turbonium Posted May 2, 2008 #501 Share Posted May 2, 2008 People prefer mysteries to solutions, crackpots to experts. Turbonium, put your ideas into a book, and it could become an international bestseller like those nonsense books about the Blood of Christ and the girl birthed by Mary Magdalene (father, Jesu bar Josuf). ~~~Cebrakon But unlike those books - you forgot to include NIST's report among them, btw - it would actually make sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turbonium Posted May 2, 2008 #502 Share Posted May 2, 2008 Try also to grasp this point, it's important: Whatever the shortcomings of the NIST investigation, NIST being wrong does not mean that controlled demolition is right. If NIST's investigation was wrong, then why do you keep on supporting it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
God Loves Me Posted May 2, 2008 #503 Share Posted May 2, 2008 Really, you know that nuclear weapons can be made, what mathematical equation do you possess that states that they cant have different sizes? Especially in a "secret false flag operation...". I have spoken for hours with several people who went to ground zero up to a month later, and saw the faint glow of this "molten metal". Oh yes, after about five minutes of chemistry it would dawn on you kerosene(jet fuel) burns up quite quickly, and i cant even calculate the odds this would have of leaving a smoldering molten pile of metal for so long... Leave your mind up to what the TV tells you. Lets just let the US government get away with mass genocide, warmongering, and fooling people like you into think we are the "land of freedom" as we put dictators in power all of the world to serve our means. You and everyone else here who cannot see that(even though it is known fact that false flag operations have been used since the dawn of time to start wars, bring death, and control the populace's opinion) are already doomed, you need to be smacked around a bit. Why? Because there are millions of lives on the line, and noone seems to allow that reality to take hold. We were not attacked by cave-dwelling Bin-Ladens, It is a fact the CIA trained Al-queda, and it is a fact one of the only flights after 9-11 was the bin laden family getting safe passage out of the US, It is also a fact that the US Embassy in the completely OBVIOUS New World Order's Capitol of Earth, Dubai, treated Osama Bin Laden after the deaths of some 3000 American citizens. Will you stand on the side of what is right and true with the knowledge i have given you, or are you fooled by the bread and circus? We are talking about loss of life, if you die by the hand of the NWO out of ignorance it helps noone. P.S. Hunter Thomson was one of the greatest masterminds in the fight for free speech and keeping the government hand out of the cookie jar, he was one of very few people who had the power and the resolve to try and stop the corporate machine from infiltrating the people's rights. Not many people know what killed him. He knew that in order for people to understand, the reporter must himself be a component of the story, to understand both the story, and the perspective it is seen from. Objective reporting was known to be BS, though it fooled the masses, and quieted the meek anyway. just a quote id like to interject before i leave you "The utter collapse of this Profoundly criminal Bush conspiracy will come none too soon for people like me. . . The massive plundering of the U.S. Treasury and all its resources has been almost on a scale that is criminally insane, and has literally destroyed the lives of millions of American people and American families. Exactly. You and me, sport -- we are the ones who are going to suffer, and suffer massively. This is going to be just like the Book of Revelation said it was going to be -- the end of the world as we knew it." EDIT: very sorry about that magikman, quoted wrong, too tired to realize it. i'm sorry that i p***ed you off and that i seem to disagree with you. you're right. the government really does want to kill 3000 innocent civilians. could you please tell me why they want to do this? i really would like to know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrbusdriver Posted May 2, 2008 #504 Share Posted May 2, 2008 I have spoken for hours with several people who went to ground zero up to a month later, and saw the faint glow of this "molten metal". Oh yes, after about five minutes of chemistry it would dawn on you kerosene(jet fuel) burns up quite quickly, and i cant even calculate the odds this would have of leaving a smoldering molten pile of metal for so long... Zaus, do you know how expansive the complex UNDER the WTC towers was? Massive parking garages, malls, powerplants...amazing amounts of fuel sources for a long burning underground fire. All it took was the fuel source and a source of oxygen. Much like the years long fires in deep underground coal mines. It didn't require a nuke of any size... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingswan Posted May 2, 2008 #505 Share Posted May 2, 2008 (edited) No. Barium is not a necessary component of thermate. Sulfur is, however. Thermite becomes thermate solely with the addition of sulfur. There are variations of thermite which do not use barium, and adding sulfur to those variants creates thermate compounds that contain no barium. So its a variant of thermate without the barium nitrate. Did it also lack the aluminium, because I don't recall Jones finding aluminium oxide, either? It still remains that sulphur is common, so its presence isn't suspicious. Are you serious? Even NIST admits that the steel would not have melted due to the fires.... 