9/11 Thread no. 2

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by Stryder, Jul 9, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. scott3x Banned Banned

    If it ain't broke, no need to fix it; I've posted many excerpts in the past. However, I generally don't like posting things that I don't understand much of, which is why I've generally been hands off with Harrit's paper.

    Perhaps I'm more humble, but Hoz seems to be putting in much more effort. And perhaps he gets some things wrong, but he's also saying a heck of a lot more than I am on the issues. He has never claimed to have any special knowledge of chemistry. Anyway, I think I did take a high school chemistry course- not that I was getting high at the time, but my thoughts were -definitely- on other things (a certain girl comes to mind).
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. scott3x Banned Banned

    >.< Don't remind me.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Hoz_Turner Registered Member

    It doesn't take a top grade in Chemistry to show that Trippy is into deception and obfuscation. All it takes is to study the paper to sufficient length, look at sources and sift the facts from the disinfo.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    So you can ignore all of the witnesses that claim to have heard explosives. Were you there?

    So you don't want to know how much steel was on every level because then you would have to compute how much energy was required to crush it. You can't compute the potential energy if you don't know the distribution of mass. So it just comes down to your BELIEVING the collapse could happen. But you can't PROVE it could happen without knowing the distributions of steel and concrete.

    You can laugh all you want but everybody talking about PHYSICS without knowing the distribution of mass of the object that supposedly collapsed from the top down can't comprehend how laughable they are.

    I am not responsible for you blindness. I am not responsibel for applying the term "pyroclastic" to what happened on 9/11.

    Jeff King, M.I.T. Electrical Engineer, On Physics, Pyroclastic Flows & Fires (911 WTC Collapse)

    I don't know who was the first but your admission that you can't see any difference is certainly a reason for laughter.

  8. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    I'm obfuscating nothing. My original claim was that Bloomeries were capable of smelting Iron at temperatures as low as 1100°C, but that it was possible to do so at lower temperatures if the environment was sufficiently reducing, then I came across this patent:
    Which alleges to use carbon and carbon monoxide (among other processes) to produce Iron from Iron Oxide at a working temperature of 850°C.

    Also, there's this page:
    As an example, which shows that it is possible to generate iron rich spheres from the combustion of iron rich hydrocarbons, in the case of some of the images on that page crude oil.

    The point here being that temperatures "over 1400 °C" are not neccessarily required to produce spheres of "iron and iron oxide" as Harrit asserts on page 15 of his article (page 15 on the PDF, page 22 in the Journal).
  9. scott3x Banned Banned

    I believe I agree with that point, actually. Steven Jones, in his peer reviewed paper Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse?, quotes Jonathan Barnett, who explains how this apparently happened in WTC 7:
    2. Observed Temperatures around 1000°C and Sulfidation in WTC 7 Steel

    One of the relatively few previous peer-reviewed papers relating to the WTC collapses provides "An Initial Microstructural Analysis of A36 Steel from WTC Building 7." This brief but important letter states:
    While the exact location of this beam could not be determined, the unexpected erosion of the steel found in this beam warranted a study of microstructural changes that occurred in this steel. Examination of other sections in this beam is underway.

    ANALYSIS Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur. The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached1000°C by a process similar to making a “blacksmith’s weld” in a hand forge. (Barnett, 2001)​

    But even getting the steel to 1000C isn't possible for the office fires that burned there. Steven Jones elaborates:
    How were these 1000°C temperatures in the steel beam achieved? As noted above in the quotation from Eagar, it is difficult to reach temperatures above 650°C in the type of diffuse fires evident in the WTC buildings, let alone in the steel columns where heat is transported away by the enormous heat sink of the steel structure. So the high steel (not just air) temperatures deduced by Barnett, Biederman and Sisson are indeed remarkable.​

