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

  1. #1641
    Quote Originally Posted by GeoffP View Post
    how about the interminable posts on the structural loss of strength in steel at high temperature?
    NIST report contradicts itself on the 'high temperatures' present. Let's take a look at their mess (NIST's report is in quoted text, the critique is in bold)
    ************************************
    Imagined Heat

    The Report repeatedly makes claims that amazingly high fire temperatures were extant in the Towers, without any evidence. The Report itself contains evidence contradicting the claims.

    "Observations of paint cracking due to thermal expansion. Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 ºC: east face, floor 98, inner web; east face, floor 92, inner web; and north face, floor 98, floor truss connector. Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 ºC. ... Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC. (p 90/140) "

    The highest temperatures estimated for the samples was 250 ºC (482 ºF). That's consistent with the results of fire tests in uninsulated steel-framed parking garages, which showed maximum steel temperatures of 360 ºC (680 ºF). How interesting then, that NIST's sagging truss model has the truss heated to 700 ºC (1292 ºF).

    "A floor section was modeled to investigate failure modes and sequences of failures under combined gravity and thermal loads. The floor section was heated to 700 ºC (with a linear thermal gradient through the slab thickness from 700 ºC to 300 ºC at the top surface of the slab) over a period of 30 min. Initially the thermal expansion of the floor pushed the columns outward, but with increased temperatures, the floor sagged and the columns were pulled inward. (p 98/148) "

    Where does NIST get the idea that steel temperatures should be more than 450 degrees Celsius (or 842 degrees Fahrenheit) higher than their own evidence indicates? This passage provides some insight into their experimental method.

    "A spray burner generating 1.9 MW or 3.4 MW of power was ignited in a 23 ft by 11.8 ft by 12.5 ft high compartment. The temperatures near the ceiling approached 900 ºC. (p 123/173)"

    1.9 to 3.4 MW (megawatts) is the heat output of about 500 wood stoves -- that in a living-room-sized space!

    "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) "

    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

  2. #1642
    Quote Originally Posted by GeoffP View Post
    The fact that thermite doesn't burn sideways?
    Nanothermite was used, not thermite. Nanothermite is an explosive and I would imagine it explodes all ways if not directed. As to NIST's objections for thermite in general, however, they make no mention of this 'sideways' issue. The objections they -did- make were handily addressed by Robert Moore (who is probably not NIST's Robert Moore, as I originally thought):
    http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.ph...postcount=1564

    That nanothermite merely assists reactions rather than precipitating its own reactions?
    I believe the above link addresses this point as well.


    The strength of bolts connecting steel girders vis-a-vis fire resistance?
    The issue of the steel girders, complete with pictures, is dealt with here (search for "steel girders"):
    http://911review.org/Wget/www.nerdci...demolition.htm



    The supposed combination of explosions and thermite at the WTC?
    Thermate is explosive, but yes, there may have been other explosives used as well.


    The variable colour of aluminum depending on temperature (that it's not silver at all temps)?
    If it's in a blast furnace, yes, it can become orange. But no one's claiming that that was the case on 9/11. And it still doesn't become yellow or white.


    Self-oxidizing reactions involving steel and iron? The chemical composition of glass?
    I've seen these issues addressed elsewhere, but I can't remeber their refutations.

  3. #1643
    Caput gerat lupinum GeoffP's Avatar
    Posts
    20,603
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    I'm sure they could argue it. I'm not sure they did though.
    So why mention it.

    I have little faith in the BBC when it comes to 9/11
    Well, that's odd, because I don't expect you had the same skepticism when the story broke.

    Apparently the major media outlets weren't as coordinated in their announcements as they would have liked to have been. In any case, while the BBC may have been one link within the link I stated above, there are many other links to news sources there.
    Ah. "Coordinated". Meaning what, one wonders.

    And it was the BBC's story. There were not "many" newspapers breaking this story, but rather one - two if you count the Telly.

    I'm guessing they might fear that word would get out that the tests were faked.
    Again: speculation.

    Read it and weep:
    http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm (It's in response to question number 12).
    I did weep a little, but only because I only posted ten questions.

    Best,

    Geoff

  4. #1644
    Caput gerat lupinum GeoffP's Avatar
    Posts
    20,603
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    I don't have your answers, but I have noticed something about your investigating technique.

    Let's make an analogy.

