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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

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.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a short note:

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Yepper! On another note;

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.thevertigo.com/html/9-11/paint.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Not sure what point you falsely believe I fail to grasp – certainly nothing which you mention. The absolutely reasonable point remains, that the case where NIST simulated possibility of collapse initiation (not forgetting those additional manual inputs) exceeded both the best estimates of aircraft impact and building and most importantly the damage actually observed on 9/11 (you neglect to mention that most important fact in your comment). This is a problem because not only does it present the unfavorable odds noted for the official collapse theory, but it demonstrates that NIST based their collapse theory on a fantasy/hypothetical case, not within the boundaries of reality that were present on 9/11. Nothing you say nor speculate can alter this.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was not asking skyeagle. I was asking Stundie.

Please Little Fish, do not purposefully redirect my question.

All references to "molten steel" is based on occular observation. Which I will repeat AGAIN for you in case you missed it, eye witness accounts are not infallible.

For it to be proved that molten steel is what was flowing underneath the rubble, the material should have undergone tests to come up with this conclusion. Otherwise all we have are opinions.

It was not a trick question Little Fish. Had you taken the time to read what I was referring to, you would have realized how silly your mis-interpretation of my question was.

The context by which I asked Stundie to identify the 3 different molten material is based solely on his assertion that GZ witnesses are able to discern different molten material from each other by visual observation. Which unfortunately he was not able to. So how are we to say whether or not those at GZ that made the "molten steel" reference are 100% accurate what they saw was molten steel?

Nobody is claiming visual observations are infallible. But they are most helpful, especially when multiple witnesses report the same thing.

And those visual observations are corroborated by air samples taken by the DELTA Group, previously discussed here.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

Frenat

With all due respect sir, it is impossible for a heart surgeon to explain all the nuances and details regarding surgical procedures to a layman, or for a physicist to explain such nuances to a layman.

So too it is impossible to properly explain certain aeronautical details and nuances to a person who does not fly.

Please, immerse yourself in the heroics of Hani The Magnificent. And please enjoy that. :tu:

The lists, whatever you like to call them, were derived from what's called a passenger manifest. The only entity aware of what passengers were on their airplanes were the airlines. Do you want to challenge that? If so, please tell me from where the names were derived?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody is claiming visual observations are infallible. But they are most helpful, especially when multiple witnesses report the same thing.

And those visual observations are corroborated by air samples taken by the DELTA Group, previously discussed here.

yes, the delta group had found volatilized iron and volatilized aluminium a mile away from gz, again indicating extremely high temperatures.

also little mentioned in these debates were the nano carbon tubes found in the lungs of wtc dust victims, again indicating extremely high temperatures. all the evidence wherever one looks indicates temperatures were high enough to melt steel.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...and way too high to be caused by jetfuel and gravity.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<p>

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.

The primer actually gives an excellent match to the XEDS spectra of several of Harrit's samples, though it is clear that Harrit analysed more than one substance and tried to shoe them all into his "thermite" hypothesis. It is a pity for Harrit that he failed to show that any of them actually generated energy in the way that thermite does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure what point you falsely believe I fail to grasp – certainly nothing which you mention. The absolutely reasonable point remains, that the case where NIST simulated possibility of collapse initiation (not forgetting those additional manual inputs) exceeded both the best estimates of aircraft impact and building and most importantly the damage actually observed on 9/11 (you neglect to mention that most important fact in your comment). This is a problem because not only does it present the unfavorable odds noted for the official collapse theory, but it demonstrates that NIST based their collapse theory on a fantasy/hypothetical case, not within the boundaries of reality that were present on 9/11. Nothing you say nor speculate can alter this.

After some five years of me trying to explain this to you, what you fail to show any appreciation of is the probabilities involved in going from the "best estimate" to "severe" cases. You use words like "astronomical odds" and "fantasy" and "not within the bounds of reality", when what you should be saying is "a little less probable, but well within the expected margins".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

I was going to suggest the exact same thing but you beat me to the punch. If I had a trillion dollars to waste (or whatever it would cost) I might do just that. Say, I have an idea. Let's have Mythbusters do it! I have a hunch, as deep as their pockets go, they probably don't go quite that deep.

Sorry for lurking so long, I just wanted to read all the posts. I think I pretty much read all of them except for the ones where the altercation is just repeated with little change.

I just wanted to say when I started reading I was convinced about 70% that the towers didn't just fall due to plane impact/fire, but after reading SkyEagle's posts (which I might add he has shown exemplary patience imo) I am now about 80% to 90% convinced fire (and impact) did the job. The reason at first I was hesitant to believe that is because in a related thread (911 inside job - for what), on page 16, post #232 (if memory serves), joc (I'm pretty sure it was joc please forgive if wrong) posted a link and it was about an hour and a half video, and it made me think some kind of explosives or steel melting device had to be used. Part of what made me think that is watching the towers fall, it seems counter-intuitive to think that fire alone could do that, especially when the fire is confined to two or three floors (at least that's what it appeared to me). Anyway, intuition can sure be wrong. So thanks to SkyEagle for his elucidating and patient! posting.

