Why won't govt explain this mystery?

[skyeagle409]

Thermite is not explosive

I know, yet there are those who claim that thermite proved that explosives were used in the 9/11 attacks, yet no evidence of explosives was found.

[Babe Ruth]

The presence of the BYPRODUCTS of the thermite reactions proves only that thermite was used, on a fairly large scale since the powder was everywhere.

No, thermite is NOT an explosive, but it is an extremely efficient agent for cutting structural steel, and produces extremely high temps. Likely candidate for the pools of molten structural steel seen in the ruins.

That thermite was used, in whatever capacity, demonstrates that the Official Story is invalid, because that story does not contain any mention of thermite.

[Czero 101]

The presence of the BYPRODUCTS of the thermite reactions proves only that thermite was used, on a fairly large scale since the powder was everywhere.

Except that the "thermite byproducts" can also be the results of other processes. There's also the fact that thermite lances were used in the cutting and removal of the structural steel debris during the clean-up.

No, thermite is NOT an explosive, but it is an extremely efficient agent for cutting structural steel, and produces extremely high temps. Likely candidate for the pools of molten structural steel seen in the ruins.

While it may be an efficient agent for cutting steel in certain cicumstances, it is an extremely inefficient means of demolishing a building. Also, where's the proof that the "pools of molten structural steel" were actually pools of molten structural steel. You DO know that there was a considerable amount of aluminum used in most modern office buildings and offices themselves. There's also the fact that the aircraft that struck the buildings were mostly made of aluminum. Since aluminum has a much lower melting temperature that steel, it is a much more likelier candidate for "pools of molten metal".

That thermite was used, in whatever capacity, demonstrates that the Official Story is invalid, because that story does not contain any mention of thermite.

As has been stated countless times before regarding your opinions, your belief does not equal fact, especially given that the evidence for thermite as a mechanism for initiating collapse is mostly non-existent.

Cz

Edited January 13, 2012 by Czero 101

[skyeagle409]

The presence of the BYPRODUCTS of the thermite reactions proves only that thermite was used, on a fairly large scale since the powder was everywhere.

No, thermite is NOT an explosive, but it is an extremely efficient agent for cutting structural steel, and produces extremely high temps. Likely candidate for the pools of molten structural steel seen in the ruins.

That thermite was used, in whatever capacity, demonstrates that the Official Story is invalid, because that story does not contain any mention of thermite.

The molten metal was aluminum, not steel. Review this video to understand the facts regarding thermite and molten aluminum. Once again, no evidence of explosives.

[skyeagle409]

No, thermite is NOT an explosive, but it is an extremely efficient agent for cutting structural steel, and produces extremely high temps. Likely candidate for the pools of molten structural steel seen in the ruins.

No explosive was needed to cut the structural beams of the WTC buildings. Check it out.

My link

Edited January 13, 2012 by skyeagle409

[Babe Ruth]

Sky

I've melted enough aluminum (As a youngster I was a pyromaniac) in my garage to know that it melts quickly and solidifies quickly. Without some heat source, it solidifies very quickly. The molten pools at WTC were structural steel.

Cz

No sir, the chemical by-products of the thermite reaction DO NOT occur naturally, or whatever your point is. Thermite torches were used during the cleanup, whilst the dust samples were taken on that day, before the cleanup.

Regarding exactly what metals made up the molten pools, please see my answer above to Sky.

And what you say about me applies also to yourself. You and Sky may think that aluminum can stay molten for days absent some heat source, but from my own personal experience, I know better.

As a means of cutting through vertical structural steel members, there is probably no better agent than thermite. That simple fact is why they used thermite torches as you claim. It is extremely effective.

Take out the legs, and the structure will come down.

[skyeagle409]

Sky

I've melted enough aluminum (As a youngster I was a pyromaniac) in my garage to know that it melts quickly and solidifies quickly. Without some heat source, it solidifies very quickly. The molten pools at WTC were structural steel.

False.

I have seen molten aluminum in regards to two C-141 aircraft fires and another fire involving a DC-8 at Travis AFB. It is clear the molten material was aluminum, not steel, and there's a difference between molten steel and aluminum, which seems you are unaware of.

Edited January 13, 2012 by skyeagle409

[Czero 101]

Cz

No sir, the chemical by-products of the thermite reaction DO NOT occur naturally, or whatever your point is. Thermite torches were used during the cleanup, whilst the dust samples were taken on that day, before the cleanup.

Please list for us what those byproducts are. I'm sure you'll avoid this, just as you;ve avoided providing any kind of evidence for anything you've claimed.

