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 5
joc

WTC 911 EyeWitness~Hoboken

3,684 posts in this topic

Swan

I offered a comment regarding perhaps a common sense way to understand which metal comprises the molten metal, but unless I missed it, you did not respond.

I think it was Sky who claimed that x amount of aluminum was used in the construction of the towers. For the sake of argument, let's assume his number is true and accurate.

I have seen others offer a number y that is the amount of steel used in the construction of the towers. Do you think it is possible to come to an agreement regarding these two numbers? Can we arrive at an estimate of the ratio between aluminum used v. steel used in the construction of the towers?

Using that ratio, is it possible to extrapolate a probability as to which metal, x or y, would most likely be found in any given pool of molten metal?

And perhaps come to an understanding that Cahill might be right--the presence of iron particles MAY be the result of boiling metal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is an Official Conspiracy Theory? What does that make all the 'other' Conspiracy Theories? UnOfficial? :clap:

Exactly right.

Using the definition of a conspiracy--the planning of a crime by TWO persons or more--what happened on 11 September was certainly the result of a conspiracy. Unless, YOU happen to propose that only ONE person was responsible for those events? I doubt that is your position.

So, there is no question there was a conspiracy being fulfilled. The only question Joc, is whether it was 19 arabs with box cutters as described in the Official Theory, or somebody else? The only realy question is just exactly who the conspirators were.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I offered a comment regarding perhaps a common sense way to understand which metal comprises the molten metal, but unless I missed it, you did not respond.

I think it was Sky who claimed that x amount of aluminum was used in the construction of the towers. For the sake of argument, let's assume his number is true and accurate.

I have seen others offer a number y that is the amount of steel used in the construction of the towers. Do you think it is possible to come to an agreement regarding these two numbers? Can we arrive at an estimate of the ratio between aluminum used v. steel used in the construction of the towers?

That is moot if temperatures never reached the level to melt steel. Once again, you are being asked to supply information on the amount of aluminum that was used in the construction of the facade of the WTC buildings.

Using that ratio, is it possible to extrapolate a probability as to which metal, x or y, would most likely be found in any given pool of molten metal?

Once again, you are being asked to use the thermal images to show us where temperatures reached the level to melt steel.

And perhaps come to an understanding that Cahill might be right--the presence of iron particles MAY be the result of boiling metal?

The following photos depict cuts made by workers.

cut.jpg

cut2.jpg

cut3.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Using the definition of a conspiracy--the planning of a crime by TWO persons or more--what happened on 11 September was certainly the result of a conspiracy. Unless, YOU happen to propose that only ONE person was responsible for those events? I doubt that is your position.

So, there is no question there was a conspiracy being fulfilled. The only question Joc, is whether it was 19 arabs with box cutters as described in the Official Theory, or somebody else? The only realy question is just exactly who the conspirators were.

The terrorist are guilty simply because of the overwhelming evidence tying those terrorist to the 911 attacks, and no evidence implicating the US government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.. is whether it was 19 arabs with box cutters as described in the Official Theory, or somebody else?

Did pilots of the 911 hijacked airliners convey to ATC personnel that they lost control of their aircraft? What significance can you place on the fact that pilots did not indicate to ATC that they lost control over their aircraft?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did pilots of the 911 hijacked airliners convey to ATC personnel that they lost control of their aircraft? What significance can you place on the fact that pilots did not indicate to ATC that they lost control over their aircraft?

I'm just going to venture out on a limb here and make an educated guess: 'cause they were dead?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just going to venture out on a limb here and make an educated guess: 'cause they were dead?

Yes!

If there was enough time, the pilots would have instantly reported a problem to ATC, such as loss of control of their aircraft, but there was no such communication conveyed to ground controllers. If an aircraft is hijacked, there is a special code the pilots can dial on the transponder which will notify ground controllers that the aircraft is being hijacked yet no such code was sent to ground controllers. That is an indication the hijackers acted very quickly and overpowered the pilots before they could take such action.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Swan

I offered a comment regarding perhaps a common sense way to understand which metal comprises the molten metal, but unless I missed it, you did not respond.

