while acknowledging that if this was a dislodged thermite device, it may also have been knocked in the direction of the plane; but that's more of a maybe then where the wreckage of the plane would end up). Is there a reason why the aluminum could not have been contained near enough of a heat source, and there were a lot of them, in the midst of floors which have sustained unknown damage and deformation? Do you have some evidence for believing this not to be the case? Did the NIST report show that the floors in this vicinity drooped toward the windows and that may have caused the melted material to pour out the window?

NIST knew this, which is why, rather than appeal to the lacking answer of aluminium alone, in their FAQ it is theorised to be an aluminium and burning debris mix - though that has also been proven incorrect by physical experiments which failed to replicate the effect, lack of flame or dark smoke and completeness of the coloration.

I guess I don't get the first part of the sentence, and that's not just you, I've seen 'debunking' explanations that mention this also: I don't know why anyone would theorize that it is aluminum alone, that makes no sense to me, of course there is other burning debris mixed in, the aluminum didn't magically separate itself from the rest of the plane and the contents of the floor and building. And from what I've been able to find, as soon as we mix in other material, the points that rely on 'coloration' tend to fly out the window, you're going to need to know the composition to know what it should look like when it's burning. I've been tired lately and my snark motivation is very low, so I'll just say that I believe 'that has also been proven incorrecty by physical experiments which failed to replicate the effect...' is just plain false. Experiments that fail to replicate the effect do not prove that it cannot be aluminum and other material, pretty much period. It is especially the case in this instance as we have extremely limited information about what all the different materials are, and in what proportion, that may have composed this molten material, where exactly the fire and heat sources are, exactly how hot they are, how much oxygen is feeding them, etc. These would all seem to be extremely pertinent prior to determining things like lack of flame and color of smoke.

In addition, aluminium (I assume from the aircraft - if your theory were true and came from the façade, the effect should occur all around the fire zone) does not explain why the phenomenon initiates only in the minutes prior to collapse or the nature of the sporadic flow - each fitting of a thermite charge designed to initiate the collapse.

One explanation as I noted above is that it flowed after the floor had given way somewhat or deformed. But let's say for a second that there is no explanation at all for that; why does 'initiating only in the minutes prior to collapse' need a specific explanation? If it would have happened 10 minutes after impact, would that also require an explanation? I believe it is because your theory is that this was a demolition and so it happening a few minutes before collapse requires a 'special' explanation from theories counter to yours. I don't believe that is the case; this is only coincidental if you first assume that this was a demolition, which this point is supposed to be helping to show was actually the case, so the point seems a little begging-the-question-ish. Overall this is something I don't really 'get' Q, and I think having some kind of standard to appeal to such as the circumstantial evidence one above might help: it might just be my impression, but you seem to demand very specific explanations for counter theories to your own but allow, in my mind, a large amount of vagueness for your own. What was the thermite charge exactly composed of? Where else have they been used, I don't think there is anything you can really point to. The device must have had some shielding so that it didn't detonate on plane impact and subsequent explosion, but this apparently protected it even after being dislodged so that it didn't go off immediately (assuming that is to be expected; since I don't know what the device is there isn't much for me to analyze there, I thought thermite needed some type of explosive or something to get it going)? Is the theory that these were triggered remote controlled, and if so, it's reasonable to believe that those electronics remained undamaged also by a force that was capable of dislodging it?

In my more smartassish posts I think I've referred to points you've made being buttressed essentially by just your 'imagination' which is exaggeration on my part in many cases, but what else does anyone have to work with on this specific point? Why are you allowed to just not have any requirement to provide any information on these devices, specifics on where exactly these charges were set and evidence for it; isn't that exactly the level of detail that is proportional to what you require at least for the official theory? Your criticisms of the official theory are at that detailed of a level and are on very specific points, but I think part of what you've offered as an explanation for my questions about details on these devices is that of course thermite demolition technology has improved, which is not very specific. But you are still left pretty much with no known precedent for the devices you are proposing here, correct?

I am not at all saying that this cannot be a thermite charge, it might be. I don't see why, on it's own, that's the most likely explanation or how you've assessed that probability. Perhaps you believe this because of what you have elaborated on in your previous post, concerning your application of Occam, and possibly your belief that because of other points for a demolition, that makes this specific molten flow point more likely also as a result of a demolition, as opposed to evaluating this specific point on it's own. Regardless, it doesn't seem (ha) 'fair' that you are not required to offer an explanation to this level of detail, so that I can have a turn picking at the details for your theory, and I think there is an implication that this really should be necessary based on how specific your criticisms of specific details of the official theory are.

