9/11 Conspiracy Thread (There can be only one!)

Oh what lies!

Asteneh said "melted", "I saw melting of girders at the wtc"

ABOLHASSAN ASTANEH: Here <at the Oakland freeway>, it most likely reached about 1,000 to 1,500 degrees. And that is enough to collapse them, so they collapsed. So the word "melting" should not be used for girders <at the freeway>, because there was no melting of girders <at the freeway>. I saw melting of girders in <the> World Trade Center.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/jan-june07/overpass_05-10.html

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You are stuck in a simple two choice false dichotomy argument that it could have only been explosives OR incendaries. You neither consider that it could be explosives AND incendaries, nor whether it could be explosive incendaries, either way these are capable of breaking, melting, softening, cutting, corroding, oxidizing, burning bolted joints or seperating floor connections from core columns, or destroying the strength of the corner columns. Normal low tech thermite charges are capabale of melting through 1 inch steel plate. Sol-gel formed nanothermite can be made into into shape charges. All of this you (conveniently) disregard.

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

All the speculative reasoning is irrelevant since UNREACTED nanothermite WAS FOUND in the rubble!

http://www.911blogger.com/node/18459

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

<salute>

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Evil administrator indeed, laugh ;-). James, perhaps you're an official story believer, but your 'evil administrator' title along with that hilariously serious dog from those animations that I've seen a few of but can no longer remember the name of makes me laugh

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

 

Melting of girders is not the same as liquid metal.

Astaneh-Asl mentions the melting in another article, which clarifies what he means.

http://chronicle.com/free/v48/i15/15a02701.htm


"If you remember the Salvador Dalí paintings with the clocks that are kind of melted -- it's kind of like that. That could only happen if you get steel yellow hot or white hot -- perhaps around 2,000 degrees."

He is not talking about liquid but glowing, very soft steel.

Astaneh-Asl made it clear that he thought the fires caused the steel to weaken and led to the collapse. He is an expert in buildings damaged by earthquakes and bombs.

Scott is now claiming that Astaneh said the steel actually evaporated.

 

The point of the analogy is to show if there was a conspiracy, someone had to plan it. When you plan a job, you have to choose the right tools for the job. The point was to show people, as a general rule, choose the best tool for the job at hand. The steak knife and shoe are just for comic content..remember..im a smart ass.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Why was it necessary to hide the demolition? Why not just blame it on the terrorists too? They already got everyone to believe they were on the planes. Terrorist have already used explosive on the WTC back in 93..why not just blame the demo charges on the terrorists too?
How is termite easier to install? It would much harder as it would have to have some sort of device to hold the molten iron in place.
How is it easier in demolition? Thermite reactions take time...explosives are instant...explosives don't create huge pools of molten iron that could be easily seen. Explosives would have left much less residue in the clean up...and if explosive residue was found., it would be easy to blame it on left overs from the '93 bomb attack.

Thermite reaches temperatures of 4500 F...enough to melt iron, but not vaporize it...otherwise it would be worthless for it's primary commercial application...welding railroad rails together.

High explosives use super-heated, high speed jets of plasma to instantly vaporize steel. The temperatures are well above 10,000 F and the pressures involved are crazy. Quick and clean...just like the miter saw. If they would have set them off when the planes hit...they would have been undetectable.

 

That's Grommit...from "Wallace and Grommit"....insanely funny movies....that are filmed one frame at a time

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Unless he's in on the conspiracy (who knows, perhaps he turns into that evil bunny that dog turned into in one of those movies at night

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

), it just means he doesn't believe in said evidence...

The term "objective" is a little hard to pin down, but let's take wiki's introduction to the term:
************************************
Objectivity is both an important and very difficult concept to pin down in philosophy. While there is no universally accepted articulation of objectivity, a proposition is generally considered to be objectively true when its truth conditions are "mind-independent"—that is, not the result of any judgments made by a conscious entity. Put another way, objective truths are those which are discovered rather than created. While such formulations capture the basic intuitive idea of objectivity, neither is without controversy.
************************************
The problem with 9/11 is that it is a very mind dependent and emotional issue and can make even a relatively objective person become subjective. I have always felt that the best antidote towards being subjective on an issue is to deeply analyze the viewpoints of the other side. This is why I tend to spend most of my time here in sciforums, where there are people who believe the official story to be true instead of in a 9/11 alternate story focused forum where most will not criticize the official story. I've now even posted a few times in JREF, which is clearly an official story focused forum.

In terms of the nearly free fall speed of the falling towers, I don't believe anyone is claiming it as pseudoscience, but many apparently believe that steel framed high rises can do this, even if they have never done this before or since.

As to the steel being melted by the fire, it's impossible, which is probably why the official reports assiduously make no mention of it as it would destroy their theory that the office fires were the only factor in bringing down the buildings.

As to the explosions, again, the official reports make no mention of them and to many here, that's all that matters.

Pseudoscience is defined by wikipedia as:
"Pseudoscience is defined as a body of knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific or made to appear scientific, but does not adhere to the scientific method,[2][3][4] lacks supporting evidence or plausibility,[5] or otherwise lacks scientific status."

Perhaps the reason they put the thread here is the very last factor in that list- scientific status. We would like to believe that scientists are objective, but the fact of the matter is that scientists are frequently just like everyone else, complete with biases and the like. This is particularly the case when they don't look at an issue much, although it can also be the case even after looking at an issue for a while. Key to maintaining a particular viewpoint is dismissing claims that contradict it as 'absurd', 'stupid', '[insert favourite insult here]' instead of admitting that if the contradictions were true that the opposing view might be true.

The problem here is, who determines what is objective? And upon what do they base their criteria? You know, there is one thing I would -really- like. I would like to hear the reasoning of the administrator or mod who decided that the 9/11 issue should be in pseudoscience. As to Stryder's reasoning for creating this 'mighty tangle', it's pure bunk. He seems to think that the WTC tower collapse theories can be mixed with the WTC 7 collapse theories can be mixed with the pentagon attack theories can be mixed with the aircraft theories, etc, etc. To me, what makes the most sense is that he simply dismisses all alternate story theories as bunk and would like to see them as little as possible, trapped inside his mighty tangle. There is -one- bit of reasoning that I do agree with; that is, if you came to the pseudoscience forum for a reason -other- then discussing 9/11, you might find it a bit difficult to find said other threads. I proposed a solution ages ago, which was to create a conspiracy sub forum. But when I brought it up, instead of discussing my proposed solution, James et al simply dismissed the 9/11 alternate stories and left it at that.

Well, clearly -some- people were behind the attacks. But perhaps no one here was

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. As to how well funded Al Quaeda is, I'm not sure, but I definitely agree that they couldn't have planted explosives in the twin towers and the pentagon and the tons of other things that allowed the attacks to be successful on that day.

As to finding the truth, official story believers believe they already know the truth and that all this alternate story talk is the falsehood. From what I've seen, many 9/11 official story believers simply can't believe that elements of their own government would play a part in the events of 9/11. This doesn't mean, however, that they can't be persuaded. Many people who originally thought that the 9/11 attacks were perpetrated by the people who were quickly foisted into the mainstream media spotlight as the culprits have since changed their mind; they include notables in the 9/11 movement such as Steven Jones, the creator of the documentary '9/11 mysteries' and not so notables such as myself

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

He was paraphrased once again (again by a New York Times reporter), so I suppose you could yet again claim that it might be the reporter's misinterpretation, but yes:
*****************************
One piece Dr. Astaneh-Asl saw was a charred horizontal I-beam from 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story skyscraper that collapsed from fire eight hours after the attacks. The beam, so named because its cross-section looks like a capital I, had clearly endured searing temperatures. Parts of the flat top of the I, once five-eighths of an inch thick, had vaporized.
*****************************
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B05E6DC123DF931A35753C1A9679C8B63

 

Dutch ?

 

Bravo!! ...If something evaporates it dissapears from view!

because it disappears from view!...or as you yourself said "If the steel has evaporated then it isn’t there, is it?"

Here is a picture to simplify things-
notice how in some places, THE STEEL IS NOT THERE!
whereas in other places, THE STEEL IS THERE!

Do you see now that the New York Times description quoting Barnett is consistent with the pictoral evidence, namely "partly evaporated steel" !

...take your time now :

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Looks like it rusted through to me..

 

Okay here's the problem with a lateral cut. The steel supports are enormous and very thick. The fact is that any container put on them would not be any thicker and probably less. The problem with a lateral cut is that the thermate would cut through the container downwards rather than cut through the beam. Following the path of least resistance.

The main difference between thermate and thermite is that thermate is easier to ignite and slightly hotter. Ohter than that there aren't any other main differences that would make a difference.

 

Then you are a moron, go and look up the definition of melting.
"Melting is a process that results in the phase change of a substance from a solid to a liquid"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten

he said that six years before the article i presented to you where he was resported as saying "melting girders", how can it be a clarifaction if it was said 6 years before??? the recent one where he says "melted girders" is the clarification!!

At the freeway he says:
"So the word "melting" should not be used for girders at the freeway, because there was no melting of girders at the freeway",

And yet those bridge girders also fit the Salvador Dalí decription published in a newspaper report describing the wtc steel. He is clearly distinguishing between the two events, the wtc steel was subjected to much hotter temperatures than the bridge girders, yet Salvador Dalí-like steel was seen at both events.

How do you know the 2001 newspaper reported EVERYTHING he said? newspapers always selectively quote from interviews, or maybe they interpreted his word "melting" as meaning "not melting" in the same way you like to.

Absence of a newspaper quote mentioning liquified steel is not evidence for absence of liquified steel.
You are cherry picking: "Cherry picking is the act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position" The contradiction you are ignoring is publsihed here: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/jan-june07/overpass_05-10.html

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

He published a peer reviewed theory of how the wtc collapsed too. trouble is, he did not include any core to the building because he did not have access to the building blueprints.

I don't know if Astaneh himself used the word "evaporated", but other experts did, after all he and his team only inspected a very small percentage of the steel, they even rescued some which was about to be smelted, so clearly in the 10 days prior to him starting his meager investigation, some steel was obviously smelted without inspection. Maybe Astaneh did say "evaporate", or maybe scott has mixed him up with another engineer who did say "evaporate".

 

it would take decades to rust steel beams like that. are you suggesting that new york skyscrapers are supported on steel beams like the one pictured? do you think someone in maintenance might notice?

 

So any time something is not there we assume it evaporated. Genius.

If you actually read the article you would see that he is not quoted..

Take your time….

Do you need me to find it for you?...

I think you will find that piece is from WTC7 not WTC1+2.

However seeing as you are interested in what Barnett has to say lets see what his analysis was.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Biederman/Biederman-0112.html

“Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur. The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1,000ºC, forming the eutectic liquid by a process similar to making a “blacksmith’s weld” in a hand forge.”

Are we talking about the same piece?

 

All I said is that it looks rusted through to me.

 

No, a gaseous release can direct a jet. Any device would be designed using ceramics capable of withstanding the temperature. you are thinking of a thermite grenade which is not relevant.

Thermate (thermite with sulphur) produces a residue that remains molten at lower temperatures, allowing the molten resisude to flow (and cut) for longer. the sulphur forms a eutectic with the iron, so the melting (freezing) point lowers to 996 degree celcius.

ignition temperature would depend on any number of thermite design factors, you can even ignite it with shock rather than a magnesium hot flame.

 

Good point. But thermate does not make a superhhot jet you need special explosives for that.

 

You are looking up definitions but it seems to be too complicated for you to understand. Melting is the process. Molten liquid is the final result. Steel goes through quite a few changes before it gets to that stage. Just because metal starts softening doesn’t mean it reaches molten state. Asteneh makes it very clear that he though the steel reached a soft stage and was glowing hot.

Because he actually goes into more detail as to what he is talking about.

You are being dishonest but I am used to that now from 9/11 conspiracy theorists. He does not say ‘melted girders'. He says he saw melting of girders. Melted would be the final result. In a previous article that was actually closer to the event he made it clear that he saw soft steel that was probably glowing hot.

He is making the point that the WTC steel got very hot, even hotter than the steel at the bridge. Interestingly this raises the issue that the steel at the bridge did not reach the temperatures of WTC and the bridge still collapsed. There is also the problem that the steel could have been further heat affected after the collapse.

We can’t know, but that doesn't help either side of the argument. However he make it pretty clear in a previous interview what he meant.

But he did not say anything that contradicted that. He just said that the girders experienced melting and that they were glowing hot. He never said they reached liquid stage.

He had plenty to work with and has made it very clear that the fires alone caused the collapse. But you will keep ignoring this and will take you own interpretations from your quote mining….

There are two mentions of the word evaporate but neither are direct quotes and both men came to the conclusion that the fires alone caused the collapse.