My post #233.
And perhaps come to an understanding that Cahill might be right--the presence of iron particles MAY be the result of boiling metal?

Cahill does not mention either boiling metal or iron microspheres. Cahill says that many metals were present and picks out vanadium, nickel and lead for special mention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've no problem with Cahill, just with the people who misquote his results.

I refer you to my post #181. Iron microspheres are a very common product of metal-working. They don't need to be explained. Just look at this photo of welding fume particles.

http://nanoparticlel...port.asp?ID=105

It's not a matter of the proportion of the metals, it's a matter of the temperatures in the fires. Aluminium melts at a normal fire temperature, but you need really exceptional circumstances to provide the temperature to melt steel. There is not a shred of evidence that such temperatures occurred.

OK, let's say there is not a shred of evidence that such temperatures occurred, though we both agree the molten metal existed.

Whatever the actual temperature, and let's say it actually was molten aluminum that everybody saw.

What energy source kept that aluminum in the molten state for 6 weeks?

And I guess you are suggesting that the iron particles present were all the result of people welding and cutting there at the pile?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, let's say there is not a shred of evidence that such temperatures occurred, though we both agree the molten metal existed. Whatever the actual temperature, and let's say it actually was molten aluminum that everybody saw. What energy source kept that aluminum in the molten state for 6 weeks?

Definitely had nothing to do with thermite or explosives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be nice if everyone listened to the entire ATC tape you posted Skyeagle ! It dose show what confusion that day we had in the sky`s

And It shows just how we track the aircraft,and the people that work hard to protect our country !

Sad that theres anyone out there that thinks that It was a inside job ny our government ! Really Sad !

Just take a full listen to it ! You will learn that it really was the terriost ! :tu:

Good find Skyeagle !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<p>

What energy source kept that aluminum in the molten state for 6 weeks?

Combustion of the contents of some very large buildings. Such long-lived fires are not unusual after a building collapse. A small hotel in the UK was still burning three days after it collapsed. The La Fenice opera house in Venice burnt for over a fortnight. Those buildings were tiny in comparison with WTC.
And I guess you are suggesting that the iron particles present were all the result of people welding and cutting there at the pile?

Not just the clear-up work. As I said before, some could have been on site in undisturbed dust since the buildings were constructed, others added during maintenance and yet more from the violent grinding together of building components during the collapses. They are common.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, let's say there is not a shred of evidence that such temperatures occurred, though we both agree the molten metal existed.

Whatever the actual temperature, and let's say it actually was molten aluminum that everybody saw.

What energy source kept that aluminum in the molten state for 6 weeks?

And I guess you are suggesting that the iron particles present were all the result of people welding and cutting there at the pile?

the strongest evidence is the unreacted thermitic material found in the dust. the residue at 400C ignition produces those iron spheres with the same chemical fingerprint as those found by independent analysis, so you have an explanation for those microspheres which is fact not speculation which means either the samples were spiked with the unreacted thermitic material (given official reluctance to investigate this matter coupled with NISTs circular reasoning, I would say that is unlikely those samples were spiked), or, that unreacted material was in the towers as a means to destroy/burn them.

....and don't forget - they get paid per post.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the strongest evidence is the unreacted thermitic material found in the dust.

You meant the "paint flecks" that were never positively identified as "super thermite", nor were they tested properly to see if they actually were thermite?

the residue at 400C ignition produces those iron spheres with the same chemical fingerprint as those found by independent analysis,

Is this the same "independent analysis" that didn't perform any actual tests to see if the material was actual thermite, and was "peer reviewed" by a pay-to-publish "journal" with a long and known history of bias and shady "review"policies...?

so you have an explanation for those microspheres which is fact not speculation which means either the samples were spiked with the unreacted thermitic material (given official reluctance to investigate this matter coupled with NISTs circular reasoning, I would say that is unlikely those samples were spiked), or, that unreacted material was in the towers as a means to destroy/burn them.

