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

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by Stryder, Aug 3, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. MetaKron Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    You know, I will swear that I heard, on that fateful day, the statement that building 7 was going to be taken down by controlled demolition. I can neither confirm or deny whether the tapes of the news from that day have been redacted, gone missing, or are easily available somewhere in all their glory. This of course is something that is impossible to do in an unstable building in a matter of minutes.

    Jets of molten metal, probably not. You can't tell. When someone finds pools of it lying around, that at least is something that someone can tell. It might be better to leave them in the "unknown" category than to try to come up with explanations that lack economy. I can't see them making the effort to lug in enough thermite to make puddles of molten steel when cutting charges would be more than adequate. It also seems that they were taking some care to make sure that three buildings collapsed into their footprints. That's something that I will never believe happened by accident.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Just a -slight- exageration there (62nd time, laugh

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ).

    I believe I remember that story as well as the alternate story explanation for it. If memory serves, the building that collapsed was more like a warehouse; it certainly wasn't nearly as strong as a steel -framed- building. I think it would be educational for you to read the following (I'd recommend going to the page, there are a lot of good pictures that go along with this article):
    ***************************************
    Madrid Fire Re-opens 9/11 Questions: Why did the twin towers fall so fast?

    Bellaciao | February 14, 2005

    Prior to 9/11, no steel building had ever collapsed due to fire. Here is a photo of the smoking buildings. wtc2, was on fire for less than an hour when it collapsed.

    Isn’t it odd, the wtc collapsed after an hour, and the black smoke indicates that fire wasn’t even burning hot. Now compare- this is the Madrid Fire, it burned for 10 hours and still has not collapsed.

    Why did wtc2 only last an hour before collapse while the Madrid building burned throughout?

    This is wtc7, another building near the twin towers, it had two isolated fires which can be see here.

    This building, wtc7, also collapsed on 9/11, even though it was not hit with an airliner.
    [Click here for more information about the collapse of WTC7]

    This is a recent fire in a Venezuelan skyskraper...

    it burned out of control for 17 hours, yet did not collapse. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/venezuela_fire.html

    Why did this building stand after a huge, 17 hour fire- but wtc7 collapsed after sustaining only minor fire damage? Why hasn’t the mainstream media ever mentioned wtc7’s collapse?

    Are these honest and reasonable questions, or am I a traitor for asking them?
    ***************************************
    http://www.infowars.com/articles/world/madrid_towering_inferno.htm


    Yes, but the bridge didn't have any stories below it; it fell through air alone before being stopped by the road below it.


    Upon consideration, I admit that although I have a hunch that not all of them were from the impact zone, I have no hard evidence as of yet. I will attempt to find some, however.


    Ok.


    I see that he mentions Jim Hoffman, not Kevin Ryan. If, however, his initial response had been to Kevin Ryan, he does a laughable job of refuting him, then, as I have clearly shown.


    I suppose I could say that it is you that spam 'so much nonsense', but I believe that you believe what you write (or quote) and have spared you such terms.


    Ryan Mackey had previously stated that "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."

    He then states:
    "Readers may ignore these time periods if desired as they do not affect our conclusions"

    I simply find it hard to believe that the conclusions would be unnaffected by the above, particularly since he then goes on to list the -results- of using this super burner for 3 to 10 minutes:
    "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. "
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Precisely. In this case, however, I use it in a baser sense: unsupported tripe.

    Fine so far, obviously.

    Ding ding! "Here's your trouble, sir: you've got an unprotected chain of evidence here." She collected dust for sentimental reasons? Unlikely.

    See above.

    That her story is full of holes. How do I know nothing was done to the sample? Was it ever even submitted to NIST? You know, the official department for this work? Ah - but it wasn't. So she by default assumes they must be biased. In that case, isn't just about anything justifed in the search for Troof?

    Yes. She met him in what? 2003? And it's only in 2007 that it was done? That's a delay.

    In your mind, perhaps. I and others disagree. It is an unsupported chain of evidence handled by people with a keen interest in "proving" their theory. It would require substantially fewer people to concoct such evidence by salting the sample.

    You're right; I should have done. My theory is that she and Jones are not trustworthy about the work. Jesus in the Americas, eh?

    Funnily enough, this is precisely the same argument that exists against Jones and MacKinlay.

    That some people are lunatics.