I'm also sure you'll deny that the byproducts you choose not to list could have occurred from other means... actually, you already have denied that, haven't you...

And what you say about me applies also to yourself. You and Sky may think that aluminum can stay molten for days absent some heat source, but from my own personal experience, I know better.

Right... well, lets just say that I don't put much faith at all in the things you claim to know given that you have shown very little ability to prove anything you've claimed.

As a means of cutting through vertical structural steel members, there is probably no better agent than thermite.

So why is it not used as the main method for controlled demolition around the world?

That simple fact is why they used thermite torches as you claim. It is extremely effective.

And extremely slow, not to mention extremely hard to use in a controlled manner in a controlled demolition setting.

Do you know what a cutter charge is and how they work?

Do you know they are so widely used in controlled demolition while thermite charges are not?

Cz

Edited January 13, 2012 by Czero 101

[Babe Ruth]

Cz

I am not a chemist, nor a physicist, though I have taken college courses in both, many years ago. And no sir, I am not any sort of authority on controlled demolition, though like Peter Jennings, I watched enough NatGeo and History Channel to know it when I see it.

No, I cannot list the chemical by-products of the thermite reaction, but I have read articles by chemists and physicists on the subject, and their findings and conclusions make sense to me. Whichever specific chemicals they are, those combinations are not found naturally occuring on the streets of Manhattan.

In studying the events of 11 September, I have read much and seen much, including the government propaganda and the propaganda put forth by individuals and companies who have long term financial relationships with the government. I understand how it works.

You don't put faith in my life experiences Cz, and I already knew that sir. No problem, because I am of the opinion that every person can put faith in whatever happens to blow his skirt. I'm not in this forum because I want to convince anybody of anything. I'm here because it seems like a good place, better than many others, to engage in rational public discussion.

At some point it might be appropriate to observe and you and I don't share the same illusions.

At age 64, the vast majority of my illusions and fantasies involve sexual relations with young women. From what I can see so far, it appears your fantasies and illusions might relate to what is at heart government propaganda.

Regarding the rest of life, I am a pragmatist, and I have learned much from my life experiences, including the trivial matter of the properties and performance of aluminum in its various states. I have been lied to, and told my share of lies, like any other human.

From my aviation experience, I know that the aviation details regarding the events of the day are outlandish and simply incredible on many levels. I know there was no Boeing at Shanksville, and I don't need Dick Cheney or Condi Rice or any other person to tell me what I saw and heard that day.

Perhaps you choose to have government officials tell you what happened or not, but I learned different by about 1975.

[skyeagle409]

From my aviation experience, I know that the aviation details regarding the events of the day are outlandish and simply incredible on many levels. I know there was no Boeing at Shanksville, and I don't need Dick Cheney or Condi Rice or any other person to tell me what I saw and heard that day.

The evidence points to the fact that the aircraft that crashed at Shanksville was a B-757, which was also reported by United Airlines as United 93. Passenger and crew remains were recovered from the Shanksville crash site and identified as passengers and crew from United 93, which was backed by the same coroner you used as a reference.

Another 14 victims of Flight 93 identified

Saturday, October 27, 2001

Investigators have positively identified the remains of another 14 persons aboard United Airlines Flight 93 and Somerset County Coroner Wallace Miller said the investigation could conclude more quickly than expected.

At the same time, the high winds that buffeted the area over the last few days have dislodged additional airplane parts -- seat cushions, wiring, carpet fragments and pieces of metal -- from trees near the crash site.

"It's all aircraft parts, no human remains," Miller said. "We've collected them in 10 recycling bin-sized containers and eventually we'll turn them all over to United."

Yesterday's confirmation of victims' identities by the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology DNA lab in Rockville, Md., means that 34 of the 44 people who were aboard the jetliner crashed Sept. 11. have been identified.

Flight 93 bound for San Francisco from Newark, N.J., had two pilots, five flight attendants and 37 passengers aboard when it crashed in Stonycreek. Four were hijackers who seized control of the Boeing 757 as it approached Cleveland; they were possibly diverting the plane to Washington, D.C., when a battle for control of the jetliner took place with the other passengers.

My link

Perhaps you choose to have government officials tell you what happened or not, but I learned different by about 1975.

Why do you continue to ignore the report from United Airlines that confirmed the loss of United 93, which crashed at Shanksville? Perhaps, you missed the headlines.