Either that or the more likely and plausible explanation that the material was actually rustproofing paint commonly found in steel-framed construction.

....and don't forget - they get paid per post.

Are you accusing someone here of being a "paid government disinfo agent"...?

Or are you referencing the shady "journal" that published the "independent analysis" you mention that - despite having been shown to be incomplete and biased - CT's seem to like to grab onto as fact and actual evidence that they believe validates their unfounded and unsupported "thermite / thermate / super thermite brought down the WTC" beliefs?

Cz

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Either that or the more likely and plausible explanation that the material was actually rustproofing paint commonly found in steel-framed construction.
why would they paint the steel with a substance that produces 1500 C molten iron at 400 C? that would be like making the furniture out of dynamite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why would they paint the steel with a substance that produces 1500 C molten iron at 400 C? that would be like making the furniture out of dynamite.

What exactly do you think fire retardant insulation is designed to do...?

Cz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the strongest evidence is the unreacted thermitic material found in the dust. the residue at 400C ignition produces those iron spheres with the same chemical fingerprint as those found by independent analysis, so you have an explanation for those microspheres which is fact not speculation which means either the samples were spiked with the unreacted thermitic material (given official reluctance to investigate this matter coupled with NISTs circular reasoning, I would say that is unlikely those samples were spiked), or, that unreacted material was in the towers as a means to destroy/burn them.

....and don't forget - they get paid per post.

I'll bet some get paid by the year. :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What exactly do you think fire retardant insulation is designed to do...?
go on...

no wait, don't bother.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the strongest evidence is the unreacted thermitic material found in the dust. the residue at 400C ignition produces those iron spheres with the same chemical fingerprint as those found by independent analysis, so you have an explanation for those microspheres which is fact not speculation which means either the samples were spiked with the unreacted thermitic material (given official reluctance to investigate this matter coupled with NISTs circular reasoning, I would say that is unlikely those samples were spiked), or, that unreacted material was in the towers as a means to destroy/burn them.

....and don't forget - they get paid per post.

Thermite was not responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings. Thermite has been discredited by demolition, civil engineers and architectural experts and it was determined that fire, not thermite, was responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings, which was evident as the WTC buildings buckled.

The force of the aircraft impacts was unable to bring down the WTC buildings so what makes 911 conspiracist think that thermite was responsible, especially in the absence of evidence? No thermite cuts were found on the steel columns and thermite alone would have been unable to bring down the WTC buildings without high explosives.

Debunking 9/11 Myths': Nano-thermite dust found near Ground Zero

Five myths debunked and briefly shot down by Meigs include:

  • Air defenses were ordered to stand down
  • Missile/military jet struck the Pentagon
  • Flight 93 was hit by air-to air missile
  • Building 7 was professionally demolished
  • Active thermitic material was discovered

http://www.examiner.com/article/debunking-9-11-myths-nano-thermite-dust-found-near-ground-zero

http://www.examiner.com/video/conspiracy-theorists-keep-evolving-as-one-gets-knocked-down-they-never-change-their-conclusions-they-just-come-up-with-new-evidence-now-they-are-literally-claiming-their-best-evidence-is-grains-of-dust-found-the-street-near-ground-zero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You meant the "paint flecks" that were never positively identified as "super thermite", nor were they tested properly to see if they actually were thermite?

Is this the same "independent analysis" that didn't perform any actual tests to see if the material was actual thermite, and was "peer reviewed" by a pay-to-publish "journal" with a long and known history of bias and shady "review"policies...?

You rather miss the point. It doesn’t even matter if this did turn out to be non-thermite ‘paint flecks’. The fact is that the material produces a high temperature reaction resulting in molten iron. Whether of an innocent or reprehensible nature, the presence of such material in the towers could conceivably go some way to explain initiation of the collapses and should have been fully considered by the official investigation.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll bet some get paid by the year. :tu:

Perhaps, there are 911 conspiracist who are paid to concoct baseless 911 conspiracies. After all, their claims have been debunked and all it took to debunk their claims was to add ingredients such as facts, evidence and good old-fashioned common sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You rather miss the point. It doesn’t even matter if this did turn out to be non-thermite ‘paint flecks’. The fact is that the material produces a high temperature reaction resulting in molten iron. Whether of an innocent or reprehensible nature, the presence of such material in the towers could conceivably go some way to explain initiation of the collapses and should have been fully considered by the official investigation.