    You tell me all these things, and the smell only grows stronger: why would someone collect a sample of dust as a "memento"? Which is then just stored in a Jiffy bag? Why did it take so long for Jones' analysis to occur? Could he have been procuring something in the meantime? The reasons and excuses you give simply don't wash.

    Since you have decided to direct the debate in this way, please illustrate that a) this is true and b) that it is suspicious in any way.

    Now: I have located similar evidence of spherules. Are these evidence of something? What do you make of the fact that much of the spherules are composed of the same materials that make up glass?

    Because this is a mainstay of the Troofer movement. You have described me as "unrealistic" because I don't accept your scanty, suspicious evidence as proof; I merely chose to remind you of the company your movement keeps.

    For the reasons outlined above.

    Stephen Jones only goes where the speaking money leads him. I would have no problem with him doing this - immoral as it really is - if only the subject matter weren't so serious. If he wanted to claim that the fall of the King of the Turtles in Yertle the Turtle was an inside job, then I'd have no problem with this.

    Any data can be falsified at some level, Scott. Surely you must realize this.

    Yes. This is surprising to you?

    I could probably hazard a guess.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Regrettably, that isn't so in this case. If there's some kind of delay in presenting this most important of sources, there needs to be a reason.

    Ah. So I should not question your story, despite its gaping holes. I see.

    Best regards,

    GeoffP
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    I'm not sure about the day of 9/11 in particular, but Larry Silverstein did say this:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WYdAJQV100

    However, the idea that he was essentially saying that 'they' made the decision to pull the building is contested and the counter, that 'they' had actually meant 'pull the firefighters', makes sense, particularly since he said that he "remembered getting a call from the firefighter commander". I'll hazard a wild guess that firefighter commanders don't pull buildings; but they do have the power to pull their firefighters -out- of a building. The counter youtube video can be seen here:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDqv4f3h1b4

    None of this is to say that Larry Silverstein didn't know that the building was going to be pulled. There is, in fact, certain facts that would suggest that he -did- know, in particular some hefty insurance taken out on the WTC buildings against terrorist attacks shortly before 9/11. However, I believe that alternate story theorists are being disingenuous in using Larry Silverstein's 'pull it' remark as supporting their case of foreknowledge.

    What -would- be interesting to know is why the fire department commander felt that the building would collapse.


    Actually, even NIST believes that molten metal came out of the building. However, it claims that the metal was 'probably' molten aluminum, which would be better for their case, being that molten iron would require temperatures that simply can't be reached by jet fuel or office fires.


    What explanations do you believe lack economy?


    I'll see if someone can address this.


    Amen

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  8. Headspin Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    496
  9. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Let's see one of Griffin's counters to this 'definitive debunker':
    ********************************************
    My Response to Ryan Mackey and the Self-Crushing Building Theory, "On Debunking 9/11 Debunking"

    http://911guide.googlepages.com/ryanmackey pgs 46-47

    (See below for his criticism of my statements, cited by David Ray Griffin in Debunking 9/11 Debunking)
    Why Have So Many Been Taken for a Ride?

    One of the problems we have with the fraudulent claims that are made regarding the existence of self-crushing steel frame buildings is the fact that many people lack an intuitive sense of the strength and resilience of these structures. They have allowed themselves to become convinced by an alleged scenario that is physically impossible. My Erector Set illustration is intended to address this problem.

    The Not-so-Plausible Impossible

    I can still remember, as a kid, listening to Walt Disney explain the concept of the "Plausible Impossible." When a cartoon character runs off the edge of a cliff, for example, into mid-air, if he turns around and scrambles back fast enough he can save himself from falling. This is impossible of course in "real life," but a skilled animator can nonetheless make it seem quite plausible.

    The self-crushing building theory is another example of the "Plausible Impossible," and tremendous effort has been expended — again involving skillful animation — to sell the plausibility of this notion. But self-crushing steel frame buildings do not actually exist in "real life."
    ********************************************
    The article continues here:
    http://www.truememes.com/mackey.html
     
  10. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    I laughed out loud when I saw this

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    . Well done

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    . The fact that it -appeared- orange when it was in the container validates what I had read somewhere; that it's the -container's- color that is giving it its orange color, a color that dissapears once it is outside of its container.