    He also comments on the sulfidation of the steel:
    Then there is the rather mysterious sulfidation of the steel reported in this paper -- What is the origin of this sulfur? No solid answer is given in any of the official reports. Of course, there is a straightforward way to achieve 1000°C temperatures (and well above) in the presence of sulfur, and that is to use thermate (or a similar variation of thermite). Thermate is a high-level thermite analog containing sulfur developed by the military (see http://www.dodtechmatch.com/DOD/Patent/PatentDetail.aspx?type=description&id=6766744&HL=ON). Thermate combines aluminum/iron oxide (thermite) with barium nitrate (29%) and sulfur (typically 2% although more sulfur could be added). The thermate reaction proceeds rapidly and is much faster than thermite in degrading steel leading to structural failure. Thus, both the unusually high temperatures and the extraordinary observation of steel-sulfidation (Barnett, 2001) can be accounted for -- if the use of thermate is allowed in the discussion. Note that other oxidizers (like KMnO4) and metals (like titanium and silicon) are commonly used in thermite analogs.

    Finally, sulfidation was observed in structural steel samples found from both WTC7 and one of the WTC Towers, as reported in Appendix C in the FEMA report. It is quite possible that more than one type of cutter-charge was involved on 9/11, e.g., HMX, RDX and thermate in some combination. While gypsum in the buildings is a source of sulfur, it is highly unlikely that this sulfur could find its way into the structural steel in such a way as to form a eutectic. The evidence for the use of some variant of thermite such as sulfur-containing thermate in the destruction of the WTC Towers and building 7 is sufficiently compelling to warrant serious investigation.​
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2009
  10. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Yes, and then there's the Sulfidation of Steel, which I considered bringing up, but didn't because I can anticipate Hoz's reaction.

    "You're a Shill, Harrit's post MEK soaking spectra show no signs of Sulphur, stop obfuscating the truth and spreading lies and disinformation".

    Which is almost a valid point, however below.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Is Harrits Fig 25, note the presence of Sulfur in residue.

    Now, the conservation of mass (not to mention common sense) dictates that if Sulfur was present after the ignition of the chip, it must have been present in the chip before the ignition.

    The ONLY other possible explanation is that Harrit contaminated the residue handling it.

    Note that this is residue from teh chip that was tested in the DSC.

    So his characterization of the Calcium and Sulfur as being surface contamination is obviously wrong.
  11. shaman_ Registered Senior Member

    So Scott have you conceded on the squibs at WTC7? This is the third time I have asked. The others were in bold.

    Stop trying to present their work as peer reviewed. This paper was reviewed by Ryan, Griffin and the other kook conspiracy theorists. It wasn’t reviewed by people with appropriate qualifications. You know this but you keep misrepresenting the truth.

    Bentham has been shown to be a complete sham publication so don’t think of bringing that one up.

    Isn't possible? I have given you an example of this happening in a fire test fueled by office materials. I have pointed you to it a dozen times - and that is not an exaggeration. You have no refutation but instead just go on to claim that it isn’t possible. You are pathetic Scott. I don’t care if you respond to me any more. You have shown how dishonest you are. You cannot defend one thing you say and instead you just spam the same debunked lies/mistakes over and over.
  12. shaman_ Registered Senior Member

    The pyroclastic thing is still going? Doesn't pyroclastic mean that there was extremely hot gas? People were engulfed in the dust cloud and walked out. ?

    Is your theory that, because some people have incorrectly used the term pyroclastic therefore there is something suspicious here?

    Some people have claimed faster than freefall and missiles at the pentagon as well.
  13. KennyJC Registered Senior Member

    You forget that we have video footage right at the footprint of the towers. Cameramen who were close enough to have to run for their lives. There is NO sound of any explosives going off before or during the collapse.

    On the other hand, for standard demolitions, we can have cameras a mile away from controlled demolitions picking up an extremely loud explosion just before the buildings start to collapse. And don't forget, these are explosions that are in no way capable of throwing tons of steel hundreds of feet.

    And here you are, telling me that explosives strong enough to throw tons of steel hundreds of feet will not be heard by cameras directly underneath the tower itself?


    Time and time again you come up with this bullshit even though we pretty much already know the composition of each floor. Most floors are pretty much identical with the exception of the lobbies and sky lobby and the fact that the core became thicker the further down you go. The fact that much of the core remained standing as the floors collapsed around it means the only factors regarding the cores resistence was the connections to the floors and not the core itself. Same for the outer columns.

    It's a meaningless term. You are going to get large dust clouds whether the building collapses on its own, or with the help of explosives. I don't know why you are laughing since you have been unable to describe why the term "pyroclastic flow" has been applied to the WTC.
  14. scott3x Banned Banned

    Well perhaps it's not wrong; but as they did find sulfidation in the steel even in one of the Twin Towers (and remember that much of the steel was removed without properly examining it), I think that it's reasonable to theorize that the sulfur was there before the collapses.

    I have noted that you didn't respond to what Steven Jones had to say regarding what the sulfidation of the steel could mean though.
  15. Hoz_Turner Registered Member

    Neils Harrit has done an interview recently with Russia Today: -


    Some quotes from him in the interview: -

    "We are missing large amounts of Chromium, Zinc, and Magnesium."
    (regarding the red-chips alleged to be primer paint)

    "The paint applied to steel beams are stable to elevated temperatures. NIST did experiments with the steel beams because they wanted to use the appearance of the paint as a measure for the temperature the steel beams had been exposed to."

    "At 650C the paint starts peeling off the steel beams, forming scales. This continues till about 800C when the scaling becomes extensive. But it does not burn. So the paint on the steel beams is stable beyond 800C. Now, the stuff that we have found ignites at 430C. So, it is not the primer paint."

    Just a quote from Harrit's article: -

    Last edited: Jul 10, 2009
  16. KennyJC Registered Senior Member

    Haha! This is so damn hilarious.

    From the same interview:

    So we have different types of thermite, including super-dooper thermite, and conventional explosives. God... he sure likes to keep it simple, huh?

    Hundreds of tons of conventional explosives, and not a single boom is heard anywhere. Unbelievable.

    It's funny how Jones and Harrit always go back to good ol' fashioned bombs despite all their thermite talk.
  17. Hoz_Turner Registered Member

    Firefighters' testimonies obtained by the NY Times: -

    Rich Banaciski -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 22]
    ... and then I just remember there was just an explosion. It seemed like on television they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions.

    Brian Becker -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 28]
    The collapse hadn't begun, but it was not a fire any more up there. It was like -- it was like that -- like smoke explosion on a tremendous scale going on up there.

    Greg Brady -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.) [Battalion 6]
    We were standing underneath and Captain Stone was speaking again. We heard -- I heard 3 loud explosions. I look up and the north tower is coming down now, 1 World Trade Center.

    Timothy Burke -- Firefigter (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 202]
    But it seemed like I was going oh, my god, there is a secondary device because the way the building popped. I thought it was an explosion.

    Ed Cachia -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 53]
    we originally had thought there was like an internal detonation explosives because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down.

    Frank Campagna -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 11]
    You see three explosions and then the whole thing coming down.

    Craig Carlsen -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 8]
    ... you just heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions.

    Jason Charles -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.)
    ... and then I heard an explosion from up, from up above, and I froze and I was like, oh, s___, I'm dead because I thought the debris was going to hit me in the head and that was it.
    I look over my shoulder and I says, oh, s___, and then I turned around and looked up and that's when I saw the tower coming down.

    Frank Cruthers -- Chief (F.D.N.Y.) [Citywide Tour Commander]
    .. there was what appeared to be at first an explosion. It appeared at the very top, simultaneously from all four sides, materials shot out horizontally. And then there seemed to be a momentary delay before you could see the beginning of the collapse.

    Kevin Darnowski -- Paramedic (E.M.S.)
    I heard three explosions, and then we heard like groaning and grinding, and tower two started to come down.

    Dominick Derubbio -- Battalion Chief (F.D.N.Y.) [Division 8]
    It was weird how it started to come down. It looked like it was a timed explosion ...

    Karin Deshore -- Captain (E.M.S.)
    Somewhere around the middle of the World Trade Center, there was this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode.

    Brian Dixon -- Battalion Chief (F.D.N.Y.)
    ... the lowest floor of fire in the south tower actually looked like someone had planted explosives around it because the whole bottom I could see -- I could see two sides of it and the other side -- it just looked like that floor blew out. I looked up and you could actually see everything blew out on the one floor. I thought, geez, this looks like an explosion up there, it blew out.

    Michael Donovan -- Captain (F.D.N.Y.)
    I thought there had been an explosion or a bomb that they had blown up there.

    James Drury -- Assistant Commissioner (F.D.N.Y.)
    I should say that people in the street and myself included thought that the roar was so loud that the explosive - bombs were going off inside the building.

    Thomas Fitzpatrick -- Deputy Commissioner for Administration (F.D.N.Y.)
    Some people thought it was an explosion. I don't think I remember that. I remember seeing it, it looked like sparkling around one specific layer of the building.
    My initial reaction was that this was exactly the way it looks when they show you those implosions on TV.

    Gary Gates -- Lieutenant (F.D.N.Y.)
    So the explosion, what I realized later, had to be the start of the collapse. It was the way the building appeared to blowout from both sides. I'm looking at the face of it, and all we see is the two sides of the building just blowing out and coming apart like this, as I said, like the top of a volcano.

    Kevin Gorman -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 22]
    ... I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes.

    Gregg Hansson -- Lieutenant (F.D.N.Y.)
    Then a large explosion took place. In my estimation that was the tower coming down, but at that time I did not know what that was. I thought some type of bomb had gone off.

    Timothy Julian -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 118]
    You know, and I just heard like an explosion and then cracking type of noise, and then it sounded like a freight train, rumbling and picking up speed, and I remember I looked up, and I saw it coming down.

    John Malley -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 22]
    I felt the rumbling, and then I felt the force coming at me. I was like, what the hell is that? In my mind it was a bomb going off.

    James McKinley -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.)
    After that I heard this huge explosion, I thought it was a boiler exploding or something. Next thing you know this huge cloud of smoke is coming at us, so we're running.

    Joseph Meola -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 91]
    As we are looking up at the building, what I saw was, it looked like the building was blowing out on all four sides. We actually heard the pops. Didn't realize it was the falling -- you know, you heard the pops of the building. You thought it was just blowing out.

    Kevin Murray -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 18]
    When the tower started -- there was a big explosion that I heard and someone screamed that it was coming down and I looked away and I saw all the windows domino

    Janice Olszewski -- Captain (E.M.S.)
    I thought it was an explosion or a secondary device, a bomb, the jet -- plane exploding, whatever.

    Daniel Rivera -- Paramedic (E.M.S.) [Battalion 31]
    At first I thought it was -- do you ever see professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear "Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop"? That's exactly what -- because I thought it was that.

    Angel Rivera -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)
    That's when hell came down. It was like a huge, enormous explosion. I still can hear it. Everything shook.

    Kennith Rogers -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)
    I figured it was a bomb, because it looked like a synchronized deliberate kind of thing. I was there in '93.

    Patrick Scaringello -- Lieutenant (E.M.S.)
    I started to treat patients on my own when I heard the explosion from up above.

    Mark Steffens -- Division Chief (E.M.S.)
    Then there was another it sounded like an explosion and heavy white powder ...

    John Sudnik -- Battalion Chief (F.D.N.Y.)
    Then we heard a loud explosion or what sounded like a loud explosion and looked up and I saw tower two start coming down. Crazy.

    Jay Swithers -- Captain (E.M.S.)
    I took a quick glance at the building and while I didn't see it falling, I saw a large section of it blasting out, which led me to believe it was just an explosion. I thought it was a secondary device, but I knew that we had to go.

    David Timothy -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.)
    The next thing I knew, you started hearing more explosions. I guess this is when the second tower started coming down.

    Albert Turi -- Deputy Assistant Chief (F.D.N.Y.)
    And as my eyes traveled up the building, and I was looking at the south tower, somewhere about halfway up, my initial reaction was there was a secondary explosion, and the entire floor area, a ring right around the building blew out.

    Thomas Turilli -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)
    ... it almost actually that day sounded like bombs going off, like boom, boom, boom, like seven or eight, and then just a huge wind gust just came.

    Stephen Viola -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)
    ... that's when the south tower collapsed, and it sounded like a bunch of explosions.

    William Wall -- Lieutenant (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 47]
    At that time, we heard an explosion. We looked up and the building was coming down right on top of us ...

    Video evidence: -


  18. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    It is unbelievable tunnel vision alright. I would call it pathetic rather than hilarious though.

  19. leopold Valued Senior Member

    OMG ! ! ! !
    RUN FOR YOUR LIVES ! ! ! !

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  20. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    Should be emailed to all of the survivors and relatives of non-survivors of 9/11.

  21. shaman_ Registered Senior Member

    Yes when two planes loaded with jet fuel smash into skyscrapers the result isn’t complete silence. There are many things which make large banging noises – gas explosions, elevators falling or items falling down the shaft, electrical equipment ect. Thousands of testimonies were taken of that day (NY times have 12,000 pages of testimony) and yes some of the people use the word explosion to describe what they heard. When it happens in a building where it is well known that a bomb went off a few years earlier (people died) it is even less of a surprise.

    It is an adjective that describes large banging noises, not specifically detonated explosives. People cannot distinguish the difference between explosives and the other possibilities just from hearing them. The videos show nothing so you have to resort to quote mining witness testimony.

    Supposedly they used the thermite to cut the columns (like a knife through butter according to Jones) because it would have been quieter. (correct?). Why would they then go and load up bombs that would give away the absurd super conspiracy? Where were these supposed bombs? Someone could have had a camera right on them. Why were no explosions filmed to match the cherry picked testimony? Are the explosions the nanothermite? Can you show me nanothermite exploding? Why use nanothermite if it gives everything away? Hundreds of tons? come on!?! What is the theory here? It doesn’t make a lot of sense. Starting with a conclusion and then working back looking for the evidence to fit into it, the truthers have ended up with a mish mash of underdeveloped theories supported with feeble evidence.
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2009
  22. Hoz_Turner Registered Member

    Nonsense. You clearly haven't read the testimonies or seen the respective videos.

    Nano-thermite can also be explosive, depending on how gases are incorporated into the material. RDX may also have been used.

    I also refer you to this website. Over 700 architecture and engineering professionals are not conspiracy theorists: -

  23. KennyJC Registered Senior Member

    No, you don't get it do you? We have audio from the footprint of the towers before and during the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2. We can hear for ourselves. The only thing that is heard is the rumbling of the tower falling.

    This is in direct contrast to that of actual controlled demolitions that release sound blasts audible for miles.

    Here's a video that shows the stark difference between the noise of controlled demolitions to that of the silent (by comparison) collapses on 9/11:

    I still find it hard to believe that troofers somehow believe that explosives are quiet... they're not.

    Most of this is after the collapse of 1 and 2 which tells you that even troofers could find no explosions immediately before or during the collapse. And we know it's not immediately before the collapse of the WTC7 since we have multiple camera angles of the collapse with no explosions heard when the tower fell.

    So we have some small explosions heard after the collapse of 1&2, and long before the collapse of WTC7. This pretty much rules out demolition explosives altogether, leaving the most realistic probability of explosive materials being burned by the fires that were raging throughout the day.

    This video blatantly ignores the role air played during the collapse. An incredible volume of air was being forced out of the windows during the collapse. If we are to believe explosives are the cause, then we'd hear them.

    The guy also assumes all the dust coming out of the windows is concrete which is stupid when you consider most of the dust was insulation and gypsum drywall.

    The moron also assumes that because steel beams are being thrown outward, that explosives are the cause. I already explained to psikeyhackr that this was preposterous since even conventional explosives do not have the power to do this... and conventional explosives are LOUD. Explosives able to throw tons of steel outward would be even louder than conventional explosives.

    His objection to NIST not modeling the full collapse is a straw man. NIST's models due to the magnitude of the failures that were occurring were not able to converge on a solution. NIST did not have to model the complete collapse anyway. All they were paid to do was find out what caused the collapse, and they succeeded in doing so.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page