And of course feel free to steer the convo any way you choose, if you think we should continue on with the 'Occam' and general overall argument structure conversation before hitting this specific point, just let me know; I may be wrong but I think I see an intersection here between those two topics. Like I said I'm really pressed for time and the upcoming holidays will just further erode it, so my ability to respond to longer posts adequately will be limited, but as long as the pace is slowed I should be good. I just started to read about the CIA assisting the hijackers/Saudi visa stuff on my lunch hour and there's obviously more to get educated on that point than the molten flow, but that seems to be an important one so I don't plan on letting that drop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Q, sorry for the delay, I ended up taking an impromptu vacation from work last week as we had a couple days of miraculous October Michigan weather in the 70s, and I needed a break from work anyway. I have been thinking about our points and conversation though, and how to proceed. I do disagree with quite a bit of what you had to say in your previous post here,especially concerning Occam, but I'm going to try and take bite-size chunks; work still looms suckily over my free time and I don't want to shortchange you on responses to the posts you have taken the time to put together.

That was good timing, I’ve been on vacation too.

We have talked a few times about 'circumstantial evidence' and how cases are made in courts of law based on this (with the understanding that really all evidence is pretty much circumstantial, I think we both have an idea what circumstantial evidence means in this context). Do you agree with what I had quoted concerning the responsibilities of someone making a case based on circumstantial evidence, primarily that the onus is on the person making the case to show how other alternatives must be ruled out? I'm not trying to set up a gotcha or anything, I was thinking it might benefit us to have some kind of framework or standard to appeal to and that one to me seems very reasonable, with the understanding that 'ruling out' is still a subjective measure. I'm always open to alternatives also.

Yes I do agree about the responsibilities of proving a case based on circumstantial evidence, with the qualifier that ‘ruling out’ and also ‘building up’ a case can be subjective. With this type of evidence there comes a point where we must use our own judgement to determine what is reasonable. I think that when we have many data points of circumstantial evidence explained in a single answer, i.e. a case of corroborating evidence, then it becomes a realistic theory. When that corroborating evidence also outweighs any alternative, fits ideally with ever wider bodies of corroborating evidence and makes perfect logical sense, then we are looking at a leading theory that to any rationale mind is all but proven.

I think what you would like to do is write-off circumstantial evidence altogether and thus largely discard the case for the 9/11 false flag. The only problem with applying that rule is that it also removes the official story, itself based on much circumstantial evidence. This leaves us nowhere other than asking, ‘what the heck happened on 9/11?’ whilst the unquestioning follow our leaders to war on a pretext. So for me, wanting answers rather than standing idly by, the best thing is to allow all evidence and build and compare each case ‘official story vs. false flag’… and there is only one clear winner.

With the above in mind, perhaps the way for err... non-believers... to take my argument for the false flag (what with circumstantial evidence being subjective - you and I clearly having different interpretations) is not as a standalone case but rather in a head-to-head with the official story or any other alternative version of events. Let’s see which theory has the most or strongest data points in its favour and which requires least disparate and coincidental conclusions.

Aluminum is a good explanation because it is a silver color which is the color of the material at the lowest part and outside the center of the flow in several photos, apparently because it has cooled enough. The flow also originates where the wreckage of the plane logically would have ended up, in the midst of the fire. (while acknowledging that if this was a dislodged thermite device, it may also have been knocked in the direction of the plane; but that's more of a maybe then where the wreckage of the plane would end up). Is there a reason why the aluminum could not have been contained near enough of a heat source, and there were a lot of them, in the midst of floors which have sustained unknown damage and deformation? Do you have some evidence for believing this not to be the case? Did the NIST report show that the floors in this vicinity drooped toward the windows and that may have caused the melted material to pour out the window?

Ok, let’s say the silver material is aluminium from the aircraft or building facade, or any other silver material from inside the building - filing cabinets, computers, desks, etc, I’m sure there are many examples. Here’s the killer - I’m not interested in the silver material. I’m interested in the orange to near white hot molten material that indicates temperatures in excess of 1,000oC. Now that is established…

How could the metal be contained and heated within the building without pooling on the floor or flowing away once it becomes molten? It usually takes specially designed smelting or forgery pots to produce metal temperatures that high. I cannot imagine a case where the damaged structure and open/diffuse flame of an office fire can replicate this setup.

Regarding the heat source and temperature observed, it is worthy of note that of all the steel samples NIST recovered from the fire zones, none had exceeded 600oC, yet in the instance discussed the colouration reveals we have a temperature over 1,000oC. What that tells us is that we are dealing with an isolated occurrence; not a result of the fire which was widespread.