    Now let's take a look at what the -actual- molten metal did. One of the admins from letsrollforums.com was kind enough to find a video of the molten metal that had landed on the ground, as well as a firetruck passing through it. The results are drastic.
    ***************************************

    Heres the video with the flowing molten metal; Just found it. And I highly doubt this is a website of Christopher's as there is no mention of the concrete core, which seems to be his main area of interest. I have found many extremely excellent pieces of evidence and proof at this website, and I would recommend the website to people, with a weak disclaimer, about his humorous and comical approach to 911. Yet, this appears to be the websites main and only real drawback.

    The part of the video which shows this is toward the end of the video.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-0ZIrAfCI0
    ***************************************
    http://letsrollforums.com/showpost.php?p=160519&postcount=2
     
  11. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    I suppose you could look at it that way. Another way of looking at it is that it's easy to come up with superficial arguments and requires little time. By contrast, coming up with good, well researched arguments takes more time. It's akin to a tactic Geoff has used in the past. First, he claimed that steel girders were integral to the WTC collapse. I investigated his claim, and came back with its refutation. He wasted no time, however, in simply switching his claim; now it was the bolts that were integral to the collapse of the WTC towers. I actually did a google search to see if there was any mention of bolts being integral to the collapse in NIST or anywhere else. I got zip.

    Sure, I could go out on a crusade to prove that bolts were not, in fact, integral to said collapse. But in doing so, I would be wasting precious time addressing an issue that only occurred in Geoff's mind, taking away the time I have to debunk the -official- story claims. Besides, even if I finally found some solid evidence that the bolts were not to blame, he could then simply pick another construction element; screws, wiring, it makes no difference. It takes so little time to come up with a possibility; it can frequently take a lot longer to show evidence for or against such a possibility, however.
     
  12. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    I never said nano thermites were used before 9/11 to demolish something, only that its -capabilities- were proven. I'll post an part of one of the articles I cited that demonstrates these capabilities and how they could have been applied to the WTC buildings. It also makes one ponder why NIST never thought of the possibility, considering its expertise on the subject:
    **************************************
    It turns out that explosive, sol-gel nano-thermites were developed by US government scientists, at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories (LLNL) (Tillitson et al 1998, Gash et al 2000, Gash et al 2002). These LLNL scientists reported that --

    “The sol-gel process is very amenable to dip-, spin-, and spray-coating technologies to coat surfaces. We have utilized this property to dip-coat various substrates to make sol-gel Fe,O,/ Al / Viton coatings. The energetic coating dries to give a nice adherent film. Preliminary experiments indicate that films of the hybrid material are self-propagating when ignited by thermal stimulus”
    (Gash et al 2002).

    The amazing correlation between floors of impact and floors of apparent failure suggests that spray-on nano-thermite materials may have been applied to the steel components of the WTC buildings, underneath the upgraded fireproofing (Ryan 2008). This could have been done in such a way that very few people knew what was happening. The Port Authority’s engineering consultant Buro Happold, helping with evaluation of the fireproofing upgrades, suggested the use of “alternative materials” (NIST 2005). Such alternative materials could have been spray-on nano-thermites substituted for intumescent paint or Interchar-like fireproofing primers (NASA 2006). It seems quite possible that this kind of substitution could have been made with few people noticing.

    Regardless of how thermite materials were installed in the WTC, it is strange that NIST has been so blind to any such possibility. In fact, when reading NIST’s reports on the WTC, and its periodic responses to FAQs from the public, one might get the idea that no one in the NIST organization had ever heard of nano-thermites before. But the truth is, many of the scientists and organizations involved in the NIST WTC investigation were not only well aware of nano-thermites, they actually had considerable connection to, and in some cases expertise in, this exact technology.
    **************************************
    http://911review.com/articles/ryan/nist_thermite_connection.html
     
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2008
  13. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    In comparison to the size of the building, they were small. Now compare that to the Windsor Tower fire in Madrid:
    http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/images/picture/windsor_tower_2.jpg

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!





    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Clearly, -these- were not oxygen starved fires, where there was more smoke then flame. If the WTC towers collapsed in less then a few hours, one might believe that these buildings would have collapsed even faster. Reporter Christopher Bollyn recounts his experience the morning after:
    ****************************************
    I listened to the morning news on National Public Radio this morning to hear the news of the Windsor Tower in Madrid. Had it collapsed in a mushroom cloud of concrete dust? Had metal beams been thrown tens of meters sideways as the tower fell to the ground in a few seconds after burning "like a candle" for nearly 24 hours?

    How odd. There were no news reports about the Edificio Windsor near the Corte de Ingles (note the connections to Rio Tinto, who owns the land they stand on).