Pittsburgh airport OK; United, American confirm lost planes

She said neither of the planes involved in today’s New York City collision originated from Pittsburgh. The airport authority did get a call this morning from 911 units in Somerset and Westmorelandcounties, where United Airlines flight 93 crashed. The Newark, N.J. flight was bound to San Francisco. On behalf of the airline CEO James Goodwin said: “The thoughts of everyone at United are with the passengers and crew of these flights. Our prayers are also with everyone onthe ground who may have been involved. “United is working with all the relevant authorities, includingthe FBI, to obtain further information on these flights,” he said. The airline, which put a ground stop on all operations worldwide, said customers needing more information should call 800-932-8555.

American Airlines confirmed that it lost two aircraft this morning — flight 11, a Boeing 767 in route from Boston to Los Angeles with 81 passengers, nine flight attendants and two pilots; and flight 77, a Boeing 757 operating from Washington Dulles to Los Angeles with 58 passengers, four flight attendants and two pilots. American said it was working closely with U.S. government authorities and would not release more information as of press time. “We are horrified by these tragic events,” said Donald J. Carty, chairman and chief executive officer of American Airlines, which also operates TWA and American Eagle. “Our thoughts and prayers go out to the families of all involved.”

All US Airways planes have been accounted for

My link

And,

A look at United Flight 93, ten years later

(CBS News) ATLANTA - Of all the jets hijacked on 9/11/01, we know the most about United Flight 93. CBS News transportation correspondent Mark Strassmann reports the FBI found both its cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorder intact, as deep as 25 feet underground. It was the only usable cockpit recording recovered from the attacks that day.

The voice recorder picked up the sound of the passengers outside the cockpit door. One yelled, "...in the cockpit, if we don't we'll die!" Then there's the sound of a flight attendant's service cart being rammed into the door, again and again.

The flight data recorder shows Jarrah, the terrorist pilot, rocked the 757 wildly side to side, in an apparent effort to throw the passengers off their

feet.

My link

Edited January 14, 2012 by skyeagle409

[Babe Ruth]

You're a terrific story teller, Sky.

[skyeagle409]

You're a terrific story teller, Sky.

The evidence speaks for itself and once again, you have failed to provide a shred of evidence of a govenment conspiracy.

Edited January 14, 2012 by skyeagle409

[booNyzarC]

You're a terrific story teller, Sky.

You're one to speak. At least skyeagle provides evidence in support of his statements. All you have is empty claims with absolutely nothing of substance to back them up. Empty declaration after empty declaration. Seriously, put up some evidence if you really stand by your statements.

Otherwise you're nothing but a propagandist. Is that your intention? Are you the Hanoi Hannah of 911 conspiracies?

[Babe Ruth]

You're one to speak. At least skyeagle provides evidence in support of his statements. All you have is empty claims with absolutely nothing of substance to back them up. Empty declaration after empty declaration. Seriously, put up some evidence if you really stand by your statements.

Otherwise you're nothing but a propagandist. Is that your intention? Are you the Hanoi Hannah of 911 conspiracies?

Pictures are not necessarily evidence of anything other than their existence. All those pictures Sky posted don't prove a thing, because those airframe and assorted parts he showed pictures of were not at that field in Shanksville that day, or they would have been visible to the humans flying overhead in helicopters with video cameras. Big painted pieces would have shown up, even if the passengers and their baggage did not show up.

The diagrams and simulations he posted show that the chances of a rookie pilot threading that proverbial needle are remote at best.

They are evidence of nothing except just how improbable and weak the official story is. Nothing about it passes the smell test, much less intense investigation.

By releasing certain evidence it claims to have in its possession, the government could end your anxiety over this matter, but it won't. That reveals alot about the government's motivations, and don't forget its reputation for truthfulness.

You may certainly believe whatever story you wish, but I'll take a pass.

Are you comparing me to Jane Fonda?

[booNyzarC]

Pictures are not necessarily evidence of anything other than their existence. All those pictures Sky posted don't prove a thing, because those airframe and assorted parts he showed pictures of were not at that field in Shanksville that day, or they would have been visible to the humans flying overhead in helicopters with video cameras. Big painted pieces would have shown up, even if the passengers and their baggage did not show up.

The diagrams and simulations he posted show that the chances of a rookie pilot threading that proverbial needle are remote at best.

They are evidence of nothing except just how improbable and weak the official story is. Nothing about it passes the smell test, much less intense investigation.

By releasing certain evidence it claims to have in its possession, the government could end your anxiety over this matter, but it won't. That reveals alot about the government's motivations, and don't forget its reputation for truthfulness.

You may certainly believe whatever story you wish, but I'll take a pass.

Are you comparing me to Jane Fonda?