No, I actually get that, and basically agree with what you're saying.

My point is that the "evidence of thermite" that people toss around is based on an "independent analysis" that did not actually test to see if the syubstance was actually thermite. Rather, they did some tests, got a "thermite-like reaction" and CT's around the world assumed this meant that it was thermite. Its been a while since I read the report so admittedly, I could be wrong, but to the best of my recollection the analysis didn't come the specific conclusion that the material actually WAS thermite, nor did they do comparison tests to see if what other materials could have similar reactions.

Then, to top it all off, they "vetted" their analysis with "peer review" from a pay-to-publish "journal" that has a known history of having a suspect and biased review process.

Even given all that, most CT's seem to be desperate enough to have their unfounded beliefs and opinions validated that they'll ignore all the shortcomings of this "independent analysis" and claim it as factual...

Yet if an "independent analysis" that supported the "official narrative" was released with the same or similar shortcomings, CT's would be all over it showing how its just more government propaganda and lies being spoon fed to the "sheeple"... the hypocrisy is thick enough to require a chainsaw to cut through...

Cz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I could be wrong, but to the best of my recollection the analysis didn't come the specific conclusion that the material actually WAS thermite
the term used in the conclusion was "thermitic" as in thermite-ic. no it wasn't standard thermite.
nor did they do comparison tests to see if what other materials could have similar reactions.

what "other materials" could have similar reactions?

you are putting your conclusion before your horse.

Edited by Little Fish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I actually get that, and basically agree with what you're saying.

I should quit right here, but...

My point is that the "evidence of thermite" that people toss around is based on an "independent analysis" that did not actually test to see if the syubstance was actually thermite. Rather, they did some tests, got a "thermite-like reaction" and CT's around the world assumed this meant that it was thermite. Its been a while since I read the report so admittedly, I could be wrong, but to the best of my recollection the analysis didn't come the specific conclusion that the material actually WAS thermite, nor did they do comparison tests to see if what other materials could have similar reactions.

The material contains the ingredients of thermite and the reaction occurs in the same way. Was it you who some time ago suggested an experiment should be carried out underwater to test the material is thermite? Yet the positive result is a foregone conclusion since the material carries its own oxygen supply. It is quite correct to describe the material as thermitic – it is iron oxide with elemental aluminium, and other elements, all in a very particular order. The only question is whether the material is manufactured thermite or a natural/accidental creation.

Then, to top it all off, they "vetted" their analysis with "peer review" from a pay-to-publish "journal" that has a known history of having a suspect and biased review process.

We could raise such complaints of most journals to some degree – I think very little is unbiased where people are involved in a controversial topic with huge political bearings.

Even given all that, most CT's seem to be desperate enough to have their unfounded beliefs and opinions validated that they'll ignore all the shortcomings of this "independent analysis" and claim it as factual...

Yet if an "independent analysis" that supported the "official narrative" was released with the same or similar shortcomings, CT's would be all over it showing how its just more government propaganda and lies being spoon fed to the "sheeple"... the hypocrisy is thick enough to require a chainsaw to cut through...

It works both ways –there generally isn’t much between OCTs and CTs when it comes to bias. I don’t think your observation there is particularly objective, i.e. highlighting one group over the other. If it helps, I don’t believe enough analysis has been carried out to determine source of, or culpability for, the material. Even if it were paint, is the use of such dangerous paint acceptable? Did it contribute to the collapses? Why the lack of thorough investigation?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the term used in the conclusion was "thermitic" as in thermite-ic. no it wasn't standard thermite.

what "other materials" could have similar reactions?

you are putting your conclusion before your horse.

Check out the videos.

[media=]

[/media]!

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.