    This was incredibly odd. If the building was still standing after burning like a torch for 24 hours, then something is very wrong with either our building techniques in the USA - or something is very wrong with the FEMA Building Performance Assessment Team study carried out by engineers with the American Society of Civil Engineers at the World Trade Center in 2001-2002.

    If the building had fallen, well then the theory advanced by the BPAT, that fire can cause steel framed concrete building to fall into piles of rubble, would have been validated.

    So, I listened. And I listened. Nothing. NPR was not interested in this event and what it had to say about 9/11.

    I am corresponding with Dr. Gene Corley, team leader of the BPAT to see what he has to say about this fire.

    What is very interesting about this fire is that it has resulted in exactly what I said should result in such an event. Even if some of the supporting trusses fail, the main central columns should remain, UNLESS cut by some other means (e.g. explosives) in the basement.
    ****************************************
    http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=2796


    Here is how things looked at the ending:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    "after many hours of burning the central support columns and concrete center are still intact but some of the trusses from the upper floors have given away and allowed parts of the top ten floors to collapse. Note how differently this event has progressed compared to 9/11."
    http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=2796
     
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2008
  14. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Perhaps you are a 'reverse conspiracy' believer. 9/11 Research explains just how much evidence would have had to be tampered with in order for no squibs to have actually been present:
    ******************************************
    Squibs

    High-Velocity "Demolition Squibs" Are Visible in the Twin Towers' Collapses

    Squibs are "blasting caps (initiators) used in the explosive industry to set off high explosives." 1 In discussions of the collapses of the WTC skyscrapers, the term has been appropriated to describe the physical appearance of puffs or jets of dust emerging from buildings during a demolition, caused by the detonation of explosive charges. Several such "squibs" can be seen in videos and photographs capturing the collapses of the North and South Towers.

    It has been suggested that the evident squibs could have been added to the photographs and videos after the fact, given that much of this evidence has found its way onto the web via undocumented routes. However, the squibs show up in many diverse videos and photographs, and we have not been able to find any showing the squibs to be absent. A conspiracy of incredible proportions would be required to forge such convincing evidence of squibs in such diverse sources.
    ******************************************
    The article goes on here:
    http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/squibs.html


    No one said the explosives were invisible, although I would certainly think that they were concealed.


    Nano thermite is -very- effective when it comes to cutting into iron based metals (such as steel). Where are you getting your information from?


    You're right about the timing. But it can be done with computers.


    Yes, steel can be weakened by fire. But, as Kevin Ryan made clear when NIST was conducting its $16 million, two-year investigation of the collapse of the twin towers:
    ****************************************
    Ryan wrote that the institute's preliminary reports suggest the WTC's supports were probably exposed to fires no hotter than 500 degrees -- only half the 1,100-degree temperature needed to forge steel, Ryan said. That's also much cooler, he wrote, than the 3,000 degrees needed to melt bare steel with no fire-proofing.

    "This story just does not add up," Ryan wrote in his e-mail to Frank Gayle, deputy chief of the institute's metallurgy division, who is playing a prominent role in the agency investigation. "If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I'm sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers.

    He added, "Alternatively, the contention that this steel did fail at temperatures around (500 degrees) suggests that the majority of deaths on 9/11 were due to a safety-related failure. That suggestion should be of great concern to my company.""
    ****************************************
    http://www.wanttoknow.info/911kevinrryanfired

    Apparently, it was. He was fired shortly thereafter.


    If most of the evidence hadn't been pulverized to fine dust, with the remaining steel carted away before investigators could properly investigate it, they would have had a problem, yes.


    There is strong evidence that many within the government, firemen, police and perhaps even some lower level functionaries within NIST have questioned or outright disagree with the official story. I contend that it doesn't take all that many people to concoct such a plan, so long as those people are in high places within the government (Rudi Giuliani, the Bush clan, the vice president...)


    Easy there shaman. I know that the 'no personal attacks' guideline is a joke, but losing your calm won't add anything to this discussion. I would argue that the first 6 pictures in the above link are fine specimens, but I have a strong feeling that you won't agree.
     
  15. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    His essay is a staggering miscomprehension of scale.

    I beg your fucking pardon?

    Excuse me? First, where and how did I claim this? Secondly, where in hell have you successfully refuted anything I've said so far?

    I'm going to try to keep my temper here.