I just wanted to say really quickly, that whether someone is right or wrong, when they take an insulting and derogatory stance to the opposing view, imo (to me at least) it doesn't help their credibility. That's one thing that sometimes drives me to the CT side...on the whole (and there are certainly exceptions, SkyEagle being one) it seems like the OCT people (I guess O stands for opposed) seem more bullying and abusive...almost as if they're not sure of their facts or have something to hide so they need to bully the opposition into agreement, or failing that, deride them into silence or demonize them. I was having coffee with a friend of mine the other day, after having been practically convinced by SkyEagle that the buildings fell by impact/fire, and I said "if the officials were more transparent and didn't try to hinder investigation and make evidence disappear and so on, there wouldn't be so many CT's". It's like, imo, if you act like you're trying to hide something, you probably are.

Well I could say more but I've probably blithered on long enough. Thanks SkyEagle.

edited cuz the gremlins got in again (typos)

Edited by Gummug
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't say anything about thermite or anything sky eagle. So why bring that up?

Because in the past, that is usually where road eventually led.

Seems to me like even a reasonable out come you will do anything to steer away from.

Actually, I want to highlight the fallacy that thermite was capable of bringing down the WTC buildings. I tend to provide hints such as why demolition companies do not use thermite for such large-scale demolition implosions. Next, I have provided hints that a large building must be structurally pre-weakened before a successful demolition operation can occur. It took many months just to prepare a bridge in Texas for demolition and yet we are being led to believe that agents of the US government transported many truckloads of thermite to the upper levels of the WTC buildings, and did so without drawing attention, which didn't make any sense considering that the demolition process first begins at the lower levels.

Others claim that bombs knocked down the WTC buildings, but apparently, they never seen photos of much smaller dwellings in Iraq that absorbed multiple strikes by cruise missiles and JDAM bombs and yet remained standing. If an explosive is not attached to a steel column, the blast wave will simply flow around the column and blow out windows and in some cases, walls. We can also examine the photo of the 1993 WTC1 bombing where not one single steel column was destroyed despite the fact the columns were sitting in the middle of a large bomb crater.

The reported buckling of the WTC buildings was another hint that fire, not explosives, was weakening the structure of those buildings. When steel is not allowed to expand during the heating process it will buckle like a strip of metal that is placed between your hands. Apply an inward force with your hands and the strip will buckling in exactly the same manner as fire would effect a steel beam in a restricted position.

I continue to hear that no steel frame building has ever collapsed due to fire prior to 911, but how many of those buildings were struck by B-767s or suffered from massive impact damage as was the case with WTC7? I do not need to reconstruct a model of the WTC buildings to understand how they collapsed because I have an understanding of structures. I have occasionally been called upon to design structural repairs for air force aircraft and if a structural repair is designed incorrectly it can redistribute stress to another location of an airframe and cause further problems down the line. I have also designed components for air force aircraft and equipment for military personnel.

It is no mystery to me how the WTC buildings collapsed, but it is amazing that there are those who think that many truckloads of thermite could have been transported to the upper levels of the WTC buildings without notice in order to bring down the WTC buildings. What that is telling me is that armchair structural experts with a Hollywood mentality who like to daydream on a constant basis tend to think they know it all, but as an old saying goes:

Those who think they know it all, are annoying to those of us who do

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.

Before our involvement in World War 2, a warning was sent by Dušan Popov, a double agent, to FBI director, J. Edgar Hoover, of an impending Japanese attack, but Hoover didn't like Popov and distrusted him and as a result, Hoover failed to take him seriously, however, the Japanese attack on December 7, 1941, made a believer out of him but by that time it was too late. I consider that on the same level as the dismissal of warnings by Bush and those below him for ignoring many warnings flowing in from around the world of an impending terrorist attack. They had the attitude that nothing was going to happen, that is, until 09/11/2001, but by then, it was too late.

There was no 911 government conspiracy as foreign warnings of an impending terrorist attack on America and the laid-back attitude regarding those warnings of the Bush administration has shown, but those who were in charge of national security must be held accountable and anything less is unacceptable.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes, the delta group had found volatilized iron and volatilized aluminium a mile away from gz, again indicating extremely high temperatures.

also little mentioned in these debates were the nano carbon tubes found in the lungs of wtc dust victims, again indicating extremely high temperatures. all the evidence wherever one looks indicates temperatures were high enough to melt steel.

How many welding operations took place during the construction of the WTC buildings? The residue from those operations remained within the WTC buildings after all of those years and would have been released during the 911 attacks. In addition, the torches of cleanup crews produced more residue during the clean-up process. Nothing there to indicate pre-planted explosives nor thermite, which is not an explosive.

That is just another case where people, who are unaware of the rest of he story, pulling conspiracy stories out of thin air.

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.