7a. How could the steel have melted if the fires in the WTC towers weren’t hot enough to do so? In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36). http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm Not only are you wrong, you're even contradicting your own position (in support of NIST's theory). I think you are confusing what happened in the fires prior to the collapse, which is what the NIST quote refers to, and fires in the debris pile after the collapse, which is what we were discussing. There were at least five other engineers who made the same claim (that the fires melted the steel) as Wise... A report in the Arizona Daily Wildcat, entitled "Intense Heat Melted Steel Supports in Trade Center" quoted a structural engineer Richard Ebeltoft on the subject of fires melting steel: Richard Ebeltoft, a structural engineer and University of Arizona architecture lecturer, speculated that flames fueled by thousands of gallons of aviation fuel melted the building's steel supports. Hyman Brown, a University of Colorado civil engineering professor and the Trade Center's construction manager, speculated that flames fuelled by thousands of litres of aviation fuel melted steel supports. "This building would have stood had a plane or a force caused by a plane smashed into it," he said. "But steel melts, and 90,850 litres of aviation fluid melted the steel. Nothing is designed or will be designed to withstand that fire." A September 14 report in the Cincinnati Business Courier paraphrases Elmer Obermeyer, president and chairman of Graham Obermeyer & Partners Ltd., a structural engineering firm in downtown Cincinnati. Obermeyer is considered the "guru in his field" according to the article. Obermeyer said the fire probably melted the steel beams of the World Trade Center towers, which were never designed to survive the kind of shot they took Sept. 11. On September 17, the BBC quoted another expert, professor of structural engineering at the University of Newcastle, John Knapton, on the subject of melted steel. "The buildings survived the impact and the explosion but not the fire, and that is the problem." "The 35 tonnes of aviation fuel will have melted the steel... all that can be done is to place fire resistant material around the steel and delay the collapse by keeping the steel cool for longer." M.I.T. professor of civil and environmental engineering Eduardo Kausel endorsed the fire-melts-steel idea a month after the attack, as a panelist at a public event in Cambridge, MA. "I believe that the intense heat softened or melted the structural elements--floor trusses and columns--so that they became like chewing gum, and that was enough to trigger the collapse." http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/collapse/meltdown.html So here are at least SIX "experts" who claimed that the fires melted the steel (4 structural engineers and 2 civil engineers). That's hardly insignificant to counter your claim that "structural engineers are the most qualified group to investigate the collapses"!! Again none of that is from technical papers, all from quotes to the media, and before the facts were known. The Kausel quote is particularly telling - "softened or melted" - it could be that these guys thought that Joe Public was more likely to understand "melted" rather than the more accurate "weakened". It could also be argued that any ignorance they show is not of structures, but of how hot the fire got. Structures are not generally exposed to big kerosene fires, so it would have been out of their experience. I'm not trying to excuse them, but their fault in speaking out before they had the facts does not mean that they could not be relied on to study the cause of the collapse. No. For the umpteenth time, I had to explain that I made up the quote for a joke, because it was misinterpreted. But just because you're being dishonest about my case, does that mean all government CT's can be accused of dishonesty? Excuse me, what have I said about your made-up quote incident that was was dishonest? You made up a quote, later repeated it, then were asked for the source, admitted you'd made it up, claiming it was a joke, and had a mod accuse you of admitting to lying. Edited May 2, 2008 by flyingswan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingswan Posted May 2, 2008 #506 Share Posted May 2, 2008 No, you're the one making things up again. This was my post.. Thankfully, we now live in a world of computer simulations - where pigs can fly, chipmunks can speak fluent Russian, and massive steel columns offer as much resistance as balsa wood. You're the one who mentioned "film CGI", not me. And where other than film CGI do you get computer simulations of Russian-speaking chipmunks? Quibble, quibble, quibble. There is no evidence that WTC 7 was "severely damaged". The fires were very limited - small fires on 3 or 4 floors. That's not what the people on the spot said, confirmed fires on 16 floors, phrases like "fully involved": http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/eyewitness...untsofwtc7fires Sorry - I thought you wanted to use the most relevant comparisons. I guess you'd rather compare the towers to the most completely different structures you can find instead? Like barns and warehouses? You were caught being misleading again, by saying no steel framed building ever