    I have switched not a single fucking thing in my very well considered opinions of your absurd, ridiculous little theory; I have, rather, demonstrated additional problems your slavering repetition of "controlled demolition...explosives...controlled demolition" must overcome in order to be anything greater than a dog's breakfast of half-truths, quote mining and excuses revolving around a central conviction based on psychopathological faith.

    Oh, is that so? Well, regrettably, 9/11 Troof was an issue that only developed in the mind of Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan and "Headspin" et al. You haven't the faintest conception of the establishment of a hypothesis or its testing; not enough people believe in it is sufficient reason for you. This makes you exactly akin to those who dismiss your theory because not enough people believed in it.

    Have you bothered to look at SLC so far, or are you still afraid of confronting anything that might undermine your faith? By all means, don't inform yourself; you have your messiah. What more does a cult need?

    Geoff
     
  16. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Geoff, it seems clear to me that I hit a nerve with you. This wasn't actually my intent. I call things as I believe to see them, but you seem to be acting like a man agrieved. For this reason, I admit that perhaps (a) I was mistaken in my interpretation of your actions and/or (b) you misinterpreted what I said.

    With the language you're using above, there's no question that you definitely struck a nerve with me at any rate. Perhaps we should talk about Conan the Barbarian and other less tense topics in other threads in order to ease this tension a bit. Or you could attempt to respond in a way that is a little less confrontational.

    As I once said to Kenny, while I may oppose you guys on most things regarding 9/11, the discussion here really is a group effort; I think it can definitely be said that when the laughs leave, the thread loses its way way. I would never use the type of language you just used above, but I understand that I'm somewhat rare in this aspect. However, in such an environment I simply can't operate for long.
     
  17. shaman_ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,467
    Hover your mouse over the picture.

    Absolute nonsense. Aluminium does glow when reaching 1000C. But that is actually beside the point. The materials flowing out the building were probably not pure aluminium. The experiment which supposedly debunked the addition of the other elements is misleading. We are talking about many tonnes of aluminium flowing like a river out of the building - due to the sagging. Even if the other materials didn’t mix in perfectly they would still have been carried out while glowing hot orange. In the video with a bit of aluminium mixed into a small pot they only poured the top layer of some of the aluminium out. If they had tipped out everything we would have seen orange material dropping out as well. We don’t even know if they reached temperatures comparable to 9/11.

    Looking at the photos of it falling it does look that some of the drops are silvery.

    It is highly unlikely to be melted steel or iron as there doesn’t seem to be any visible effects from the temperatures that high.

    There would be tons of material flowing there so if it was the iron which was a result from a thermite/thermate/megathermite reaction then you would require many tons of that substance as well.

    So it is most likely aluminium.

    The heading says aluminium and there is glowing aluminium being poured out.

    It is glowing even as it is poured out.


    What does that have to do with structural engineering or the chemistry of building materials? You are dazzled because he knows about cold fusion but that is not relevant. People who know more about those fields disagree with him.

    You just don’t get it. Only one of those is relevant to the discussion at hand and that is the third one. As we have already been through, it appears that the only requirement to get into that journal was a cash payment.


    No there is no evidence that the fires reached those temperatures.

    There are so many problems with the iron spheres claim. The conspiracy theorist ignores this gauntlet of rationality and heads straight for the CD theory.

    From your favourite debunker Ryan Mackey.