About the floors, NIST say the trusses sagged, though with the length of the truss parallel with the wall in area of the molten flow it would be a downward sagging movement rather than sloped toward the window. In all likelihood any sloping would occur toward the centre face of the building where the maximum inward deflection of perimeter columns occurred, rather than toward a corner. Whilst such downward movement, if reaching the lower window, could initially release the molten material, there is no reason for sporadic bursts to follow.

I guess I don't get the first part of the sentence, and that's not just you, I've seen 'debunking' explanations that mention this also: I don't know why anyone would theorize that it is aluminum alone, that makes no sense to me, of course there is other burning debris mixed in, the aluminum didn't magically separate itself from the rest of the plane and the contents of the floor and building. And from what I've been able to find, as soon as we mix in other material, the points that rely on 'coloration' tend to fly out the window, you're going to need to know the composition to know what it should look like when it's burning. I've been tired lately and my snark motivation is very low, so I'll just say that I believe 'that has also been proven incorrecty by physical experiments which failed to replicate the effect...' is just plain false. Experiments that fail to replicate the effect do not prove that it cannot be aluminum and other material, pretty much period. It is especially the case in this instance as we have extremely limited information about what all the different materials are, and in what proportion, that may have composed this molten material, where exactly the fire and heat sources are, exactly how hot they are, how much oxygen is feeding them, etc. These would all seem to be extremely pertinent prior to determining things like lack of flame and color of smoke.

I’m glad you accept that aluminium alone is not a good answer - that rules out your previous paragraph, beginning, “Aluminium is a good explanation because… ”. I referred to the FAQ to show that neither did NIST find it a good answer alone and had to invoke further materials in attempt to explain the orange to near white hot colouration. So good - we all agree that the observation requires more than molten aluminium to explain.

You may not accept physical experiments but I will just say that molten aluminium mixed with office materials like glass, plastic and wood did not replicate the effect observed - rather the debris and molten metal remaining separate like oil and water. Also there is the problem that no flame or dark smoke is emitted from the WTC2 molten flow. Perhaps you could carry out your own experiment, or find an example, to prove this molten aluminium and debris mix, otherwise I have seen enough to know that it does not work.

I used to have a better link describing details of the experiments but this is the best I can find right now: -

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/Experiments-to-test-NIST-orange-glow-hypothesis.html

One explanation as I noted above is that it flowed after the floor had given way somewhat or deformed. But let's say for a second that there is no explanation at all for that; why does 'initiating only in the minutes prior to collapse' need a specific explanation? If it would have happened 10 minutes after impact, would that also require an explanation? I believe it is because your theory is that this was a demolition and so it happening a few minutes before collapse requires a 'special' explanation from theories counter to yours. I don't believe that is the case; this is only coincidental if you first assume that this was a demolition, which this point is supposed to be helping to show was actually the case, so the point seems a little begging-the-question-ish.

The timing of the molten metal flow, minutes prior to the collapse initiation, is just another data point logically explained through the single answer of demolition, opposed to the official theory where the timing must be described more as another coincidence.

What was the thermite charge exactly composed of? Where else have they been used, I don't think there is anything you can really point to. The device must have had some shielding so that it didn't detonate on plane impact and subsequent explosion, but this apparently protected it even after being dislodged so that it didn't go off immediately (assuming that is to be expected; since I don't know what the device is there isn't much for me to analyze there, I thought thermite needed some type of explosive or something to get it going)? Is the theory that these were triggered remote controlled, and if so, it's reasonable to believe that those electronics remained undamaged also by a force that was capable of dislodging it?

Why does it matter what the flow was composed of, further than acknowledging it matches the appearance of a thermite reaction? I think we have already been over examples of a thermite demolition, such devices both patented and in practice and the rationale of such focused temperature weakening steel columns. There is sufficient precedent and logic that the method will work.

I agree with your assertions about some form of shielding and believe the thermite devices would be pre-fabricated units prepared for placement. If I were planning the demolition I’d certainly make the units robust enough to give best chance of survival during the impacts, and thermite itself is resistant to shock and lower temperatures. The initiator would perhaps be electrical or chemical and it appears the shielding was enough to protect it in this case.

In my more smartassish posts I think I've referred to points you've made being buttressed essentially by just your 'imagination' which is exaggeration on my part in many cases, but what else does anyone have to work with on this specific point? Why are you allowed to just not have any requirement to provide any information on these devices, specifics on where exactly these charges were set and evidence for it; isn't that exactly the level of detail that is proportional to what you require at least for the official theory? Your criticisms of the official theory are at that detailed of a level and are on very specific points, but I think part of what you've offered as an explanation for my questions about details on these devices is that of course thermite demolition technology has improved, which is not very specific. But you are still left pretty much with no known precedent for the devices you are proposing here, correct?