    Let's say NIST is the government paid detective. Mr. NIST does a poor investigation. Steven Jones finds many flaws and asks for any samples from ground zero. NIST doesn't provide anything, but a woman had kept some (for reasons unknown; spooky)
    This is where the problem starts.

    You believe that this woman may have not gotten her sample from the ground zero. Alright, fine. I have no conclusive evidence that she did. Why she would fake it, I have no idea, but I'm sure you can come up with some theory or other.
    Hmm. I have a specific suspicion, yes.

    But the glaring hole in this whole story is this:...they could atleast say so, with an appropriate amount of regret at their decision to do so.
    But that isn't the glaring hole. The glaring hole is the dust in the first place, since it excites all the other 'leads', and is the single most important part of the story.

    But to just sit there silently leads me to believe that what they're -really- hoping for is that the whole issue will be buried. And the only reason I think they'd want to do that is to bury the truth.
    Equally - in fact, more so - is why an unknown sample gets miraculously delivered to the senior 9/11 Troofer, right as the theory is starting to tank, with Pop Mech and every other engineer with a functioning degree dumping on it. Maybe, like Jesus, the dust was in the Americas long before the WTCs collapsed, but since there is absolutely no certainty of its origin, it's useless for arguing anything at all.

    I will also need the evidence that states that a) NIST didn't test for thermite and b) that this is a routine part of such testing. Regrettably, given the recent argumentation on the thread, I cannot simply stipulate to the existence of either of these doctrines, as I did in the past.

    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    You go right on reiterating. The link I have posted tells another story. Perhaps I should post an excerpt to show you that the BBC is not all there is to it. Here's the first story:
    Er...from another Troofer site? No, thankyou. I prefer more strongly sourced media. If you turn up your nose at the BBC - that bastion of right-wing media - there is also Der Spiegel and the NYT.

    http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstrac...A00894D9404482
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditor..._theory_1.html
    http://www.spiegel.de/international/...5160-2,00.html
    http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/20...06_90055.shtml
    http://www.911myths.com/html/strip_clubs.html

    I consider - as do you, certainly now - this issue now to be at rest. May we continue with the discussion of the dust's origin?

    Lastly, although I know this seems to have gone by the wayside, I must ask where you are in relation to your viewing of SLC. This is an important element of the argument that needs to be dealt with to maintain the principle of fairness.

    Best regards,

    Geoff

  5. #1645
    Quote Originally Posted by GeoffP View Post
    Originally Posted by GeoffP
    Originally Posted by scott3x
    Atleast you believe in Iran Contra. That's a start. Here's a little excerpt from one of the pages that the article I quoted linked to:
    But this doesn't mean that such men would be complicit in the murder of 3000 Americans. You will recall that Iran-Contra was a weapons trade to get Americans out of Iran. Clearly this is not the same as mass murder, and in a way even proceeded with some kind of decent intention, if their method was misguided.
    They say that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I'm sure they could argue (in secret) that america 'needed' 9/11 to occur in order to 'get tough on terrorism'.
    Speculation.
    I'm sure they could argue it. I'm not sure they did though.
    So why mention it.
    Because you said "Clearly this is not the same as mass murder, and in a way even proceeded with some kind of decent intention, if their method was misguided.". Your subtle argument was that in Iran/Contra, there was a shadow of decent intent. I was merely stating that it is possible that the perpetrators of 9/11 may have felt that what they were doing was the 'lesser of evils'.

  6. #1646
    Caput gerat lupinum GeoffP's Avatar
    Posts
    20,603
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    NIST report contradicts itself on the 'high temperatures' present. Let's take a look at their mess (NIST's report is in quoted text, the critique is in bold)
    ************************************
    Regrettably, this is all a bit speculative. 9/11 Troofer sites have already stipulated to higher core temperatures than this. I'm sorry, but this is not terribly convincing.

    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    Nanothermite was used, not thermite. Nanothermite is an explosive and I would imagine it explodes all ways if not directed.
    Possibly so; yet there is no - reliable - evidence of any kind of thermite being used.

    I believe the above link addresses this point as well.
    Not particularly. What was the other explosive? Didn't Steve test for it?

    The issue of the steel girders, complete with pictures, is dealt with here (search for "steel girders"):
    But not of their bolts, seemingly.

    Thermate is explosive, but yes, there may have been other explosives used as well.
    Well, Steve didn't test for them. But why didn't he test for them? That's the big issue here. Why wouldn't Steve have tested for other explosives?? Surely he knows it's a demolition??