    "Iron Spherules: Another curious phenomenon thought to be linked to the structural steel is creation of tiny spheres of steel or iron, found in the dust after collapse. Several researchers report this, including Lowers and Meeker who documented a few examples of particles found to be nearly pure iron and quite spherical, approximately 7 microns in diameter; and the RJ Lee Group, who identified small, round iron particles as evidence of high temperatures. The significance of these spheres is still debated, along the following lines:
    As discussed previously, there is• no evidence at all for large amounts of melted steel. If the spheres are formed by melting steel, it must be surface melting or some other highly localized process.
    It is also not known when the iron• spheres were produced. The RJ Lee Group report considers samples taken several months after the collapses, and it is certain that torch-cutting of steel beams as part of the cleanup process contributed some, if not all, of the spherules seen in these samples.
    There appear to be several• plausible candidate sources of the iron spherules in office materials or other building contents. Perhaps the most obvious is the flyash itself used in structural concrete, a residue of combusted coal, which contains iron spheres in a variety of sizes that would have been liberated as the concrete was destroyed. Another example is magnetic printer toner, used to print financial instruments, that could have been present in printer cartridges or found in a large volume of paper documents. This candidate has the advantage of matching the size, shape, uniformity, and elemental composition of the observed spherules from one report. We also cannot discount their origin in building contents, rather than building structure, without much more careful study.
    The quantity of these spherules is• unknown, but thought to be very small – the iron-rich content of all dust samples was between 0.1 and 1.3%, most of which was not in the form of spherules. A large quantity would suggest melting of steel on large scales, but a small quantity suggests otherwise.
    Small quantities of structural• steel or other iron-rich objects could be partially melted through sheer friction, originating in the aircraft impact or the collapses.
    Much like the sulfidized samples,• it is impossible to tell whether these spherules were created prior to collapse, after collapse, or both. After collapse, it is plausible for the debris to have reached much higher temperatures.
    As mentioned above, there is• potential site contamination from salvage operations, in which numerous steel pieces were cut, involving nontrivial amounts of melted steel. It is also possible for the spherules to have been left over from the buildings’ original construction.
    Iron that appears to have melted• may have merely oxidized, and surface chemistry effects of merely heated iron may give rise to tiny amounts of melting even at moderate temperatures.
    Chemical factors, combined with• heat, could lead to eutectic mixtures of iron with other elements (such as sulfur) melting and dissociating at relatively low temperatures, potentially creating the iron spherules.
    For purposes of this discussion, we will focus on the latter two inferences, and speculate that the spherules may be a result of a chemical process, catalyzed by moderate heat but below the actual melting temperature of steel. It is, therefore, possible (but unproven) that the spherules and the sulfidized steel are related.To further understand sulfidization, we should begin by attempting to understand the source of the sulfur. Sulfur is an abundant element, with numerous possible sources. The following is a brief list of some possible origins of sulfur:
    Diesel fuel, found in emergency• generators and in vehicles in the WTC parking garages, contained a fairly high concentration of organosulfuric compounds, providing a possible source of sulfur in an energetically favorable form. WTC 7, where all but one of the sulfidized samples came from, had exceptionally large stores of diesel fuel to power emergency command and control equipment.
    Large banks of batteries existed in• a few locations, as backup for computers involved in the financial services, and could plausibly have provided a significant quantity of sulfuric acid.
    Acid• rain could have potentially exposed some surfaces to low concentrations of sulfuric acid over many years.
    Ocean water, bearing sulfate salts,• was pumped onto the burning debris piles as part of the firefighting effort.
    Gypsum wallboard, omnipresent in• large buildings, is almost entirely composed of sulfur-bearing minerals. However, this sulfur is not in an energetically favorable form, and some other chemical process would be required to react with steel structural members.
    The Worcester Polytechnic Institute is continuing to experiment with sulfur compounds in an effort to recreate the reactions seen in the recovered steel. Given the complexity of the debris fires and the many chemicals present, it appears plausible that sulfidization could have occurred after collapse. Whether or not this could occur prior to collapse remains an open question, and if true, could be a factor in future building fires.
    A related possibility, voiced by Dr. Greening, is that of burning plastics or other chemicals giving rise to other caustic compounds, such as creation of hydrogen chloride (which in contact with water forms hydrochloric acid) from burning PVC (polyvinyl chloride). This is relevant because large quantities of PVC, along with other plastics, are found in modern offices. Chemicals such as this could potentially catalyze sulfur reactions, and also lead to a chemical weakening of steel structural elements, an additional hazard. A historical example of this is the Plastimet Fire in Hamilton, Ontario, in July of 1997. In this fire, roughly 200 tons of PVC and other plastics burned over a period of a few days. Among the fire’s effects were reports of localized metal corrosion, linked to the creation of HCl gas which was measured at 53 to 930 micrograms per cubic meter.
    The volume of PVC burned in this fire was comparable to the amount of plastics in the WTC fire floors, and it is also conceivable that caustic chemicals would be trapped within the structure, raising their concentrations to this level or possibly much higher.
    However, the use of PVC in construction is not new, and there have been numerous studies on its effects in fires. Industry sources question its ability to weaken a structure through chemical means:
    Burning PVC has resulted in corrosion damage to electrical equipment in the vicinity. This has led to suggestions that PVC should not be used in construction applications. Against this should be set other factors. PVC components can be formulated to combine a good technical performance and high resistance to ignition and flame-spread. Formulations can also be designed to reduce the quantity of hydrogen chloride emitted. There have been suggestions that hydrogen chloride from burning PVC may damage steel reinforcement in concrete, or significantly weaken unprotected steel structures. The UK Fire Research Station has shown that reinforcement is not normally affected. It has also been confirmed that unprotected steel structures are distorted and weakened by heat rather than by hydrogen chloride.."