The proof of Flight 93's crash in Shanksville is irrefutable. The people who deny it have their heads buried in the sand. You can desperately and blindly cling to your fanciful conspiracy theories all you want, but it won't change the facts.

And no, I'm not comparing you to Jane Fonda.

[skyeagle409]

Pictures are not necessarily evidence of anything other than their existence. All those pictures Sky posted don't prove a thing, because those airframe and assorted parts he showed pictures of were not at that field in Shanksville that day, or they would have been visible to the humans flying overhead in helicopters with video cameras.

Of course the crash site of United 93 was visible to those from above.

Big painted pieces would have shown up, even if the passengers and their baggage did not show up.

But, the coroner that you used as a reference has confirmed the wreckage of United 93 and the identification of bodies of United 93 at the Shanksville crash site, and it cost United Airliners a lot of money.

In case you forgot about what the coroner has said, read it again.

Another 14 victims of Flight 93 identified

Saturday, October 27, 2001

At the same time, the high winds that buffeted the area over the last few days have dislodged additional airplane parts -- seat cushions, wiring, carpet fragments and pieces of metal -- from trees near the crash site. "It's all aircraft parts, no human remains," Miller said. "We've collected them in 10 recycling bin-sized containers and eventually we'll turn them all over to United." Yesterday's confirmation of victims' identities by the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology DNA lab in Rockville, Md., means that 34 of the 44 people who were aboard the jetliner crashed Sept. 11. have been identified. Flight 93 bound for San Francisco from Newark, N.J., had two pilots, five flight attendants and 37 passengers aboard when it crashed in Stonycreek. Miller said the lab is continuing to test DNA material to verify the deaths of the last six crash victims.

He said DNA tests won't be able to identify the four hijackers on board. "To make a DNA identification we need something from the victims or their family members -- personal effects, or blood samples -- to match," Miller said. "We don't have that kind of information about the terrorists."

Identification of the victims through DNA testing allows the coroner to issue death certificates and return the fragmented remains to the families. Miller said he will identify as many of the remains as he can. Remains that can't be identified will be interred at a grave in Somerset County. "We already have issued presumptive death certificates so families could begin to take care of the affairs of those persons we haven't identified," Miller said. "Now we can say for sure on 34 of the victims and that gives the families, some of whom have held memorial services, more of a sense of closure."

My link

Now, what was that you were saying about what the coroner has said?

Edited January 15, 2012 by skyeagle409

[Q24]

And extremely slow, not to mention extremely hard to use in a controlled manner in a controlled demolition setting.

Do you know what a cutter charge is and how they work?

Do you know they are so widely used in controlled demolition while thermite charges are not?

I have always found this type of argument to be hugely insincere. Let me explain...

You say- thermite could not be used to achieve the collapses witnessed because it is a slow, imprecise, inefficient, etc, way of melting steel. That is correct in comparison to a conventional explosive cutting charge. But you then turn around and say - fire achieved the collapses witnessed. This method displays the drawbacks previously mentioned to an ever greater degree. It is exceedingly slower, more imprecise and less efficient than a dedicated thermite demolition device/setup in heating a section of steel column.

You asked - why do conventional demolitions use cutter charges over thermite? The answer is, as well as cutter charges being more efficient, there is no concern in conventional works about a loud chain of explosions prior collapse. In turn, I would ask – why were the WTC clean-up workers using thermite lances rather than flamethrowers? Can you answer? Why use a thermite device rather than fire?

The use of thermite to initiate the WTC collapses was a case of selecting the best method to meet key objectives - one of them being that the demolition must be difficult to detect.

[skyeagle409]

Rethinking Thermite

One of the pieces of evidence conspiracy theorists use to say the buildings were brought down is a photo with something they interpret as being left behind by a thermite reaction.

There are a number of things they claim with this photo. One is the timeline. They say the photo has firemen which means this was during the rescue operation which only lasted two weeks. Why would they have fireman after the rescue operations? This suggests to them that the cut on the columns were made very close to September 11. The suggestion here is that it was done during the collapse.

They claim that the angle of the

cut can't be created by a welding tool and/or is designed to have the building fall in a certain direction.

The other is a yellow substance they claim is residue from a thermite reaction.

Let's examine these claims one by one to see where the evidence takes us..

My link

Home | Osama Bin Laden | First time in history | Free Fall | The Fire | The Twin Towers | Impacts | Fires and Fire Proofing | Columns and Trusses Towers

Edited January 15, 2012 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

[flyingswan]

The use of thermite to initiate the WTC collapses was a case of selecting the best method to meet key objectives - one of them being that the demolition must be difficult to detect.