collapsed due to fire. Once you start moving the goalposts, you get to the point where there is no precedent for any of the events of 911, and your argument from precedent collapses completely. Look, I can do it too: No buildings as tall as the towers ever collapsed before from any cause at all, including controlled demolition. Steel-frame structures are vulnerable to fire, however high they are, and you get nowhere arguing how like to the towers previous fire-induced collapses are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingswan Posted May 2, 2008 #507 Share Posted May 2, 2008 No, it only makes Roberts' conclusions look even more ridiculous than before (if that's possible). I've already gone over the comment about bombs and explosives as being misinterpreted. And I've also explained that the so-called "greatest change" in his story is totally irrelevant, as it has nothing to do with his account of the events that morning. Many people have changed (or modified to some degree) their opinions regarding 'who was responsible" for 9/11. That includes myself. It has nothing at all to do with your claim (of Rodriguez changing his story on what happened). Certainly looks to me as if Roberts' conclusions are compatible with Rodriguez' quotes. Let's leave the audience to make up their minds on this. There's also this analysis of how Rodriguez has changed his story: http://www.911myths.com/html/william_rodriguez.html Where is your source for this? It would be most helpful if you could post a link... Last time I repeated a link you made some snide comment about it. This gave me the, perhaps deluded, impression that you were reading the links. It's Roberts again, near the top of this page: http://911stories.googlepages.com/idonotsa...hasn%27tchanged and Roberts gives a BBC source. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingswan Posted May 2, 2008 #508 Share Posted May 2, 2008 You mean it ISN'T supposed to be a joke? I don't know about Q, but to me, it was the lack of technical matter to support the theory that makes it a joke - not the opposite. It was accepted for an international engineering symposium, and published in the proceedings, so the organisers obviously saw it's merits, even if you can't. It lacks detail because it is an English summary of a paper in Chinese. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingswan Posted May 2, 2008 #509 Share Posted May 2, 2008 If NIST's investigation was wrong, then why do you keep on supporting it? I do not think NIST is wrong. Perhaps you misunderstood my post. I was making a point of logic, invoking the false dilemma fallacy. To make it more clear: the correctness or otherwise of the NIST theory is not evidence for the controlled demolition theory. Even if you prove that NIST is wrong, you do not therefore prove that CD is right. You have to prove CD on the evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zaus Posted May 3, 2008 Author #510 Share Posted May 3, 2008 MY GOD!!! LOOK AT YOURSELVES!!!! things wrong with the NIST report, anyone with a brain can see they are blatantly LYING to you, but... The people choose to believe what they see and hear on TV, and if the experts say jump, you better believe the people jump and allow atrocities beyond human comprehension, such as this 7 year war. take a look at this vid on youtube Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Czero 101 Posted May 3, 2008 #511 Share Posted May 3, 2008 The people choose to believe what they see and hear on TV And how is that any different from those who believe anything and everything they see on YouTube, where people are free to make any ludicrous assumptions and accusations they see fit to and then shut out anyone who disagrees with their viewpoint...? and if the experts say jump, you better believe the people jump and allow atrocities beyond human comprehension, such as this 7 year war. Certainly there are also masses of people who take even the most remote and ridiculous theories presented to them on YouTube as gospel and flock to "the cause" and jump when the presenter says jump etc etc... aren't there...? Cz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merril Posted May 3, 2008 #512 Share Posted May 3, 2008 (edited) You have a point, CZ. Sometimes, YouTube seems so stupid, I swear I'll never click, again. Anyway, I wanted to address Q24. From Q24- "First, of the many core and perimeter samples recovered and analysed, there is zero evidence that steel reached temperatures high enough to cause failure. There is no confirmation of temperatures over 250oC in the steel, much less around the 600oC required for the columns to fail. If steel temperatures high enough to cause failure existed then NIST could have found and presented them as evidence, but they didn't." I refer you to Damage and Failure Modes of Structural Steel Components. Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster. Banovic, S. W.; Foecke, T. See Chapter 6. This document would seem to support NIST final conclusions- good welds and metal qualities, but snapped perimeter columns with downward sheering through collapse. Remember, all these welds were unltrasound tested when they were installed. It supports NIST conclusions that the efficient welds held, which popped the perimeter columns. Quote from page 285 (of 336)- "NIST has documented about 3 percent of all perimeter columns and 1 percent of core columns intersecting floors with pre-collapse fires. Thus, the preceeding forensic analysis does not, and cannot, give a picture of temperatures seen by the vast majority of perimeter and core columns." As for some metal having some heat corrosion evaporation, see pages 286-285 (of 336). Quote- "Two facts have led to the conclusion this floor truss rod was heated above the Austentite-3 line: the high ductility displayed by the material under load and 2) the constituents observed in the microstructure were significantly larger than observed for other A 242 rods." The study indicated the cause was not a long-duration heating process (as found in debris pile fires), but rather consistent with the fires in the towers. For images, see pages 318-324 (of 336). Edited May 3, 2008 by merril Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merril Posted May 3, 2008 #513 Share Posted May 3, 2008 Q24, if I may quote- "Fires would contribute to hot-spots in the debris pile but they could not attain temperatures to melt steel. Firefighter O'Toole remembers seeing a crane lift a steel beam vertically from deep within Ground Zero - "It was dripping from the molten steel," he said. Thermite is easily capable of melting steel and, insulated by the debris pile and existing fires, the high temperatures persisted for a long duration." Hearsay and speculation. "As for the high temperature steel corrosion (of which samples were found below the Towers and WTC7), we know that FEMA described this as “a very unusual event” for which a detailed study was required to determine the cause. NIST did not take up this recommendation, completely ignoring evidence that may have revealed the use of thermite." How would the islams get truckloads of thermite in the building, and later, actually hit in the right spot of each building? It was surmised, early on, and correctly so, that no other explosives or bombs were slipped into the building, past the security. They would have been caught with their obvious crews and demolition materials. Lots of materials. It's a myth from the internet! I refer to- Mechanical and Metallurgical Analysis of Structural Steel. Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster. Gayle, F. W.; Fields, R. J.; Luecke, W. E.; Banovic, S. W.; Foecke, T.; McCowan, C. N.; Siewert, T. A.; McColskey, J. K. page 180 (of 184) (section 9.4.5) Fire Temperatures Reached by Exposed Steel refering to the under-representative samples from the WTC- "Annealing studies...show no evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600C for any significant time for the recovered pieces." And, see page 180 (of 184) (section 9.4.6) Time Dependant Deformation of Perimeter Walls Due To Fire and Load Redistribution. "Hanging floor slabs on the 82nd and 83rd floors...and the positions of these slabs changed over time...progression of failure..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merril Posted May 3, 2008 #514 Share Posted May 3, 2008 Q24- You mentioned WTC 7, and the suspicious steel samples. First, for whatever reason (need to know, lack of identifying steel stamps, trucks from NYC hauled it off to recycle or even make reef barriers with) there is no clearly unambiguous WTC 7 samples. Rescue efforts were said to be one problem, along with serious negligence, and a general scene from hellvita. An Initial Microstructural Analysis of A36 Steel from WTC Building 7 and a WTC overview report from the same Journal of Metals- The Role of Metallurgy in the NIST Investigation Journal of Metals Volume 59, Nov. 2007 S.W. Banovic, T. Foecke, W.E. Luecke, and F.W. Gayle are with the Metallurgy Division and J.D. McColskey, C.N. McCowan, and T.A. Siewert are with the Materials Reliability Division at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, Technology Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Gaithersburg, MD 20899. Dr. Banovic can be reached at (301) 975-8822, or e-mail swbanovic@nist.gov Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunofone Posted May 3, 2008 #515 Share Posted May 3, 2008 (edited) Q24, if I may quote- Hearsay and speculation. How would the islams get truckloads of thermite in the building, and later, actually hit in the right spot of each building? you sir live in a land of fantasy and have no clue of what you are talking about-- nothing in that quote was heresay and speculation-- for one fire cannot melt steel,next concerning molten steel found at the scene... it is undeniable-- there is video of firefighters staring into an opening in the debri glowing like the sun that includes audio describing the "foundry" like conditions of the steel-- just google wtc meteorite and you find images of a huge mass of fused concrete and steel that prove extraordinary temperatures what the hell are "islams"? bush's cia carried out the 9/11 inside job in case youve been living in a box Edited May 3, 2008 by Sunofone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merril Posted May 3, 2008 #516 Share Posted May 3, 2008 (edited) I guess I get a little sick and tired of internet know-it-alls walking all over the graves of those that died that day. They blame the wrong people for what happened. I refuse to even consider that nonsense. So, the other alternative remaining is to refer to the die-hard islamic fundamentalists, anti-U.S and anti-Israel middle easterners. That is all that is left- with any semblance of reason. And, they planted no explosives, evidently. Just because the "truthers" are wrong about 9-11, and sling inuendo,etc., does not surprise me. Either I am supportive of the true happenings, or you are. I choose the experts, thank