    Don’t think that claiming ‘Mackay has been debunked’ will give you an easy out.

    If there are temperatures high enough to melt steel then surely we would see some near the face of the building being visibly affected. We don’t.

    Okay but this is another example of all the characteristics of someone who has a conclusion and is just rationalising the evidence to fit that preconceived idea. Do you understand what I'm explaining?


    But do you appreciate just how wrong some of these theories are that your buddies come up with?


    A large percentage of the planes were aluminium. There were many tons of the stuff right? The temperature was right. The building was sagging. Where was it going to go? Sure a lot could have gone down but it only makes sense that we saw some come out the building.




    You were posting comments regarding the temperature of the samples reached to try and imply that NIST can’t make their mind up regarding the temperature when it is made clear where the samples were from. It is blatantly obvious that the steel reached very high temperatures. I don’t know what you think you can achieve with these attempts to misrepresent the NIST report.


    No you have only browsed through the poor science, lies and quote mining presented at your conspiracy sites. I don’t consider that to be a lot of research.

    Ryan was clearly wrong. The evidence is overwhelming.





    It was a steel framed building. It didn’t have 110 floors to hold up either.

    The Madrid tower had a concrete core the WTC didn’t. Amusingly the steel supports collapsed due to the fire but the concrete held the building up, which only supports the official theory. Conspiracy theorists who aren’t so good with details keep using it as an example not seeing that it undermines their theories.



    What are you talking about?

    The fire from the gas caused the steel to weaken and the bridge collapsed. This example alone is enough to invalidate the need for the hundreds of faulty, poorly researched theories that troofers come up with.


    Part 2 still to come....
     
  18. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    :sleep:

    http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=86724
     
  19. Headspin Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    496
  20. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    That building is substantially smaller than either WTC.

    You accused me of deception. This is not tolerated.

    Or you could attempt to refrain from slandering me or my intent.

    So again: have you watched SLC? Are the bolts in the girders rated to the same temperature as the steel itself? And so on.

    Geoff
     
  21. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    I will admit that I was puzzled by your 'bolts' theory and at first I thought you were just joking around, or 'yanking my chain'. Later, when it seemed that this was not the case, I started thinking that perhaps the joke was more in depth, that you were trying to prove a point with it. Your outburst made me think a great deal. I can't deny that I distrust you at times, but I am willing to believe that if you are deceiving anyone, you deceive yourself as well. I have noticed that Ryan Mackey -and- you seem to feel that there may be some flaws in the NIST storyline. That, atleast, seems to be some form of progress to me. However, replacing NIST's storyline with any old thing and then expecting -me- to disprove it is silly. I never ask you to prove -me- wrong. I only ask that you consider the evidence I present.


    What there seems to be is a fair amount of distrust. You distrust the source of one of Steven Jones' samples (I have now discovered that Mackinlay is only -one- of his sources, and ofcourse there are the independent investigations I have mentioned in the past as well). And yes, I do tend to believe that you would rather accept virtually anything other then the idea that 9/11 was an inside job. These distrusts that we have may be unfounded, but we have them. At times, these distrusts can lead to the type of language that you used in the post that got me to seriously thinking about all of this.



    No, I haven't Geoff and I seriously doubt I will in the forseable future. If you would like me to see a minute of any particular point in the movie, I think I could stand that, but just as you felt deeply disturbed by my views of your intent, I seem to have the same reaction to that film. Easier still then watching the movie is that you excerpt any part of the transcript for your case (you can include the link in case I want to look further).


    Geoff, the thing is that -I- shouldn't be doing your research for you, especially since -no one- that I know other then you thinks that the bolts are of any relevance in the collapse of the towers. I can cite physicists and authors of books to support my main points.
     
  22. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Scott, the film is not going to bite you, as your information is not going to bite me, as LC did not bite me. Your views of my intent are a personal matter and do not constitute the public record. SLC is the public record. I cannot fathom why you would wish to run away from knowledge.

    Geoff
     
  23. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Proportionally, the fires were much smaller. I have also heard that the WTC building was even more strongly built, having a steel core instead of a concrete one.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page