    If it's in a blast furnace, yes, it can become orange.

    No - if it's in a fire as described in the WTC, it can certainly become orange. Your colourful manipulation of location is not really fair.

    But no one's claiming that that was the case on 9/11.
    Well, actually a few people are. Most people don't even know about the issue, you see.

    And it still doesn't become yellow or white.
    ...not sure what the relevance of that was. Elaborate?

    I've seen these issues addressed elsewhere, but I can't remeber their refutations.
    Then we will consider them unresolved for the purposes of this discussion.

    What a day! I think I may retire for the evening now. Much to do; grants to write, truth-seeking yuppies to oppress.

    Good evening,

    Geoff

  7. #1647
    Fixin' Shit that Ain't Broke MacGyver1968's Avatar
    Posts
    6,943
    If they planted explosives...why did they need to bother to sacrifice good government agents on the planes hitting the building?

    Just blow the buildings with explosives and blame in on Al-quida or Carrot Top or East Korea. Much..much easier..and no black ops agents have to die.

  8. #1648
    Quote Originally Posted by GeoffP View Post
    I have little faith in the BBC when it comes to 9/11
    Well, that's odd, because I don't expect you had the same skepticism when the story broke.
    I'm not sure I saw it when it broke. I certainly wasn't debating official story believers at the time. Let me tell you, you official story believers have actually done me a great service; because of you guys I now know a ton more then I did before regarding 9/11. And I'd already read 2 and a bit books on the subject.


    Apparently the major media outlets weren't as coordinated in their announcements as they would have liked to have been. In any case, while the BBC may have been one link within the link I stated above, there are many other links to news sources there.
    Ah. "Coordinated". Meaning what, one wonders.
    I was referring to the BBC announcement that WTC 7 had collapsed before it had actually done so. With that in mind, if you read my complete paragraph, I think my meaning becomes clear:
    "I have little faith in the BBC when it comes to 9/11; I have heard that they said WTC 7 had collapsed before it actually did. Apparently the major media outlets weren't as coordinated in their announcements as they would have liked to have been. In any case, while the BBC may have been one link within the link I stated above, there are many other links to news sources there."

    I've now confirmed what I've heard:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7SwOT29gbc


    And it was the BBC's story. There were not "many" newspapers breaking this story, but rather one - two if you count the Telly.
    I'm guessing you hadn't read this post of mine when you'd written that:
    http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.ph...postcount=1640


    I'm guessing they might fear that word would get out that the tests were faked.
    Again: speculation.
    Sure. That's what guesses tend to be. Speculation can be defined as:
    Speculate (transitive verb)- 1: to take to be true on the basis of insufficient evidence : theorize

    http://mw1.m-w.com/dictionary/speculate


    Read it and weep:
    http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm (It's in response to question number 12).
    I did weep a little, but only because I only posted ten questions.
    Laugh :-). Feel free to pose more.

  9. #1649
    Quote Originally Posted by GeoffP View Post
    Originally Posted by scott3x
    NIST report contradicts itself on the 'high temperatures' present. Let's take a look at their mess (NIST's report is in quoted text, the critique is in bold)
    ************************************

    Regrettably, this is all a bit speculative. 9/11 Troofer sites have already stipulated to higher core temperatures than this.
    Probably because truthers believe that explosives did the damage, not fires.


    Originally Posted by scott3x
    Nanothermite was used, not thermite. Nanothermite is an explosive and I would imagine it explodes all ways if not directed.
    Possibly so; yet there is no - reliable - evidence of any kind of thermite being used.
    Well, not reliable to you anyway. If only NIST would just test its steel samples for thermite as it has already been asked to do. Ofcourse, we'd have to make sure they didn't fake it, but if they don't even test for it they don't need to worry about being discovered faking it; nothing to fake.

    That nanothermite merely assists reactions rather than precipitating its own reactions?
    I believe the above link addresses this point as well.
    Not particularly.
    In the link I provided (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.ph...postcount=1564), it makes it clear that the nanothermite would be able to cut through steel from a small distance. I'm assuming that, if what you say is true, that the "linear thermite cutting apparatus" addresses it. In any case, can you cite where you get this bit about nanothermite merely assisting reactions rather than precipitating its own reactions?


