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

[MacGyver1968]

yes, Gany..you should sue him...the whole "checkmate" thing is kinda your trademark

[scott3x]

It's routine when arson is suspected; as one might imagine, buildings being slyly demolished isn't something that comes up too often.

Is it? Where?

Here you go:
**********************************************
Note that the NFPA 921Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations clearly states:
“Unusual residues might remain from the initial fuel. Those residues could arise from thermite, magnesium, or other pyrotechnic materials.”48

This is the standard procedure for fire and explosion investigations – looking for thermite residues.
Was it applied to the WTC “crime scene”? NIST was asked:
• Question: ““Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."
• Answer; “NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.” 49

NIST is remiss in not testing for thermite residues as required by the NFPA 921 code. We are testing for these residues and invite other serious researchers to join us. The EDS methods are well established.
**********************************************
http://www.journalof911studies.com/v...1SciMethod.pdf , page 26

I think it would be good to include what followed after the above, as it shows that the famous sample gathered by MacKinlay was not the only sample of metallic spheres in the WTC dust:
**********************************************
Other studies of the WTC dust, such as the USGS survey of and the R. J. Lee study also noted the presence of metallic spheres in the WTC dust, even iron-rich spherules.50 However, the origin of these iron-rich microspheres remained a mystery in earlier studies, which did not present any interpretation that includes the hypothesis that thermite-analogs might have been used in the destruction of the WTC skyscrapers and in the concomitant production of iron-rich spheres, nor did they report the iron-aluminum-sulfur combination in the spheres which our team has observed.
**********************************************

[scott3x]

Thermite is heavy...frozen smoke is super duper light. Two totally different things. Thermite is notoriously hard to ignite...you put any separation between the particles, as in a foam or something, and the reaction would fizzle out.

Hm. Well, that sounds reasonable. As I said, however, there were other possibilities...

If the "Insiders" asked me to lead the black ops team in charge of bringing down the towers...I'd use "collar" charges. Shaped charges enclosed in a steel collar, bolted around the central core columns in the basement.

There were reports of explosions in the basement, although it didn't knock the building down- Perhaps it weakened it though. If the building had collapsed from the bottom (which would be the normal way a demolition occurs), it would have perhaps been a little too obvious. True, the WTC 7 building fell in this manner, but perhaps they felt that no one would pay much attention to that building.

I would stage a chemical spill in the parking garage area, and blame it on a stupid truck driver leaking something he shouldn't have been carrying...because people are afraid of "toxic waste" and use the opportunity to get my team in and install them.

How about a power down of the upper floors of the building? Check this out:
**************************************
Pre-9/11 World Trade Center Power-Down
by Victor Thorn - April 23, 2004

Did the World Trade Center towers undergo a deliberate “power-down” on the weekend prior to the 9-11 terrorist attacks? According to Scott Forbes, a senior database administrator for Fiduciary Trust, Inc. – a high-net investment bank which was later acquired by Franklin Templeton – this is precisely what took place. Forbes, who was hired by Fiduciary in 1999 and is now stationed at a U.K. branch office, was working on the weekend of September 8-9, 2001, and said that his company was given three weeks advance notice that New York’s Port Authority would take out power in the South Tower from the 48th floor up. The reason: the Port Authority was performing a cabling upgrade to increase the WTC’s computer bandwidth.

Forbes stated that Fiduciary Trust was one of the WTC’s first occupants after it was erected, and that a “power-down” had never been initiated prior to this occasion. He also stated that his company put forth a huge investment in time and resources to take down their computer systems due to the deliberate power outage. This process, Forbes recalled, began early Saturday morning (September 8th) and continued until mid-Sunday afternoon (September 9th) – approximately 30 hours. As a result of having its electricity cut, the WTC’s security cameras were rendered inoperative, as were its I.D. systems, and elevators to the upper floors.

Forbes did stress, though, that there was power to the WTC’s lower floors, and that there were plenty of engineers going in-and-out of the WTC who had free access throughout the building due to its security system being knocked out. In an e-mail to journalist John Kaminski, author of The Day America Died (Sisyphus Press) and America’s Autopsy Report (Dandelion Books), Forbes wrote: “Without power there were no security cameras, no security locks on doors, and many, many ‘engineers’ coming in and out of the tower.”

Forbes didn’t think much of these occurrences at the time, and said that he worked until Monday morning (September 10th) to get all the computer systems back online. Due to his IT-related duties on Saturday & Sunday, Forbes had Tuesday, September 11th off, and thus watched the World Trade Center towers collapse from his apartment. While doing so, he recalled, “I was convinced immediately that something was happening related to the weekend work.”
**************************************

The article goes on. You may want to take a look:
http://69.28.73.17/thornarticles/powerdown.html

I'd make sure they looked like part of the structure..and didnt have any wires or blinking lights like you see in the movies.

In addition to the collar charges meant to bring the towers down...I would also install one or more "I'm not bullshitting charges" planted in a very visible place, using a more hollywood style of explosive that would make a big impressive fireball.

Call Channel 5 news, claiming to be Islam terrorists...tell them where to point their cameras, and blow the "Im not bull shitting charge"...then I wait long enough for all of America and the world to be tuned in and blow both tower at the same time on live tv. No need for planes.

I agree with the 'no need for planes' bit. However, the bit about sureptitiously installing the explosives is a bit more complicated. The planes served their purpose of misdirection for many years for many (for some it clearly is still quite good at its misdirection), but many now believe that that's all they were and are now looking more closely at the possibility of explosives.

[Betrayer0fHope]

If I did it, and I was employed by the government, how the hell is anyone supposed to prove it was actually the government behind it?

[scott3x]

If I did it, and I was employed by the government, how the hell is anyone supposed to prove it was actually the government behind it?

There may be ways to do so. However, right now, my main focus has simply been to show that the official story as to why the WTC buildings collapsed is full of holes. Once this is established, we can focus more on who had the capability of putting explosives into those buildings.

[shaman_]

Perhaps you never saw the response I gave you a long time ago to that very same statement. It's there somewhere in the mighty tangle. I didn't include the post number, but I saved my response. Here it is:
The following video clips show Michael Ware who is an assistant Professor from NIST, trying to recreate what was observed flowing out of WTC 2 just seconds before it collapsed:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQdkyaO56OY


Apparently an official story defender did another test that seemed to vindicate the 'molten aluminum claim'. He failed. Jerry Lobdill, in his "Molten What?" article, explains why:
**************************************
Dr. Wood has claimed that the liquid metal flowing out of the 82nd floor of WTC-2 could be aluminum on the basis of her experiment, wherein a titanium ladle full of pure aluminum was heated until both the ladle and the liquid aluminum were orange hot. The aluminum, as it heated up, appeared to radiate with a less intense energy than the titanium, but the color was the same. As expected, the aluminum melted at 660 degrees Centigrade, and at that temperature the radiant spectrum and the emissivity of aluminum conspired to make the liquid aluminum appear silvery (no apparent glowing). As the temperature of the aluminum rose it began to glow with the same color as the ladle.

The problem with concluding that the liquid flowing from the tower’s 82nd floor could have been aluminum on the basis of Dr. Wood’s experiment is that the liquid in the tower was not confined in a container so that more heat could be applied to raise the temperature of the liquid above its melting point. Instead, as soon as the metal liquefied it flowed away from the heat source under the force of gravity. Therefore, the color of the liquid flowing from the 82nd floor was at approximately the melting point of the metal. And therefore, it was molten iron from steel.

Dr. Jones demonstrated by experiment that organic material floats on the liquid aluminum and burns up (oxidizes). Further, the liquid aluminum in this experiment was never heated to the point where it no longer appeared silvery. This experiment gave the expected result. Organic material would not change the color vs temperature behavior of aluminum.

The conclusion of this analysis is inescapable. The liquid metal was molten iron.
**************************************
http://www.journalof911studies.com/l...oltenWhat2.pdf

When aluminum is melted it is silvery. If you keep heating it turns yellow though. NIST estimated temperatures 1000C. I don't think we can be confident that the test there appropriately simulates the conditions of 9/11. Did they have the correct temperatures, the materials of the plane, the office materials, was there similar slag formation?

There may certainly be something other than just aluminum flowing out of the building. Maybe there is lead or sulfur in there I don't know. However it is almost certainly not iron or steel.

If there was molten steel/iron flowing for a few minutes why is the steel around the area of the flow keeping its strength? If there were temperatures of 1500C + and material that temperature flowing out like a river why is the face of the building not affected by this molten flow? If it were 1500C it would be. However it would have had no trouble withstanding a molten light alloy that was less than 1000C. There was bowing nearby but that was not localized to the area of the molten flow.



According to http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm the color of the material would have turned black as it fell and cooled.

If we ignore these issues another question would be, where did the tonnes of aluminium go? If we are to pretend that there were temperatures of 1500C then there where was the molten aluminium?


There are simply too many problems with the claim that it was molten steel/iron.

[shaman_]

Alright. As you know, the alternate story generally posits that explosives were used. Most if not all ASBs (Alternate Story Believers, I made the term up just now) believe that the temperatures were indeed much higher, but that the fires initiated by the planes and barely sustained afterwards had nothing to do with it. I'm curious: what is the official explanation for them not taking more samples from the impact floors?

No idea. It's a non issue though as we have discussed several times the steel which was compared to soft licorice and there is evidence of the floor bowing towards the end. Clearly there were high temperatures and the steel was affected.

That was addressed in what I quoted. I will requote the relevant section:
**************************
[NIST]"The jet fuel greatly accelerated the fire growth. Only about 60 percent of the combustible mass of the rubblized workstations was consumed. The near-ceiling temperatures varied between 800 ºC and 1,100 ºC. (p 125-6/175-6) "

[Kevin Ryan]Temperatures of 800 ºC to 1,100 ºC (1472 ºF to 2012 ºF) are normally observed only for brief times in building fires, in a phenomenon known as flashover. Flashover occurs when uncombusted gases accumulate near the ceilings and then suddenly ignite. Since flame consumes the pre-heated fuel-air mixture in an instant, very high temperatures are produced for a few seconds. Note that this temperature range includes the 900 ºC recorded using the megawatt super-burner, so they must have had to pour on quite a lot of jet fuel.

The first section of the Report describing the fires deceptively implies that 1,000 ºC (1832 ºF) temperatures (rarely seen in even momentary flashovers) were sustained, and that they were in the building's core.
**************************

Ryan Mackey again

"This is wrong. To demonstrate the errors above, we will use the temperature data from Appendix C of NCSTAR1-5E, which is both representative of an ordinary fire and well suited to the situation in the WTC Towers. Mr. Hoffman here again complains about the “megawatt super-burner,” but the author reminds Mr. Hoffman that the “super-burner” was only active for the first 600 seconds of tests 1, 2, and 4, and the first 120 seconds of tests 3, 5, and 6. Readers may ignore these time periods if desired as they do not affect our conclusions, listed below:

Excepting only Test 5, thermocouples in Tree 2 experienced temperatures of over 800 oC for several minutes. In the case of Test 1, the period above 800 oC was over 20 minutes in duration. In tests 2 through 4, instrumentation was damaged by temperatures spiking above 1200 oC – and approaching 1600 oC in Test 2 – making a determination of duration impossible.

The lone exception, Test 5, was the test of “rubblized” workstations where combustible materials were collapsed, partially buried by ceiling tiles, and not provided additional ventilation. Lower temperatures are expected, but this case still produced gas temperatures of over 600 oC for roughly fifteen minutes.

· Thermocouples in Tree 3, located away from the burning workstations and thus less susceptible to damage, reported temperatures above 800 oC for at least ten minutes in all six tests. Readers are reminded that half of these tests involved no jet fuel, just ordinary office materials.
· These results directly contradict Mr. Hoffman’s claim, reprinted above, that temperatures above 800 oC are only produced for “a few seconds.”


Mr. Hoffman’s other mistakes in the excerpt above are as follows:

· In our discussion of Mr. Douglas’s claims in Appendix C of this whitepaper, we have criticized NIST on the basis that the jet fuel used in these tests – 4 L per workstation, as described on Page 8 of NCSTAR1-5E – was too little, approximately one third the amount expected to remain after the aircraft impact
and initial fireballs. Mr. Hoffman’s claim that “they must have had to pour on quite a lot of jet fuel” is in fact completely backwards. The author believes the amount was insufficient.
· The NIST Report does not imply, deceptively or otherwise, that there were sustained temperatures in excess of 1100 oC in the core. NIST’s estimates of gas temperatures are given in NCSTAR1-5F, and rarely exceed 700 oC in the core (the hottest example being Floor 96 of Case B). The temperatures and durations reported by NIST are totally consistent with the results of the compartment test in NCSTAR1-5E.

It's nanothermite, super thermite or thermate. This superfragilistic stuff doesn't discredit the fact that this explosive does exist and its capabilities have been proven.

Show me a large structure demolished with thermite, thermate, super thermite, mega thermite nanothermite or whatever the theory is this year.

As to soft steel, put the comment in a relevant context; explain soft steel in what?

Sigh. You have twisted steel girders which were softened by the heat. These soft steel girders alone can explain the collapse of the building. So does your thermite family explain this softened steel? Are you saying that the columns were cut and caused collapse? Are you saying that an explosive caused the collapse? (even though one was not seen) Which one is it? What is the theory and does it explain softened girders? Stop being evasive.

Nanothermite is clearly a type of thermite. But its properties are different then regular thermite, mainly that it is an explosive whereas regular thermite is only an incendiary. It may be that at first Steven Jones was unaware of nanothermite, or thermate. I could certainly believe that Steven Jones' original expertise in explosives was somewhat lacking;

No!

Yet he is still clinging to many flawed theories which he devised while lacking experience.

he had been studying energetics of a different type prior to 9/11, namely muon catalyzed fusion. However, after he began doubting the official story, I believe that he made it his business to learn a great deal regarding explosives. The evidence of this is clear in my mind and in the minds of many more.

As clear as the evidence for a missile hitting the pentagon? It would not matter if every single line of his papers were debunked you would believe regardless. Some would consider this an admirable quality. I do not.

[shaman_]

When did I say otherwise? And how does this change anything?

You cannot seriously think you can use (questionable) evidence for WTC7 to to determine the cause of the WTC1+2 collapse? Why not look at the wreckage of the Pentagon to determine what happened as well? This reasoning would be dishonest and flawed.

If anything, the temperature should have been -less- there if it was caused by office fires alone. After all, no plane hit WTC 7.

It cracks me up when I see this catchcry. By using it you are implying that a plane is enough to bring down a building.

The theory propagated in the article is that diesel fuel tanks were the cause. But this was later discredited by NIST. Perhaps there was a fatal flaw in the theory that even NIST couldn't cover up, but there is some irony here: The 'diesel fuel' explanation sounds more plausible then that it was just office fires alone. I have a strong feeling that not everyone was paid off in FEMA and -someone- who played a part in the report felt that office furniture alone didn't have a chance in hell of evaporating steel, which would have required temperatures of 5000 degrees.

The source article is here:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...52C1A9679C8B63

Ah the article which states that they have found the reason for the collapse. While the evaporated comment is a strange one, if there were genuinely temperatures in that range then how did the engineers come to that conclusion?

That is a good question, isn't it? Perhaps it's hard to wrap your head around the concept of a government official trying to tow the party line, but do you believe it may be because it didn't mesh well with the idea that office fires alone were its cause?

No you are not thinking through what you are suggesting. If he was involved in the a cover up why would he make the comment? If he wasn't involved why would he be allowed to see steel and investigate it?

You claim over and over that not many people need to be involved yet with every post you increase the number of people you think are involved. Have you thought about that? You seem to have recently added the major media networks as well.

Yep:
**************************************************
The unexplained presence of molten metal at the World Trade Center (WTC) puzzled Jones and he contacted this writer to confirm the reports first published in American Free Press in 2002. These reports came from two men involved in the removal of the rubble: Peter Tully of Tully Construction of Flushing, N.Y., and Mark Loizeaux of Controlled Demolition, Inc. of Phoenix, Md.

Tully told AFP that he had seen pools of “literally molten steel” in the rubble.