No, incorrect - there are examples and logic for thermite devices. And in this case I’m just saying what I see and determining the best match, based on known example. Again these are the features: -

  1. Complete colouration
  2. Lack of flame
  3. Lack of dark smoke
  4. Light smoke (oxides?)
  5. Location (isolated)
  6. Timing
  7. Sporadic nature

Aluminium could explain 2, 3 and 4 but not 1, 5, 6 And 7.

Debris could possibly explain 4 but not 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7.

Sagging trusses could explain 5 and 6 but not 1, 2, 3, 4 And 7.

So as I see it, this alternative theory of yours has 5 and 6 pinned down due to that brilliant official story fallback of ‘coincidence’ and is terrible fit (even contradictory) to the remainder. Yet guess which one answer all of the above features are ideal fit to, not to mention the wider body of corroborating evidence - a thermite charge, designed to initiate the collapses.

What are you waiting for, a confession? I don’t mean that literally. What I’m asking is… how could it possibly appear any more like a thermite charge? Let’s say there was a thermite charge at that location. What’s to stop you writing it off with the same non-fitting answers you have provided already?

Here are a few images I put together for comparison: -

ethg2.jpg

Perhaps all of these pictures are molten aluminium with mixed debris?

The centre image is just to show what an engineer can do to steel with thermite in his back garden.

I am not at all saying that this cannot be a thermite charge, it might be. I don't see why, on it's own, that's the most likely explanation or how you've assessed that probability. Perhaps you believe this because of what you have elaborated on in your previous post, concerning your application of Occam, and possibly your belief that because of other points for a demolition, that makes this specific molten flow point more likely also as a result of a demolition, as opposed to evaluating this specific point on it's own.

As you say, a thermite charge fits Occam's requirement, the wider corroborating evidence and is the only comprehensive answer.

I just started to read about the CIA assisting the hijackers/Saudi visa stuff on my lunch hour and there's obviously more to get educated on that point than the molten flow, but that seems to be an important one so I don't plan on letting that drop.

It's an interesting subject and little known fact that the CIA were trailing two of the hijackers pre-9/11, even if nothing else can be found in agreement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does it matter what the flow was composed of, further than acknowledging it matches the appearance of a thermite reaction?

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

It's an interesting subject and little known fact that the CIA were trailing two of the hijackers pre-9/11, even if nothing else can be found in agreement.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=172289&st=540&p=3330507entry3330507

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=162700&st=195&p=3111753entry3111753

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

This is not worth responding to.

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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: -

  1. 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.
  2. If a short circuit does occur, the inbuilt circuit breakers make it unlikely that the batteries will be short-circuited indefinitely.
  3. 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 100oC.
  4. 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 327oC. Due to this point and the last, there is no way the battery can continue to generate heat to produce the large 1,000oC+ molten metal flow observed before melting itself and ceasing to function.
  5. 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 1,000oC+ 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 1,000oC+ molten lead. Think of it this way - inside the tip of a lit cigarette it is 700oC, 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 1,000oC+ 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

building-implosion-17.jpg

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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. :no:

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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?

Nothing there implicating the U.S. government in a 9/11 conspiracy. :no:

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  1. 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.
  2. If a short circuit does occur, the inbuilt circuit breakers make it unlikely that the batteries will be short-circuited indefinitely.
  3. 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 100oC.
  4. 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 327oC. Due to this point and the last, there is no way the battery can continue to generate heat to produce the large 1,000oC+ molten metal flow observed before melting itself and ceasing to function.
  5. 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 1,000oC+ 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 1,000oC+ molten lead. Think of it this way - inside the tip of a lit cigarette it is 700oC, 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

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 1,000oC+ molten metal.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 1,000oC+ 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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the contrary, I’m perfectly accepting that it’s possible to vaporise a whole battery. However, creating a large quantity of 1,000oC+ 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?

I'm certainly not set up to do such a dangerous experiment, and I'd advise you not to try either.

You perhaps don't appreciate how many batteries, how close together, there are in a UPS system. Drop a metal ceiling on them and you short a lot out, they spew molten metal around and in turn short more. Recall "arc furnace" and "totally vaporise". There's far more energy in a UPS system than in your proposed thermite charge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Let's take a look at Cofer Black, because he wanted to destroy al-Qaeda.

Cofer Black

Black also arranged for a CIA team, headed by "Richard", who was in charge of the CTC's Bin Laden unit, to visit Northern-Alliance leader Ahmed Shah Massoud, to discuss operations against bin Laden. The mission was codenamed "JAWBREAKER-5", the fifth in a series of such missions since autumn 1997. The team went in late October 1999, and stayed for seven days. Contemplated operations would be coordinated with the CIA's other prospective efforts against al-Qaeda. During the summer of 2001, Tenet, Black, and one of Black's top assistants, "Rich B" (i.e. "Richard"), were active in advertising the dangers of al-Qaeda to the new Bush administration.

One of the ways in which CIA/CTC surveiled Osama bin Laden in his Afghan base was with the Predator reconnaissance drone. A joint CIA-USAF program of flights in autumn 2000 (dubbed "Afghan Eyes") produced probable sightings of the Qaeda leader. Black became a "vocal advocate" of arming the aircraft with missiles to kill bin Laden and other Qaeda leaders in targeted killings. During the new Bush administration in 2001, Black and "Richard" continued to press for Predators armed with adapted Hellfire anti-tank missiles. Legal and technical issues delayed the program. Black urged Tenet to promote the matter at the long-awaited Cabinet-level Principals Committee meeting on terrorism of September 4, 2001. The CIA chief duly did so. The CIA was authorized to "deploy the system with weapons-capable aircraft"

By 1998, we developed substantial intelligence about bin Ladin, Mullah Omar, other terrorist leaders and on their training camps. Our efforts to capture him and disrupt al-Qa'ida grew increasingly intense from 1998 to the present.

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2002_hr/092602black.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cofer_Black

Definitely doesn't sound like Cofer Black was a man who slept with al-Qaeda. :no:

About the 'new Pearl Harbor.' What is that suppose to mean?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You perhaps don't appreciate how many batteries, how close together, there are in a UPS system. Drop a metal ceiling on them and you short a lot out, they spew molten metal around and in turn short more. Recall "arc furnace" and "totally vaporise". There's far more energy in a UPS system than in your proposed thermite charge.

Q probably knows and is just being difficult about it...

I posted this in his "WTC7" thread back in May.

They were probably batteries.

There was a data centre for Fuji Bank at WTC 2. There was a large UPS (Uninterruptable Power Supply) system for their computers located on the 81st floor. UPS systems utilaze large batteries that are typically large, often black, rectangular battery-like objects similar to these:

ups.jpg

ups-batteries-600.jpg

ups_batteries_pic-1.jpg

batteryrack.jpg

ups-maintenance-batteries-pic1.jpg

These batteries are essentially the same as the lead / acid batteries in your car, and there could be upwards of a thousand batteries in a given system, depending on the unique raquirements for the individual installation.

Given that the installation of the floor modifications in the WTC and that this was a backup for a bank's computers, chances are it was a rather large number of batteries involved, and while the batteries were similar to car batteries in that they were lead acid batteries, the similarities typically end there in that they deal with much larger currents and higher voltage than the typical 12v, 700 CCA automotive battery.

It possible he didn't see my post, but again... I'm fairly sure that Q would have come across similar information in his study of this topic in general...

Cz

Edited by Czero 101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm certainly not set up to do such a dangerous experiment, and I'd advise you not to try either.

You perhaps don't appreciate how many batteries, how close together, there are in a UPS system. Drop a metal ceiling on them and you short a lot out, they spew molten metal around and in turn short more. Recall "arc furnace" and "totally vaporise". There's far more energy in a UPS system than in your proposed thermite charge.

Meh, excuses… just setup a camera and run fast after you’ve shorted the circuit.

The chances of shorting a battery, nevermind a number of batteries, from randomly dropping a ceiling on them are not good. Look at the pictures Cz posted - the batteries all have protective covers over the terminals for one. In addition I have never seen (not for lack of searching) a battery “spew molten metal around”, do you have any examples or are you just trying to hype and exaggerate the theory with that description?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meh, excuses… just setup a camera and run fast after you’ve shorted the circuit.

The chances of shorting a battery, nevermind a number of batteries, from randomly dropping a ceiling on them are not good. Look at the pictures Cz posted - the batteries all have protective covers over the terminals for one. In addition I have never seen (not for lack of searching) a battery “spew molten metal around”, do you have any examples or are you just trying to hype and exaggerate the theory with that description?

Right... and they're all made of that special composite "Unobtanium-Q24™" which makes them impervious to damage. :rolleyes:

Some of those "protective covers" seem to be nothing more than coloured rubber dust caps on the terminals (second picture) which I highly doubt were designed to protect the terminals from anything much beyond dust.

Cz

Edited by Czero 101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.