    What was the other explosive? Didn't Steve test for it?
    Not to my knowledge. Perhaps he didn't have the resources to do so. In any case, Steven Jones speculates what other explosives might have been used here:
    **************************************
    The observed “partly evaporated” steel members is particularly upsetting to the official theory, since fires involving paper, office materials, even diesel fuel, cannot generate temperatures anywhere near the 5,000+ oF needed to “evaporate” steel. However, thermite, RDX and other commonly-used explosives can readily slice through steel (thus cutting the support columns simultaneously in an explosive demolition) and reach the required temperatures. (It is possible that some other chemical reactions were involved which might proceed at lesser temperatures.) This mystery needs to be explored — but is not mentioned in the “official” 9-11 Commission or NIST reports.
    **************************************
    http://physics911.net/stevenjones

  10. #1650
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    1,467
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    NIST report contradicts itself on the 'high temperatures' present. Let's take a look at their mess (NIST's report is in quoted text, the critique is in bold)
    ************************************
    Imagined Heat

    The Report repeatedly makes claims that amazingly high fire temperatures were extant in the Towers, without any evidence. The Report itself contains evidence contradicting the claims.

    "Observations of paint cracking due to thermal expansion. Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 ºC: east face, floor 98, inner web; east face, floor 92, inner web; and north face, floor 98, floor truss connector. Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 ºC. ... Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC. (p 90/140) "
    More quote mining. Those particular figures are based on steel samples tested. NIST made it clear that very few of these samples were from the impact floors.

    Ryan Mackay - “In other words, of the 229 pieces of WTC 1 and 2 steel, only nine were column fragments from the impact zones, and of those, only four were in the interior. Since the exterior pieces understandably would have been cooler by convection with outside air and their placement at the edge of the fires, we are more interested in the core column fragments.”

    NIST estimated that there were temperatures reaching 1000C. The photograhpic evidence of bowing and condition of recovered steel supports these estimates.

    This has been addressed before. You are just spamming articles now.

    Something I asked headspin some time ago, Does nanomegasuperthermite explain soft steel? Thermite was suggested originally as an explanation for cut columns. Now Jones has shifted to nanothermite, which is apparently an explosive. Does an explosive explain softened steel?

  11. #1651
    Quote Originally Posted by GeoffP View Post
    But not of their bolts, seemingly.
    So what? Are you saying that the bolts were incredibly important or something?


    If it's in a blast furnace, yes, it can become orange.

    No - if it's in a fire as described in the WTC, it can certainly become orange. Your colourful manipulation of location is not really fair.
    You're right. Apparently aluminum can't emit orange, period. Headspin dealt with this topic more then a year ago, I just found out through google...
    ****************************
    "I looked at your site. He doesn't even try glass? Anyway, you don't need to add anything to aluminum to make it glow.

    http://www.jamesyawn.com/castal/how2/foundry6.JPG

    This guy fails at basic physics knowledge if he wasn't aware of this."

    the aluminium would appear orange in that picture but it is not glowing orange, aluminium has high reflectivity 0.95 which means it reflects 95% of the light hitting it. this means the infra-red radiation given off by the coals (and reflected by the inside of the large can) would be reflected by any molten aluminium.
    it is not glowing orange,it is reflecting orange, you could put a mirror inside that can - it would not glow orange, it would just reflect the orange light being emitted from the heat source.

    this is what it looks like when its poured out from the same wesbsite:

    http://www.jamesyawn.com/castal/foundry/pour.mpg

    it appears silver because it is now reflecting daylight.

    aluminium has an unusually low emissivity rating (0.05), it can glow orange but only at very high temperatures (or in very dark conditions) where the emissivity (glow) radiation outshines the radiation it is reflecting.

    thus we can deduce that the substance flowing out of the tower is not aluminium...
    ****************************
    http://s10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Ch...howtopic=15720


    I've seen these issues addressed elsewhere, but I can't remeber their refutations.
    Then we will consider them unresolved for the purposes of this discussion.

    What a day! I think I may retire for the evening now. Much to do; grants to write, truth-seeking yuppies to oppress.
    Very funny :-p. Anyway, you write grants? Assistant professors do that?

  12. #1652
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    1,467
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    You're right. Apparently aluminum can't emit orange, period. Headspin dealt with this topic more then a year ago, I just found out through google..
    From NIST FAQ (again).

    "Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface. "

  13. #1653
    Fixin' Shit that Ain't Broke MacGyver1968's Avatar
    Posts
    6,943
    Common sense has no place in this thread.

  14. #1654
    I am willing to be that scott3X is a 300 pound shut in. That is where the 3X comes from.