Loizeaux confirmed this: “Yes, hot spots of molten steel in the basements,” he said, “at the bottom of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven levels.”

The molten steel was found “three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed,” he said. He confirmed that molten steel was also found at WTC 7, which mysteriously collapsed in the late afternoon.
**************************************************

http://www.americanfreepress.net/htm...t_down_wt.html

Firstly we still have no reliable evidence for molten steel. This has been done over and over. Well touch on it once more for the fun of it.

Loizeaux did not see any steel himself and said this.
From http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html


Mr. Bryan:

I didn't personally see molten steel at the World Trade Center site. It was reported to me by contractors we had been working with. Molten steel was encountered primarily during excavation of debris around the South Tower when large hydraulic excavators were digging trenches 2 to 4 meters deep into the compacted/burning debris pile. There are both video tape and still photos of the molten steel being "dipped" out by the buckets of excavators. I'm not sure where you can get a copy.

Sorry I cannot provide personal confirmation.

Regards,
==========================

Mark Loizeaux, President


So where are these videos? There have been claims but there still seems to be no photos or video showing molten steel. These people are not going to be able to identify molten steel simply by looking at it so the eyewitness accounts need to be verified, particularly when there have already been attempts to pass off glowing metal as molten steel.

Secondly, if thermate or an explosive was used that would have no relevance to high temperatures five weeks later.

The New York Times article doesn't specify how many people found evidence for the evaporated steel. The person who mentioned there was evidence of evaporated steel was Dr. Barnett. The New York times article said this:
***************************************
A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said."

The problem is that the temperatures required are extremely unlikely and it would leave much more evidence than a comment by an engineer which seems to be contradicted by his team's report. You have an extremely unlikely scenario with no reliable evidence to support it.

If there were temperatures that high you would definitely have actual evidence for molten steel. You don't.

Unlike the case of the firefighters, I haven't seen any FEMA employees saying that this was the case. A lack of evidence is not evidence of its lack,

No but when you are taking something to be true when there is a lack of evidence you are using blind faith. Conspiracy theorists do not critically look at the evidence because they don't want to see that the conspiracy isn't there. (Don't even think about arguing the definition of conspiracy theory with me you know damn well what I meant)

but there's no smoking gun there at any rate.

However, writing this got me to thinking of the one firefighter who -outright- said that there was high up interference, Paul Isaac Jr. I've now found the article from the reporter who spoke to him as well as to another firefighter. Here is the relevant excerpt:
***********************************
Before beginning this article, I met Auxiliary Lieutenant Fireman and former Auxiliary Police Officer, Paul Isaac Jr. at the World Trade Center Memorial. Paul, along with many other firemen, is very upset about the obvious cover-up and he is on a crusade for answers and justice. He was stationed at Engine 10, across the street from the World Trade Center in 1998 and 99; Engine 10 was entirely wiped out in the destruction of the towers. He explained to me that, many other firemen know there were bombs in the buildings, but theyre afraid for their jobs to admit it because the higher-ups forbid discussion of this fact. Paul further elaborated that former CIA director Robert Woolsey, as the Fire Departments Anti-terrorism Consultant, is sending a gag order down the ranks. There were definitely bombs in those buildings, he told me. He explained to me that, if the building had pancaked as its been called, the falling floors would have met great resistance from the steel support columns, which would have sent debris flying outward into the surrounding blocks. I asked him about the trusses, and quoted the history channels dont trust a truss explanation for the collapses. He responded in disbelief, and told me, You could never build a truss building that high. A slight wind would knock it over! Those buildings were supported by reinforced steel. Building dont just implode like that; this was a demolition.


***********************************
http://www.prisonplanet.com/analysis...503_bombs.html

Are you like the guy out of Memento? We have discussed those two before. Perhaps you think that you can wait a month and then bring something up which has been addressed and no one will notice. Wow so much evidence! Never mind that it is all crap.

Paul Isaac did not actually see anything himself he is just making claims of conspiracies. He is clearly ill-informed when it comes to structural engineering so his comments there are irrelevant. Once again, this incident was over seven years ago. In that time firemen have left the profession or retired. If hundreds of firemen had been murdered that day a simple 'gag order' would have come out by now. Fear of losing a job is not going to be effective for very long. You don't want to get this.

Just after the disaster, Firefighter Louie Cacchioli said, We think there were bombs set in the building. Notice he said we. At 9:04, just after flight 175 collided with the South Tower, a huge explosion shot 550 feet into the air from the U.S. Customs House known as WTC 6. A huge crater scars the ground where this building once stood. Something blew up WTC 6 - it wasnt a plane; it must have been a bomb of some sort.

You are sounding more desperate now.
http://www.911myths.com/html/quote_abuse.html

"Furthermore, Cacchioli was upset that People Magazine misquoted him, saying "there were bombs" in the building when all he said was he heard "what sounded like bombs" without having definitive proof bombs were actually detonated."

Keep mining.

[John99]

"Furthermore, Cacchioli was upset that People Magazine misquoted him, saying "there were bombs" in the building when all he said was he heard "what sounded like bombs" without having definitive proof bombs were actually detonated."

That is pretty funny because if big pieces of metal were falling from 90-100+ floors up and from the rear or sides where the person didnt see them then a reasonable person can believe they are hearing an explosion when they hit the concrete below. Especially with all the other things happening around them.

[scott3x]

When aluminum is melted it is silvery. If you keep heating it turns yellow though.

I have seen no evidence of it turning yellow under any conditions, but perhaps in dark conditions. However, Steven Jones et al have from the Department of Physics and Astronomy at Bringham Young University have made it clear that it -never- appears so under daylight conditions:
***************************************
If aluminum alloy (e.g., from the plane) had melted, it would melt and flow away from the heat source at its melting point of roughly 500 - 650 oC and thus would not reach the yellow color observed for this molten metal. Furthermore, aluminum has unusually low emissivity and high reflectivity, so that in daylight conditions molten aluminum at any temperature will appear silvery-gray (confirmed in experiments done at BYU). But this molten metal clearly appears bright yellow-white, in broad daylight. Hence, molten aluminum is also ruled out as an explanation.
***************************************
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/...en%20metal.doc

[scott3x]

There may certainly be something other than just aluminum flowing out of the building. Maybe there is lead or sulfur in there I don't know.

Since not even NIST has considered those possibilities, I won't speculate on them. However, the alternate theory movement, which includes many scientists, believe that the only logical expalanation was that it was molten iron.

However it is almost certainly not iron or steel.

Why have you reached the conclusion that it is almost certainly not iron?

If there was molten steel/iron flowing for a few minutes why is the steel around the area of the flow keeping its strength?

I believe the answer to that is that thermite placement wasn't uniform.

If there were temperatures of 1500C + and material that temperature flowing out like a river why is the face of the building not affected by this molten flow?

Why do you believe that it wasn't affected?

If it were 1500C it would be. However it would have had no trouble withstanding a molten light alloy that was less than 1000C. There was bowing nearby but that was not localized to the area of the molten flow.

It has already been argued that the bowing may have been a simple refraction of light. Personally, I wouldn't rule out the idea that things like thermite might have caused some bowing, but the alternate movement experts haven't addressed that possibility.

According to http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm the color of the material would have turned black as it fell and cooled.

I'll see if this point can be addressed. I'm guessing the reason it didn't, however, is that it was still reacting with the thermite, keeping it hot.

If we ignore these issues another question would be, where did the tonnes of aluminium go?

From the plane? From what I remember, there is evidence that a lot of it shot straight through the building and fell on the other side.

[scott3x]

Originally Posted by scott3x

Alright. As you know, the alternate story generally posits that explosives were used. Most if not all ASBs (Alternate Story Believers, I made the term up just now) believe that the temperatures were indeed much higher, but that the fires initiated by the planes and barely sustained afterwards had nothing to do with it. I'm curious: what is the official explanation for them not taking more samples from the impact floors?

No idea. It's a non issue though as we have discussed several times the steel which was compared to soft licorice and there is evidence of the floor bowing towards the end. Clearly there were high temperatures and the steel was affected.

Yes, clearly there were high temperatures. The disagreement is in what caused those high temperatures. I have never heard of a fire starving for oxygen turning huge steel beams into twisted licorice sticks. And remember that a lot of those huge steel beams were nowhere near the impact zone. You may wish to consider the possibility that the official investigators took so few samples of the impact floor is not a 'non issue', as you put it.

Originally Posted by scott3x
That was addressed in what I quoted. I will requote the relevant section:
**************************
[NIST]"The jet fuel greatly accelerated the fire growth. Only about 60 percent of the combustible mass of the rubblized workstations was consumed. The near-ceiling temperatures varied between 800 ºC and 1,100 ºC. (p 125-6/175-6) "

[Kevin Ryan]Temperatures of 800 ºC to 1,100 ºC (1472 ºF to 2012 ºF) are normally observed only for brief times in building fires, in a phenomenon known as flashover. Flashover occurs when uncombusted gases accumulate near the ceilings and then suddenly ignite. Since flame consumes the pre-heated fuel-air mixture in an instant, very high temperatures are produced for a few seconds. Note that this temperature range includes the 900 ºC recorded using the megawatt super-burner, so they must have had to pour on quite a lot of jet fuel.

The first section of the Report describing the fires deceptively implies that 1,000 ºC (1832 ºF) temperatures (rarely seen in even momentary flashovers) were sustained, and that they were in the building's core.
**************************

Ryan Mackey again

"This is wrong. To demonstrate the errors above, we will use the temperature data from Appendix C of NCSTAR1-5E, which is both representative of an ordinary fire and well suited to the situation in the WTC Towers.

Not by a long shot.

Mr. Hoffman here again complains about the “megawatt super-burner,” but the author reminds Mr. Hoffman that the “super-burner” was only active for the first 600 seconds of tests 1, 2, and 4, and the first 120 seconds of tests 3, 5, and 6.

Kevin Ryan handily debunks the idea that 120 to 600 seconds is a trifling amount:
************************************************** *
Temperatures of 800 ºC to 1,100 ºC (1472 ºF to 2012 ºF) are normally observed only for brief times in building fires, in a phenomenon known as flashover. Flashover occurs when uncombusted gases accumulate near the ceilings and then suddenly ignite. Since flame consumes the pre-heated fuel-air mixture in an instant, very high temperatures are produced for a few seconds. Note that this temperature range includes the 900 ºC recorded using the megawatt super-burner, so they must have had to pour on quite a lot of jet fuel.

The first section of the Report describing the fires deceptively implies that 1,000 ºC (1832 ºF) temperatures (rarely seen in even momentary flashovers) were sustained, and that they were in the building's core.
************************************************** *
The article goes on, complete with some good graphics. You might want to take a look:
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html

Readers may ignore these time periods if desired as they do not affect our conclusions

I find it hard to believe that it wouldn't affect his conclusions. And who is Ryan including when he states 'our conclusions'?

Mr. Hoffman’s other mistakes in the excerpt above are as follows:

· In our discussion of Mr. Douglas’s claims in Appendix C of this whitepaper, we have criticized NIST on the basis that the jet fuel used in these tests – 4 L per workstation, as described on Page 8 of NCSTAR1-5E – was too little, approximately one third the amount expected to remain after the aircraft impact
and initial fireballs. Mr. Hoffman’s claim that “they must have had to pour on quite a lot of jet fuel” is in fact completely backwards. The author believes the amount was insufficient.
· The NIST Report does not imply, deceptively or otherwise, that there were sustained temperatures in excess of 1100 oC in the core. NIST’s estimates of gas temperatures are given in NCSTAR1-5F, and rarely exceed 700 oC in the core (the hottest example being Floor 96 of Case B). The temperatures and durations reported by NIST are totally consistent with the results of the compartment test in NCSTAR1-5E.

I don't have an answer to the above as of yet. I would like to stated, however, that Ryan Mackey has been thoroughly debunked in the past, as the following article makes clear:
http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/mackey/index.html

At the outset of the article, a good point is made:
***********************************************
Following the publication of these, Mackey generated Version 2 of his essay. More than 300 pages in length, this version has lengthy fallacy-rich sections addressing Thurston's and Ryan's articles almost line-by-line.

This review will never be a complete reply to Mackey's essay. An attempt to create such a reply would be misguided since it would lend legitimacy to Mackey's method: generating masses of criticism of the targeted information using arguments with superficial plausibility -- the emphasis being on quantity -- while employing a vast array of propagandistic techniques, factual distortions, and logical fallacies. The rationale behind that method seems clear enough: create a smokescreen of baseless arguments and distractions, clothed in claims of intellectual superiority and scientific legitimacy, such that the audience might be reassured that there is no need to look at the evidence of controlled demolition.
***********************************************

[scott3x]

Originally Posted by scott3x

It's nanothermite, super thermite or thermate. This superfragilistic stuff doesn't discredit the fact that this explosive does exist and its capabilities have been proven.

Show me a large structure demolished with thermite, thermate, super thermite, mega thermite nanothermite or whatever the theory is this year.

Here you go :-)...
http://9eleven.info/wtc_collapse1B.jpg

I have never claimed that it was done before or after 9/11. Clearly, the people who did it had deep pockets (perhaps using some of the money 'dissapearing' from the military's coffers: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.ph...postcount=1690) and a lot of expertise in nano-thermites. Like certain individuals in NIST, for example:
http://911review.com/articles/ryan/n...onnection.html

Originally Posted by scott3x

As to soft steel, put the comment in a relevant context; explain soft steel in what?

Sigh. You have twisted steel girders which were softened by the heat. These soft steel girders alone can explain the collapse of the building.

From what I've heard, the most likely explanation for those twisted steel girders are explosives, not the relatively small fires that were only on a few floors.

Are you saying that the columns were cut and caused collapse?

I'll excerpt Steven Jones' explanation for the collapse:
**********************************************
Remarkably, the explosive demolition hypothesis accounts for all the available data rather easily. The core columns on lower floors are cut using explosives, near-simultaneously, along with explosives detonated up higher so that gravity acting on now-unsupported floors helps bring down the buildings quickly. The collapses are thus symmetrical, rapid and complete, with accompanying squibs — really very standard stuff for demolition experts. Thermite (whose end product is molten iron) used on some of the steel beams readily accounts for the molten metal which then pooled beneath the rubble piles.

I believe this is a straightforward hypothesis, much more probable than the official hypothesis. It deserves scientific scrutiny, beyond what I have been able to outline in this treatise.
**********************************************
http://physics911.net/stevenjones

Are you saying that an explosive caused the collapse? (even though one was not seen)

I think it's akin to my overlooking part of a quote by Geoff because it was in brackets. Sometimes we don't see things even though they're in front of our eyes. Below I like an article with evidence that explosives were used, but for me, just looking at the pictures makes it clear that this was a controlled demolition:
http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_ht...apse%20update/

Originally Posted by scott3x
Nanothermite is clearly a type of thermite. But its properties are different then regular thermite, mainly that it is an explosive whereas regular thermite is only an incendiary. It may be that at first Steven Jones was unaware of nanothermite, or thermate. I could certainly believe that Steven Jones' original expertise in explosives was somewhat lacking;

No!

Yet he is still clinging to many flawed theories which he devised while lacking experience.

Such as?

Originally Posted by scott3x

he had been studying energetics of a different type prior to 9/11, namely muon catalyzed fusion. However, after he began doubting the official story, I believe that he made it his business to learn a great deal regarding explosives. The evidence of this is clear in my mind and in the minds of many more.

As clear as the evidence for a missile hitting the pentagon?

No; many alternate theory believers don't believe that a missile hit the pentagon. Right now, I'm going for what is mentioned in www.thepentacon.com; that a plane approached the pentagon but then flew over it, and that explosives were used on the pentagon.

It would not matter if every single line of his papers were debunked you would believe regardless.

I admit that he might not have known about nanothermite at the beginning and instead of realizing that this signifies that I can question his reasoning, you somehow take it as a sign that I would believe him 'regardless'. You may want to review your logic.

[GeoffP]

Geoff, quit kidding around. If you actually -believed- that bolts were important, that'd be one thing. But you're just trying to yank my chain.

Not at all. What fire temperature were the bolts rated to? Were they insulated?

Very funny, laugh :-p. Personally, however, I think we'll make a believer out of you yet ;-).

You'll find my resistance to nonsense is surprisingly high. The 9/11 Troof movement is on its last legs.

Ah. I certainly don't think I'm the only one who doesn't always see statements that are in brackets. In any case, where did you get that quote to begin with?

Why? Do you disagree with it?

It's the theme of Mission Impossible, at any rate. I think now's the time to post the first page of an article I linked to a bit ago...
**************************************
Seven CIA Veterans Challenge 9/11 Commission Report
by Alan Miller

And? You'll find those who challenge every conceivable view in every conceivable organization.

The person who took that picture clearly didn't care much for placing the pieces on the correct squares, laugh :-).

It was Ganymede.

Ok. You may want to read the following excerpt from an article by Physicist Steven Jones, with Jeffrey Farrer, Wesley Lifferth, John Ellsworth, Jared Dodson, and Jacob Stevenson, from the Department of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young University.

They don't seem to rule out that aluminum can be orange, but not under daylight conditions. And then there's the fact that "video footage reveals yellow-to-white hot molten metal ", not orange. But I'll let you read the article for yourself...

I've already read it, but it isn't cited. Where does he get this information? The scale of colour I've seen for aluminum ranges from silvery to red; it suggests it's temperature, not daylight that makes the difference, which makes more sense.

Loizeaux confirmed this: “Yes, hot spots of molten steel in the basements,” he said, “at the bottom of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven levels.”

But he didn't see them himself anyway.

The Washington Post is not the BBC. You can claim that the BBC set the standard for 'such pronouncements', but until you show me that the Washington Post -also- retracted its statements, that one still stands. Actually, I'd like to see the BBC retraction again as well. I think the retraction was a little nuanced.

The WP article is based on the BBC one. It matter not at all if WP didn't retract; the story has already been falsified. It's over.

I was merely showing that there was precedent in regards to very suspicious reporting practices by the BBC in regards to 9/11.

Possibly, in the wrong division.

What you seem to be saying is that the people who produce BBC television are not the people who produce BBC wire news. But the BBC is a single corporation, and has a few key people at the top.

You could hardly pick an unlikelier source to support an official government story than the BBC, Scott.

Yes, the link is broken; it was a long time ago and I imagine that the link was either changed or deleted altogether. I imagine you can find the article in some U.S. libraries. Anyway, let's see this 'followup work' by the BBC.[/QUOTE]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_hi...ken_identities
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditor..._theory_1.html

I notice with the greatest amusement that "IslamOnline" has not retracted its story, to my knowledge. I wonder why that could be? Yet, even the likes of Saudi Arabia has admitted the identities of its hijackers.

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/20...06_90055.shtml

Best regards,

Geoff

[GeoffP]

Hearsay had nothing to do with it. Once again:

Sir, it entirely did. The artist in question (a suspicious mote from the get-go) was a Troofer for years and years, besides the analysis being so delayed. It's far too suspicious to be considered evidence.

Best,

Geoff

[GeoffP]

The 'question' was, why would she fake it?

Who can say? We are all very willing to ascribe the basest intentions to governmental sources. Just the other day, a woman carved herself up and blamed it on Obama.

Perhaps you are employing a form of Bush Science, wherein sources aren't sources. Creating your own reality, if you will, something like what a New York Times magazine writer quoted a Bush aid as saying:

I see. I demand authentication, so I am being "unreal" about 9/11. Surely, if I was more realistic, I would accept the easy authority of those who claim 9/11 was a secret demolition carried out by thousands of government spider-men, or a giant hologram. Or carried out by a giant "la-zer" in orbit. Of course. Never mind that the affiliation of the person collecting the sample or the person analyzing the sample is to a conspiracy theory that requires it to show what they want it to.

Janette told me that she had a sense, almost a spiritual or reverential feeling (knowing the origin of the dust) to preserve some of it, which she did, placing dust from her apartment into a plastic bag. My first 9/11-related paper appeared on-line in November 2005, and Janette MacKinlay soon learned from it that I was seeking WTC dust and other samples for study. She contacted me and sent me a small sample by mail. Later, I traveled to her new residence in California and obtained a second small sample in the presence of other scientists.
*****************************************

She reverentially preserved dust? In a plastic bag. Again: it strikes me as highly unlikely.

Steven Jones' makes it clear that the -only- thing that could have done it was thermate. Not exactly something an artist would stock up on.

And a radical supporter of controlled demolition? Thermate is only a series of its own components.

Beats me what you're smelling. It seems that you're hell bent on not accepting 9/11 as anything other then what the mass media tells you it was and denying any other possibility.

I'm hell-bent not to be led down the garden path by a pack of fools.

I'm guessing from the above statement that you yourself are a republican. Is that the case?

No. I am a Marxist-Leninist. Is this the new dialectic in Canadian youth: accept our tall tale or be consigned to the reactionary opposition?

You were mistaken as to when he received the sample, so perhaps you're also mistaken as to when Steven Jones announced his findings.

Unfortunately, I'm not. My link states when he announced it. Perhaps Steven Jones is mistaken as to when Steven Jones announced his findings?

Their reasoning has already been debunked. Here is its refutation once more:

...how does what you posted constitute evidence of a controlled demolition??

Best regards,

Geoff

[GeoffP]

Geoff P, It's flattering to see that you're using my Checkmate slogan (and pictures) whenever you think you've made a good point AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. I swear, ever since that first debate I've been scared ever since AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. I never thought I'd see the day where you would be making me look like such an idiot! AHAHAHAHAHAHA

Fixed.