you. It is you who have a diminshed appreciation of what happened. Please prove that anything points to this being a conspiracy by law enforcement agencies of the U.S., or other U.S. government agencies. Mine is not fantasy land, but the light of reality. Please debunk NIST, and all its interim WTC reports. Edited May 3, 2008 by merril Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merril Posted May 3, 2008 #517 Share Posted May 3, 2008 I would ask- where were those planes going as they flew to the WTC? One from the north, and one from the south. I can not know what they were exactly planning, but it seems they wanted to topple those towers, if possible. They certainly seemed out for maximum effect. They would get the towers when there were a lot people in them, and possibly have them topple over. Why would they do that, knowing the buildings were primed with thermite and explosives? Why go to contradictory efforts? Why would there be thermite, if the plan was to topple the towers? Therefore, the actions of the terrorists imply they intended to topple the towers, and kill many tens of thousands of nearby people. Not, drop the towers straight down. Although, they probably hoped to do as much damage, in any event. They hit the towers in the most vulnerable area. The base would have deflected their entrance into the structure, and the upper few floors would not have initiated collapse. This indicates they probably knew a lot about the damage they intended, by their sole weapons- airplanes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turbonium Posted May 3, 2008 #518 Share Posted May 3, 2008 So its a variant of thermate without the barium nitrate. Did it also lack the aluminium, because I don't recall Jones finding aluminium oxide, either? It still remains that sulphur is common, so its presence isn't suspicious. No, aluminum is present in his samples. And the sulfur is suspicious, because the ratio (2-3%, IIRC) of sulfur found in the WTC samples is the same ratio found within the control (test) samples of thermate I think you are confusing what happened in the fires prior to the collapse, which is what the NIST quote refers to, and fires in the debris pile after the collapse, which is what we were discussing. Whaat? You really need to take another look at what NIST said... 7a. How could the steel have melted if the fires in the WTC towers weren’t hot enough to do so? In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36). Why do you think NIST cites the melting point of steel, and the maximum temperatures reached by hydrocarbon fires?!? To explain why the fires did not melt, and could not melt, any of the WTC steel. Period. NIST is not making a distinction between the fires before and after the collapses!! Where do you get the notion that they did? Again none of that is from technical papers, all from quotes to the media, and before the facts were known. The Kausel quote is particularly telling - "softened or melted" - it could be that these guys thought that Joe Public was more likely to understand "melted" rather than the more accurate "weakened". It could also be argued that any ignorance they show is not of structures, but of how hot the fire got. Structures are not generally exposed to big kerosene fires, so it would have been out of their experience. I'm not trying to excuse them, but their fault in speaking out before they had the facts does not mean that they could not be relied on to study the cause of the collapse. So right after you try to come up with a bunch of excuses for them, you want us to believe that you're not trying to excuse them? That's a good one. First of all - as I've already told you - this errant claim has absolutely nothing to do with them 'not knowing the facts'. The only facts they would have needed to know were already well-established facts, long before the WTC collapses!! And now you come up with another, even worse excuse - you're actually suggesting that they may have LIED, just for the benefit of "Joe Public"!! How ironic, after bleating on about my situation!! I guess you do approve of lying, as long as it's done by your "experts"? You even invent a totally ridiculous excuse to try and justify the lying - perhaps they thought "Joe Public" was more likely to understand what "melted" means, rather than what "weakened" means!!! Oh yes, I'm sure they were concerned that "Joe Public" would be stumped by such a technical term as "weakened"! Come on, now. How do you expect to be taken seriously when you come up with this kind of tripe? That bring us to your third excuse - that they were ignorant about the temperatures reached by these fires, because they were "big kerosene fires", and they had no experience in dealing with such fires. In other words, you want us to believe the most qualified "experts" to find out what caused the collapses have no experience in dealing with the (theorized) primary cause of the collapses?!? What a joke! The WTC fires were hydrocarbon fires, which cannot melt the steel. Even a schoolchild knows that kerosene (or gas) quickly burns away in a fire. The jet fuel burned away within minutes (or seconds), and became normal office fires. Your "experts" wouldn't / didn't know that!?! And neither do you, it seems. Excuse me, what have I said about your made-up quote incident that was was dishonest? You made up a quote, later repeated it, then were asked for the source, admitted you'd made it up, claiming it was a joke, and had a mod accuse you of admitting to lying. As you've shown yet again here... "admitted you'd made it up, " - this is blatantly false. I've told you over and over that I had to explain that it was a joke. You are being dishonest. You just keep on saying that I "admitted" to it, or that I "had to admit" to it. As in - I was caught lying, and so I "had to admit" to it. That's pure BS, as I've told you many times - I needed to EXPLAIN that it was a joke, because it had been misinterpreted. Get that through your head, once and for all. "claiming it was a joke" Yes, I was (am) indeed "claiming that it was joke". Because it was a joke. And you have no valid basis to dispute my word on that, as I've proven to you. The only lying going on here is being perpetuated from your side. "and had a mod accuse you of admitting to lying." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrbusdriver Posted May 3, 2008 #519 Share Posted May 3, 2008 I've been watching the network coverage videos of that morning. Some things stand out. The North tower was hit square on near the top 15 floors, from the north. The wind was from the NNW. Once the initial fireball was done, the fires were blown into the building, and spread very quickly. The fire on the west side starts as a small smoking hole and grows laterally to the south very quickly. The fire was being blown into the building and spreading upward and downward. By the time of the collapse, the downward spread was 10s of floors. The furnishings in the building provided much fuel. Acre sized floors fully involved. This heat was capable of weakening the damaged steel structure, be the flames deep orange or white hot. The South tower fires also grew quickly. More external damage was caused on the east side by it's off-center penetration. This impact was also at a notably faster speed. Both planes impacted at speeds well above "cruise" for that low altitude. The molten stream is visible in a couple of the videos. Were this indications of thermite, why was it the only visual siting? How would this charge and it's associated wiring have survived being right at impact level? The term explosion is used innumerable times. In the lobby of the North tower, on plane impact, at collapse. Numerous false reports also come in...car bombs at the state department, explosions at the Capitol, car bombs in the streets. It was chaotic. If it was a government operation, when was the event conceived, and by whom? When, where, and how were the explosives/thermite/thermate planted? By whom? What aircraft were used? Were their missiles aboard? If a nuclear device was employed, why was no radiation detected? Why did any explosives planted at the base not initiate collapse there? I just find too many questions and contradictions in the CD story. It seems too complex and impossible to keep concealed. The calls from the aircraft seem to indicate that the "pilots" were not particularly smooth in their flying, to say the least. But they were able to get the planes to their targets (the tower 2 flight was turning pretty hard at that speed to make the hit). They were "good enough" to accomplish their mission. The air defense "standdown" arguments are just plain ignorant, pure and simple. This is an area I know something about. So, fully involved, multi floor and growing fires that weakened, not melted, the already damaged steel structure. Fires that, aside from the exterior shots, we cannot see. We can see the smoke, voluminous and billowing upwards and outwards vigorously, indicating great heat overall. Then tower 2 falls, and it is not symmetric. The top tilts, starts down and continues over, the assymetric dust cloud is clear. Material and fire is explosively ejected as floors containing 12 acre-feet of air are compressed to nothing in a fraction of a second. If it was a government conspiracy, the timing was lousy. The "Bush administration" consisted of a relative handfull of folks that were new in place, with the vast bueraucracy of the Clinton administration still in position. I can't see this operation happening without both involved. Steel framed buildings had never before collapsed due to fire. But neither had they been hit by 500mph heavy airliners into 100+ story towers. This was unprecedented, any comparisons with previous cases fall short. Their collapse came as no great surprise, at least to many. Just my thoughts... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingswan Posted May 3, 2008 #520 Share Posted May 3, 2008 (edited) No, aluminum is present in his samples. And the sulfur is suspicious, because the ratio (2-3%, IIRC) of sulfur found in the WTC samples is the same ratio found within the control (test) samples of thermate I said aluminium oxide, which is a major product of thermite combustion. Aluminium on its own, like sulphur, is too common a building component to be significant. Same proportion of sulphur in the debris as in thermate? Does that mean the towers were made of solid thermate? Where does Jones get these ridiculous arguments from? Whaat? You really need to take another look at what NIST said... 7a. How could the steel have melted if the fires in the WTC towers weren’t hot enough to do so? In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36). Why do you think NIST cites the melting point of steel, and the maximum temperatures reached by hydrocarbon fires?!? To explain why the fires did not melt, and could not melt, any of the WTC steel. Period. NIST is not making a distinction between the fires before and after the collapses!! Where do you get the notion that they did? Try to understand what I'm saying instead of going off on irrelevant tangents. That NIST report was about what happened in the pre-collapse fires. The "anomaly" that you were trying to put forward in your post #459 "the molten metal", I took to refer to the reports of molten metal in the debris piles. As far as I'm aware, no-one has actually produced any evidence of what sort of metal this was. Long-duration fires in the pile could easily melt metals such as aluminium or lead. So right after you try to come up with a bunch of excuses for them, you want us to believe that you're not trying to excuse them? That's a good one. First of all - as I've already told you - this errant claim has absolutely nothing to do with them 'not knowing the facts'. The only facts they would have needed to know were already well-established facts, long before the WTC collapses!! And now you come up with another, even worse excuse - you're actually suggesting that they may have LIED, just for the benefit of "Joe Public"!! How ironic, after bleating on about my situation!! I guess you do approve of lying, as long as it's done by your "experts"? You even invent a totally ridiculous excuse to try and justify the lying - perhaps they thought "Joe Public" was more likely to understand what "melted" means, rather than what "weakened" means!!! Oh yes, I'm sure they were concerned that "Joe Public" would be stumped by such a technical term as "weakened"! Come on, now. How do you expect to be taken seriously when you come up with this kind of tripe? That bring us to your third excuse - that they were ignorant about the temperatures reached by these fires, because they were "big kerosene fires", and they had no experience in dealing with such fires. In other words, you want us to believe the most qualified "experts" to find out what caused the collapses have no experience in dealing with the (theorized) primary cause of the collapses?!? What a joke! The WTC fires were hydrocarbon fires, which cannot melt the steel. Even a schoolchild knows that kerosene (or gas) quickly burns away in a fire. The jet fuel burned away within minutes (or seconds), and became normal office fires. Your "experts" wouldn't / didn't know that!?! And neither do you, it seems As you've shown yet again here... . I've said I don't excuse them. I was just speculating on why they said what they did. Structural engineers have expertise in designing structures, they do not necessarily have expertise in fires. Your schoolchild seems to be remarkably knowledgeable about fires, as our resident layman in technical matters, q24, took a lot of convincing that 1000 deg C was a normal temperature for an office fire. A kerosene fire will burn as long as there is kerosene available, and that depends on how much was there to start with. If there is a lot present and the fire can only reach a small area of interface with the liquid, it can burn for a long time. In any case, when NIST got down to their investigation, they brought in the fire engineers to analyse the way that the fire behaved and the structural engineers to analyse the way the structures would be affected by such fires. "admitted you'd made it up, " - this is blatantly false. I've told you over and over that I had to explain that it was a joke. You are being dishonest. You just keep on saying that I "admitted" to it, or that I "had to admit" to it. As in - I was caught lying, and so I "had to admit" to it. That's pure BS, as I've told you many times - I needed to EXPLAIN that it was a joke, because it had been misinterpreted. Get that through your head, once and for all. "claiming it was a joke" Yes, I was (am) indeed "claiming that it was joke". Because it was a joke. And you have no valid basis to dispute my word on that, as I've proven to you. The only lying going on here is being perpetuated from your side. "and had a mod accuse you of admitting to lying." I asked for the source of a quote you attributed (twice) to NASA and you said "me". Squirm as much as you want, that is admitting you made it up. You appear to have great difficulty grasping that fact, but there it is. Whether or not it was a joke, and the lack of any obvious humour is not a point in your favour, is irrelevant to the fact of the "making up". Edited May 3, 2008 by flyingswan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LLL Posted May 3, 2008 #521 Share Posted May 3, 2008 "...had never before collapsed due to fire. But neither had they been hit by 500mph heavy airliners ..." its still true , and not heavy airliner hit these building at 500mph , because there wasn't any airliner hitting these building that day , and the only big 'planes' show on tv , were just big black strange shape things , somewhat looking like planes for some , but were nothing less than TV fakery , yes that's right , this 9/11 fraud had full complicity of the major medias , and the planes shown on tv were faked video to make people believe that airliners hit the builsings , while in fact , these buildings have been hit by something else (if they have been hit at all) , probably missiles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MID Posted May 3, 2008 #522 Share Posted May 3, 2008 its still true , and not heavy airliner hit these building at 500mph , because there wasn't any airliner hitting these building that day , and the only big 'planes' show on tv , were just big black strange shape things , somewhat looking like planes for some , but were nothing less than TV fakery , yes that's right , this 9/11 fraud had full complicity of the major medias , and the planes shown on tv were faked video to make people believe that airliners hit the builsings , while in fact , these buildings have been hit by something else (if they have been hit at all) , probably missiles. This is one of the reasons why I can hardly take threads such as these seriously... Ingrained, absolutely inconceivable CT mindset exemplified...utter, incomprehensible nonsense... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acidhead Posted May 3, 2008 #523 Share Posted May 3, 2008 its still true , and not heavy airliner hit these building at 500mph , because there wasn't any airliner hitting these building that day , and the only big 'planes' show on tv , were just big black strange shape things , somewhat looking like planes for some , but were nothing less than TV fakery , yes that's right , this 9/11 fraud had full complicity of the major medias , and the planes shown on tv were faked video to make people believe that airliners hit the builsings , while in fact , these buildings have been hit by something else (if they have been hit at all) , probably missiles. 'No Plane Theories" only hurt the Truth Movement.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zaus Posted May 3, 2008 Author #524 Share Posted May 3, 2008 (edited) No, steven jones hurt the truth movement, as a famous nazi propaganda agent once said, if you want to know what the people are thinking, and steer them to defeat, lead them. Who controls the mass media, radio, TV, newspaper, snf damn near everything else... ? Very large corporations, and as your brain may permit, you realize you cannot just walk in and "get on TV" with your own opinions, or get on the radio, or get in the newspaper... Money is at stake, if the people knew the truth they would kill these monsters parading around being our friends while they screw us and MAKE US LOOK TO THE REST OF THE WORLD LIKE... Slaves, uneducated, partially Tar-Tar Sauced... Slaves to the Elite. Then, the small insurgence of Real People(not the ones on Reality TV folks) who can make their point on Youtube are there fighting the most important battle of our time to shock the sleeping ones from their dreams, and along with it all the Dis-Info to discredit the truth and confuse the populace that knows not but explores seeking to answer the question... "How did the World end up like this?!?" A moment for out beloved commander and chief, the honorable Tar-Tar Sauced President George Bush... The laughing stock of the entire planet. Sure he's funny... and he's a warmongering son of an Oil Barron... Gee bunch of money in that business, is that why they pushed the gas gussling Hummers and SUV as the cornerstone of good soccer moms and macho family men still humping the american dream(and getting burned without knowing...) We now have an entirely different problem... Oil cannot be bought with American Dollars, your money will soon not be able to buy Gas, as only Euro's and Yen is still valid as currency for Oil now, unlike the last 30 years, where ALL OIL had to be bought with american currency. This means impending depression, but again we find ourselves screwed, on a front most people dont see coming at all... Corn. Cash Crop Corn. Its really bad for you, like KFC all natural biodiversity is completely lost to the obsession of one single food source(which is genetically modified, grown with poor nutrient quality, and PUMPED FULL of miracle grow and an array of other unnatural compounds to increase the size of the yield(and throwing that poor nutrient quality out the window)), "high-fructose CORN syrup" is a good example of processed and re-processed sugar, but here is where it gets... BAAAAAAAAD as the sheep will say in about 2 years if not sooner. Ethanol. Ethanol is made from corn, thus the oil industry will need... more corn... So now, Corn already grown to feed the populace, will be used to fuel our vehicles. This is not "Environment Friendly" it is the plan of the Elite to cause not only the Great Depression times 3, but also add in a bit of famine, already outside the united states(ya'know, out there in the WORLD) many middle-eastern counties have stopped shipping out their food, and have gone to the extreme of even rationing it off as they slowly dwindle in supply. Get ready for Hell! Its coming to an Earth near you! Edited May 3, 2008 by Zaus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrbusdriver Posted May 3, 2008 #525 Share Posted May 3, 2008 Ethanol. Ethanol is made from corn, thus the oil industry will need... more corn... So now, Corn already grown to feed the populace, will be used to fuel our vehicles. This is not "Environment Friendly" it is the plan of the Elite to cause not only the Great Depression times 3, but also add in a bit of famine, already outside the united states(ya'know, out there in the WORLD) many middle-eastern counties have stopped shipping out their food, and have gone to the extreme of even rationing it off as they slowly dwindle in supply. Get ready for Hell! Its coming to an Earth near you! You can plant this one directly on the AGW crowd. and the desire of many to profit from it's dubious claims. Ethanol is a proven energy waster, but the global warming folks just love it. "Big Oil" could care less, it's just another blend, difficult to transport, that is government subsidized. BTW, Zaus, who determines the price of oil? Saudis? Big Oil? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now