  15. #1655
    Quote Originally Posted by GeoffP View Post
    Hmm. I have a specific suspicion, yes.
    And what might that be?


    But the glaring hole in this whole story is this:
    Mr. NIST is the one who should have done a good job investigating the steel. It's only -because- of Mr. NIST's failure that this secondary investigation had to take place. But it doesn't stop there. The fundamental issue remaining is:
    After all this fuss about the sample being positive for thermate, why oh why is Mr. NIST still sitting there silently? Even if he had -destroyed- all the steel that could have shed light on this (to my knowledge it hasn't, but I'll grant it a possibility), they could atleast say so, with an appropriate amount of regret at their decision to do so.

    But to just sit there silently leads me to believe that what they're -really- hoping for is that the whole issue will be buried. And the only reason I think they'd want to do that is to bury the truth.
    But that isn't the glaring hole. The glaring hole is the dust in the first place, since it excites all the other 'leads', and is the single most important part of the story.
    How is the most important part of the story a 'glaring hole'? In any case, if you don't want to call it a glaring hole, what -would- you call NIST's weak attempts to justify why it hasn't tested for thermite in its steel samples?


    Equally - in fact, more so - is why an unknown sample gets miraculously delivered to the senior 9/11 Troofer, right as the theory is starting to tank, with Pop Mech and every other engineer with a functioning degree dumping on it.
    I did some digging and have finally uncovered the story of the WTC sample that Steven Jones tested. Here it is:
    ************************************
    Janette MacKinlay is a visual artist, and a survivor of the World Trade Center attacks. On September 11th, she watched the drama unfold from her apartment across the street from the World Trade Center. Jim, a sculptor who shared the apartment, settled in to observe what was happening, thinking that the towers would burn "all day." When they started to come down, he warned Janette and they quickly hurried out their door as the debris shattered their windows and filled their apartment with dust and debris. Janette wrote a book about her experiences entitled Fortunate: A Personal Diary of 9/11 illustrated with photographs including the artwork, and ikebana flower arrangements she created, as part of her own efforts to heal. Exhibitions of her artwork, included Deception Dollars.

    By cosmic synchronicity, the Deception Dollar artist emailed me her name and phone number on the very day that I met Janette, in person, in San Francisco where members of the 9/11 Commission were speaking before the Commonwealth Club. I traded her a David Ray Griffin book- The New Pearl Harbor for a copy of her book, and that was the beginning of our friendship and collaboration. Janette joined the Northern California 9/11 Truth Alliance and became a vital, active member, treasurer, host, organizer, speaker, as well as a liason between the West Coast and New York City, when she decided to return to her refurbished apartment when she discovered it was available to rent.

    Janette also significantly contributed to our scientific understanding of the destruction of the towers, because she saved some of the dust that filled her apartment and passed it on to Steven Jones for analysis. Her sensitivty, experiences, insights, communications skills are acknowledged as priceless gifts to the Truth movement and she is deeply respected and loved by fellow activists.
    ************************************
    http://www.911blogger.com/node/14609

    I will also need the evidence that states that a) NIST didn't test for thermite
    I already gave it to you, but apparently you never opened the link. I'll quote the relevant passage:
    ******************************
    12. Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? 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."

    NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.
    ******************************
    http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm



    and b) that this is a routine part of such testing.
    It's routine when arson is suspected; as one might imagine, buildings being slyly demolished isn't something that comes up too often. In any case, the arguments that NIST gave for not testing for thermite are weak and, as I've pointed out before, have been soundly discredited.

  16. #1656
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    1,467
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    **************************************
    The observed “partly evaporated” steel members is particularly upsetting to the official theory, since fires involving paper, office materials, even diesel fuel, cannot generate temperatures anywhere near the 5,000+ oF needed to “evaporate” steel. However, thermite, RDX and other commonly-used explosives can readily slice through steel (thus cutting the support columns simultaneously in an explosive demolition) and reach the required temperatures. (It is possible that some other chemical reactions were involved which might proceed at lesser temperatures.) This mystery needs to be explored — but is not mentioned in the “official” 9-11 Commission or NIST reports.
    **************************************
    http://physics911.net/stevenjones
    Once again Scott,

    1. Barnett’s comments were in regard to steel at WTC7. I can't find the actual source article now which would be handy.
    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?
    3. If there were temperatures that high wouldn’t we have some evidence for molten steel as well?
    4. Where is the rest of the evidence for evaporating steel? Only one person saw it?