I always love it when you come up with this argument, Q. Most conspiracists say it looks like a demolition, so that proves it was. Not you though. You say it looks like a collapse caused by fire, so that proves it was a covert controlled demolition. It's an argument you can never lose, the less it looks like a demolition, the more it proves it was covert.

Don't bother to reply, I'm enjoying my holiday.

[Q24]

I always love it when you come up with this argument, Q. Most conspiracists say it looks like a demolition, so that proves it was. Not you though. You say it looks like a collapse caused by fire, so that proves it was a covert controlled demolition. It's an argument you can never lose, the less it looks like a demolition, the more it proves it was covert.

Don't bother to reply, I'm enjoying my holiday.

What Swanny forever fails to realise is that the type of demolition suggested is not conventional (therefore, whilst having numerous similarities to conventional examples should not share all of the same characteristics). This is why I can comfortably point out that matching features are “evidence” and non-matching features are good “fit”, specifically to the type of non-conventional (covert) demolition suggested.

My favourite demonstration is this: -

I would argue this is a duck (perhaps not what we’d conventionally expect because it has been plucked).

Swanny would bemoan the argument; it cannot be a duck because it has no feathers, no wings and is not quacking, etc. Swanny would say it’s an argument I could never lose (rightly so!) – the more areas it does not look like a duck, simply the more it proves it’s been plucked.

The same is true of the WTC demolitions – the core features are there but necessary alteration was made due to their nature.

I love all of Swanny’s arguments – makes it easy.

[flyingswan]

...it cannot be a duck because it has no feathers, no wings and is not quacking, etc. Swanny would say it’s an argument I could never lose (rightly so!) – the more areas it does not look like a duck, simply the more it proves it’s been plucked.

A very poor analogy to the argument. If "duck" = "demolition" and "plucked duck" = covert demolition, where is the equivalent in your analogy of "collapse due to impact and fire"?

You need another object, say "goose", for that, and you need something that looks like a goose for your covert demolition, say "disguised duck". Plugging those into my previous post gives:

Most conspiracists say it looks like a duck, so that proves it was. Not you though. You say it looks like a goose, so that proves it was a disguised duck. It's an argument you can never lose, the less it looks like a duck, the more it proves it was disguised duck.

[Babe Ruth]

Boo

Heads buried in the sand?

Good grief, if my head is buried in the sand then yours and Sky's must be buried in pure fantasy.

In my 40+ years of flying I've flown over several wrecked aircraft, civilian and military. I know what I saw that day--the same thing the guys actually in the helicopters and behind the video cameras saw--nothing at all consistent with a 757 with 60 passengers and their baggage onboard. Further, that evidence is backed up by the statements of Miller et al.

One must be absolutely absent of common sense to understand the meaning of Miller's subsequent retraction. A sighted person simply cannot overlook the remains of such an event.

You are placing your entire case on recanted testimony, video evidence that works against your case, and the sterling reputation of the US Pat Tillman Pentagon. By any standard, that is a weak case.

What is certain is that the official story is a lie from start to finish, told by known liars.

Isn't it a bit absurd to claim that while the personal papers of Atta were found neatly and so well preserved on the sidewalks of Manhattan, the FDR and CVR, items designed and built to withstand all manner of destructive forces, were never recovered?

Isn't it rather absurd to rely upon the final report of a Commission that even its members called a sham commission? And even that commission noted that the Pentagon was not helpful in the least and offered misleading and inaccurate testimony?

[Big Bad Voodoo]

As I remember watching 911 attack on Pentagon that after plane hit Pentagon window glass was still on the building. I dont understand how windows are not broken?

Second before roof colaspse that was a small hole into Pentagon, no signs of wings...I know that we can espect to see cartoon holes but just something I dont get it.

Also I was reading some article where it says that to disappear airplane into dust temperature must me half temperature on the sun. If that is true 100 km around DC everything would be burn...there are small holes in story(same as small hole on Pentagon before roof colapse)

Edited January 15, 2012 by Melo

[Babe Ruth]

As I remember watching 911 attack on Pentagon that after plane hit Pentagon window glass was still on the building. I dont understand how windows are not broken?

Second before roof colaspse that was a small hole into Pentagon, no signs of wings...I know that we can espect to see cartoon holes but just something I dont get it.

Also I was reading some article where it says that to disappear airplane into dust temperature must me half temperature on the sun. If that is true 100 km around DC everything would be burn...there are small holes in story(same as small hole on Pentagon before roof colapse)

I agree.

Certainly, a forum entitled "Unexplained Mysteries" is the most appropriate place to discuss the many many such mysteries involved in the events of 11 September.