It's more like "fromage", you idiot.

So...

Checkmate!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...f/ChessSet.jpg

yes, Gany..you should sue him...the whole "checkmate" thing is kinda your trademark

There's nothing he can do. It belongs to me now!

Checkmate!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...f/ChessSet.jpg

[GeoffP]

I have seen no evidence of it turning yellow under any conditions, but perhaps in dark conditions. However, Steven Jones et al have from the Department of Physics and Astronomy at Bringham Young University have made it clear that it -never- appears so under daylight conditions:

His quote is completely uncited.

[KennyJC]

Laugh if you want. The fact remains, however, that there are numerous issues in regards to the media on and after 9/11. I saw a link somewhere on media sources other then the BBC at one point, but there are so many links regarding 9/11...

Oh I'll laugh alright... A conspiracy so vast that it involves not only the government, or those in the clean up operation, Larry Silverstein, the FDNY, the military, the woman who took a picture of the mushroom cloud from Flight 93, eye witnesses to the Pentagon crash, EVEN ME since you alluded that I may be a government agent!

...But you think the media is involved in the cover up too? Hahahahhahahahhahahah. Oh man... what is it like living in that head of yours?

I'm actually starting to think you should go see a professional.

[scott3x]

Originally Posted by scott3x

If anything, the temperature should have been -less- there if it was caused by office fires alone. After all, no plane hit WTC 7.

It cracks me up when I see this catch cry. By using it you are implying that a plane is enough to bring down a building.

I imply no such thing. I'm only implying that if no plane hit WTC 7, it was even -less- likely to collapse then the WTC buildings if no explosives were used.

Originally Posted by scott3x
The theory propagated in the article is that diesel fuel tanks were the cause. But this was later discredited by NIST. Perhaps there was a fatal flaw in the theory that even NIST couldn't cover up, but there is some irony here: The 'diesel fuel' explanation sounds more plausible then that it was just office fires alone. I have a strong feeling that not everyone was paid off in FEMA and -someone- who played a part in the report felt that office furniture alone didn't have a chance in hell of evaporating steel, which would have required temperatures of 5000 degrees.

The source article is here:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...52C1A9679C8B63

Ah the article which states that they have found the reason for the collapse.

A theory which has been discredited even by NIST.

While the evaporated comment is a strange one, if there were genuinely temperatures in that range then how did the engineers come to that conclusion?

You'd have to ask Jonathan Barnett and/or members of his assessment team. As the New York Times states, "Dr. Barnett and Mr. Baker [were] part of an assessment team organized by the American Society of Civil Engineers and the Federal Emergency Management Agency to examine the performance of several buildings during the attacks."

You may want to see a small youtube clip wherein he talks of surprise that tower 7 collapsed. He also states this:
"When you have a structural failure,
you carefully go through the debris field,
looking at each item, photographing every beam as it collapsed
and every column where it is in the ground and you pick them up very carefully and you look at each element.
We were unable to do that in the case of tower 7"

This suggests that Bill Manning, editor in chief of Fire Engineering, was on the mark when he said the following:
********************************************
Comprehensive disaster investigations mean increased safety. They mean positive change. NASA knows it. The NTSB knows it. Does FEMA know it?

No. Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official investigation" blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure. Except for the marginal benefit obtained from a three-day, visual walk-through of evidence sites conducted by ASCE investigation committee members- described by one close source as a "tourist trip"-no one's checking the evidence for anything.
********************************************
http://www.fireengineering.com/artic...html?id=131225

2. Barnett’s team later reported their steel samples not getting over 850C. If he genuinely saw evidence for evaporated steel, why did they not mention that in the report?

That is a good question, isn't it? Perhaps it's hard to wrap your head around the concept of a government official trying to toe the party line, but do you believe it may be because it didn't mesh well with the idea that office fires alone were its cause?

No you are not thinking through what you are suggesting. If he was involved in the a cover up why would he make the comment? If he wasn't involved why would he be allowed to see steel and investigate it?

I think the following statement sums it up nicely:
***************************************
Some 185,101 tons of structural steel have been hauled away from Ground Zero. Most of the steel has been recycled as per the city's decision to swiftly send the wreckage to salvage yards in New Jersey. The city's hasty move has outraged many victims' families who believe the steel should have been examined more thoroughly. Last month, fire experts told Congress that about 80% of the steel was scrapped without being examined because investigators did not have the authority to preserve the wreckage. 1
***************************************
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/groundzero/cleanup.html

You claim over and over that not many people need to be involved yet with every post you increase the number of people you think are involved. Have you thought about that? You seem to have recently added the major media networks as well.

The main issue is this: most people 'just follow orders'. Only the people at the top actually have the power to make certain decisions. For instance, -why- did the FEMA investigators not "have the authority to preserve the wreckage"? Who wanted it destroyed so fast? You may want to take a look at this:
********************************************
Ground Zero Players
The Players in the Ground Zero "Cleanup Operation"

The man on the spot on the day of the disaster was Rudolph Giuliani. As mayor he was in a position to control much of what happened to the crime scene of the attack on Lower Manhattan. He had the power to award contracts, and could do so unilaterally, since they were emergency contract awards. He also had the power to use the police force to control who was allowed access to the site.

Government Agencies

The federal agency that wielded the most control over the operation was the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which was involved from the beginning. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) also participated. Allen Morse, chief debris expert for the Corps, served as a technical adviser to FEMA.
********************************************

The article goes on here:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/groundzero/players.html