    (I have a feeling you are going to say that many saw it but are scared to lose their jobs)
    Last edited by shaman_; 10-23-08 at 09:34 PM.

  17. #1657
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    I was referring to the BBC announcement that WTC 7 had collapsed before it had actually done so. With that in mind, if you read my complete paragraph, I think my meaning becomes clear:
    "I have little faith in the BBC when it comes to 9/11; I have heard that they said WTC 7 had collapsed before it actually did. Apparently the major media outlets weren't as coordinated in their announcements as they would have liked to have been. In any case, while the BBC may have been one link within the link I stated above, there are many other links to news sources there."
    You know... you further make yourself a joke when you claim that the US government would not only stage 9/11 and inconspicuously demolish 267 floors of busy office space... but that they would actually tell the media all about it?!?!?!.

    LO-FUCKING-L!!!!!

  18. #1658
    Quote Originally Posted by John99 View Post
    I am willing to be[t] that scott3X is a 300 pound shut in. That is where the 3X comes from.
    If you guessed about half that weight you'd be on the right track. 3x comes from my age. I'm 30 something, x being the variable that changes annually as it just did about 2 weeks ago.

  19. #1659
    Caput gerat lupinum GeoffP's Avatar
    Posts
    20,603
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    I'm not sure I saw it when it broke. I certainly wasn't debating official story believers at the time. Let me tell you, you official story believers have actually done me a great service; because of you guys I now know a ton more then I did before regarding 9/11.
    Now if we could only correct the application of such knowledge. Anyway: yes, the BBC and the Telegraph broke the story, and moreover it is they that set the standard for such pronouncements. So that element of the tale is now done, then, I take it.

    I was referring to the BBC announcement that WTC 7 had collapsed before it had actually done so. With that in mind, if you read my complete paragraph, I think my meaning becomes clear:
    The collapse time had little to do with the misidentification of the hijackers. Moreover, you are almost certainly referring to the error of the TV and/or radio branches, and not the print branch of the BBC, which broke the since falsified hijacker misidentity tale. These are different people.

    I'm guessing you hadn't read this post of mine when you'd written that:
    I had read that post of yours. The link was broken, and the thesis falsified by followup work at the BBC. Again: done.

    Best regards,

    Geoff

  20. #1660
    Caput gerat lupinum GeoffP's Avatar
    Posts
    20,603
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    Probably because truthers believe that explosives did the damage, not fires.
    Well, their errors, if errors they be, are not my doing. I have illustrated their support for such high temperatures; these temperatures also suggest a progressive exothermic reaction, according to the sources I cited.

    Well, not reliable to you anyway. If only NIST would just test its steel samples for thermite as it has already been asked to do. Ofcourse, we'd have to make sure they didn't fake it, but if they don't even test for it they don't need to worry about being discovered faking it; nothing to fake.
    Whether or not the evidence is reliable to me is a different issue. The evidence is not reliable since its origin is based on the hearsay of the protagonist of the theory of controlled demolition. Neither you nor I nor anyone else, seemingly, can validate his assertions. I realize this is a disadvantage in the debate, but there it is.

    In any case, can you cite where you get this bit about nanothermite merely assisting reactions rather than precipitating its own reactions?
    Ugh. You cited it yourself a couple of pages back.

    Not to my knowledge. Perhaps he didn't have the resources to do so. In any case, Steven Jones speculates what other explosives might have been used here:
    Hardly believable. Dr. Jones had the resources to test for thermite, but nothing else? Perhaps he didn't have the resources. Perhaps he's lying. Perhaps he's a Lizardoid himself. Who knows? But he didn't test for it. Speculation isn't an answer.

    Best regards,

    Geoff

Similar Threads

  1. By Jozen-Bo in forum The Cesspool
    Last Post: 08-02-08, 03:09 PM
    Replies: 81
  2. By Tnerb in forum Free Thoughts
    Last Post: 07-16-08, 02:06 PM
    Replies: 33
  3. By Thoreau in forum Politics
    Last Post: 12-09-07, 12:19 PM
    Replies: 18
  4. By Lord Hillyer in forum The Cesspool
    Last Post: 11-13-07, 02:33 PM
    Replies: 11
  5. By Orleander in forum Site Feedback
    Last Post: 10-27-07, 11:45 PM
    Replies: 16

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •