9/11 Thread no. 2

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

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

    Messages:
    1,467
    Actually Hoz I have read plenty. I haven’t watched the videos you posted in the last link because I am at work. But I have watched plenty of those as well and will be very surprised I get home and there is anything there I haven’t seen before.

    As I discussed in my previous post, people using the word 'explosion' is not suspicious at all.
    It appears that supermegathermite can be whatever the conspiracy theorists want it to be depending on the week. It cuts, burns, explodes, burns in the rubble for six weeks, produces molten metal, ruins cars ect. On top of that hundreds of tons of the stuff is completely inconspicuous.

    I am aware of the site. I have even posted some mission statements here of some of the people who signed up. From the comments many of them make they appear to be very poorly informed regarding the events of 9/11. It doesn’t matter what qualifications you have when you make comments about all three buildings falling at freefall speeds or molten steel or Silverstein admitted he demolished WTC7. Many of them just say that WTC7 looked like a controlled demolition so they signed up. That's it. 700 people after nearly eight years? Many of them poorly informed? Not impressive.
    .

    The credibility of the website is further damaged by the main bullet point claims regarding the characteristics of a controlled demolition. Some of them can be shown to be false with little work. Pyroclastic?

    With the failure to get something published in a relevant, reputable journal the truthers are reduced to compiling lists on a webpage. It’s about as much credibility in the scientific community as myspace. 700? My mate has more facebook friends that that.
     
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2009
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Hoz_Turner Registered Member

    Messages:
    55
    You do realise that AE911TRUTH was started in 2006?

    700 building professionals putting their jobs and reputations on the line is still very significant, and they didn't all sign up at once. They had to be persuaded with solid evidence.

    And you "debunkers" seem to just confuse matters and deceive. We have evaporated steel, molten iron, etc. NIST admitted that they did NOT look for explosives residues from the clear crime scene that Ground Zero was. This is scandalous in itself, and so independent scientists had to scavenge for it.

    You ignore the science and rush to assumptions about peoples' credibility and it shows that you are not interested in facts.

    Oh, and that "bullshit" paper has not been refuted by any peer-reviewed academic publication so it still stands in the scientific community until that is the case.

    NASA and Harvard University include the paper in their online list: -

    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009OCPJ....2....7H
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    But I have previously, by pointing out that Sulfidation can occur with the presence of Hydrogen Sulfide, and that Steel has to be protected specifically against Hydrogen Sulfide for this very reason.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    :wtf:
    :roflmao::roflmao:
     
  8. Hoz_Turner Registered Member

    Messages:
    55
    "A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said."

    http://www.geocities.com/streakingobject/07NYTimes7WTCwhy.html

    Okay...partially evaporated. Its still some steel that has been evaporated.

    More evidence of molten steel and also molten iron: -

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fs_ogSbQFbM
     
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2009
  9. shaman_ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,467
    Barnett was questioned about that comment in this exchange and he gives a very short answer.

    "Those were early observations. Since then, a metallurgical study was completed (see the ASCE/FEMA BPAT report). Please let me know if you have any more questions.
    "


    http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/2007/04/professor-jonathan-r-barnett.html

    Would it be reasonable to surmise that he was referring to the sulfidised steel which had experienced erosion?


    **edit. he makes some other interesting comments in those posts. It's worth reading to get a perspective from someone who actually inspected the wreckage and worked on the investigation.
     
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2009
  10. nietzschefan Thread Killer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,721
    Warning! Eyeballs required!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    What's he got, a Bs(BS)?

    Seriously.

    He has NO PROOF that the steel evaporated or partially evaporated.

    Corroded, sure, melted and drained away, why not.

    But not evaporated.

    Evaporated isn't even the right word to be using under the circumstances.

    The only way to prove that steel had evaporated would be to find evidence of some sort of thin film deposition - steel plated human remains, for example.
     
  12. KennyJC Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,936
  13. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,104
    Source of this posed NIST admission?

    I'm pretty sure they would of said that they didn't find any evidence to warrant a further investigation into the the potential use of explosives. Of course like the others you'll quite happily cut out those portions of the statement and paraphrase to fit your own agenda.
     
  14. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    They state that they didn't test for thermite as well as explosives in their answer to question 12 in the following link:
    National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster- Answers to Frequently Asked Questions (August 30, 2006)

    Robert Moore's peer reviewed paper on the subject, Statement Regarding Thermite, Part 1, gives the reasons why their explanation doesn't hold water.
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2009
  15. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,104
    It doesn't refute NIST's commentary at all, all it suggests is "Someone snuck in an blowtorched the beams." in a simpler form of words.

    I just see a bunch of OCD conspiracies distorting facts and creating lies to suit their means. The truth movement is just a way to develop a cult without looking cultish.
     
  16. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Yes, it does. From the following comment, however, I can see that you really haven't read it carefully...


    Your "simplification" doesn't do the article justice in any way, shape or form. For starters, Robert Moore makes no mention whatsoever of anyone blowtorching anything.


    What's OCD stand for?
     
  17. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,104
    Obsessive Compulsive Disorder.

    Certain people suffer this where they are obsessively compelled to do things. For instance Howard Hughes was obsessive about cleanliness, Tesla Suffered from the Disorder. Some people are obsessive about walking in and out of a doorway 5 times before entering or exiting a room, others just get obsessed about one particular thought/theory and that's all they ever talk about. (i.e. UFO's, Aliens, God or 9/11)
     
  18. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,104
    All he states is using a kind of Plasma cutter. Which is understandable because you would be generating a focus of energy to cut with, however this would require a work crew to run all over the building cutting beams and not worrying about the building falling down on themselves. Why don't you just go with:

    "Elvis flew a UFO with an alien doomsday device weapon to wipe out the WTC to prove that Scientology is a Religion."

    and have done with it.
     
  19. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    I have certainly talked about many things besides 9/11 as you should know full well. I continue to do so as well.
     
  20. shaman_ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,467
    Actually no I didn’t. It has little bearing on what I said. My mate joined facebook about then and he still has more people. There is a well defined process within the scientific community and it doesn't involve dodgy internet lists of poorly informed and half interested people.

    Solid evidence? Have you actually read their personal statements? These are some that I picked which are absurd or contain blatant mistakes. I was just scrolling down and copying. I gave up before I got to the bottom of the list.

    “Too many questions unanswered. Why did eye witnesses say they saw a cargo plane? Why did firefighters say they heard rhythmic, successive explosions? Why did buildings fall as if exploded from inside?”

    Except in controlled demolition of a building, I can't think of anything that simply collapses symmetrically like the three World Trade Center buildings. Other buildings, cars, furniture, tables, etc do not collapse this way. Can you think of anything that does?

    The speed of the building's collapse, indicating no resistance as it fell, further indicates that only carefully placed and timed detonation devices throughout the skeletal structure could account for the sudden implosion of the towers into their footprints.
    The only plausible reason for collapse of WTC 7, which was not hit by any plane, is similarly, timed explosives within the building.

    A B-25 bomber flew directly into the Empire State Building on a Saturday, and the building was open for business the following Monday, with the exception of the most adversely affected areas near the top.

    I have "known" from day-one that the buildings were imploded and that they could not and would not have collapsed from the damage caused by the airplanes that ran into them.

    Being from Minnesota, something smells fishy! I smell a rat as well. Will three sentences suffice?

    It was the discovery of molten steel in the Tub that made me realize there was something really wrong about the MSM coverage of the Towers. The discovery of intergranular melting has so far not been explained, officially.

    The collapse of a single structure under the circumstances of the events of 9/11/01 is improbable. Three steel structures collapsing vertically at free fall speed, one not even impacted, is inconceivable.

    Lost in the fog. I have been on personal crusade about the lies and cover up way before 9/11. Expected as much and believe more is coming. Life will become battle of political world domination vs. global warming. Thus Space Migration. As an Architect practicing around the world, I believe in my profession and want to defend the architects of record for WTC and compare the new test against their design.

    Much evidence exists of explosions throughout the WTC buildings. Persistent pools of 2000 degree metal can only be explained by the presence of thermite/thermate, used in planned demolitions. Squibs, puffs of smoke characteristic of planned demolitions, can be clearly seen in advance of the collapses.

    I found the squib charges in WTC 7 to be irrefuatble evidence of controlled demolition. The implications, while disturbing, reveal more than ever a country without the ideals of Thomas Jefferson, and Benjaimin Franklin.

    In my opinion the term "pull it" had to do with orders to destroy the properties due to un-avoidable security breaches that would ensue as a result of a myriad of persons going into previously secured areas of the buildings....thus the twin towers and the third building. This is my own opinion, I have never read this nor heard this anywhere. It is only my opinion/theory.

    I suspected it was not simple dynamics and material physics at work the moment the first WTC tower started to disintegrate within it's footprint and the building contents, the concrete slabs and glass scatter in a fine powder in all directions. Ditto WTC 2. Watching the nearly intact building at WTC 7 free fall as an apparent media event and on a human initiated schedule made my grave suspicions into clear certaintie

    This has always seemed strange to me, along with the Pentagon attack where no photographs actually show penetration by an airplane. Whether there was a conspiracy or not, when the government hides facts and information there must be more investigation.

    Type 1 - fireproofed structural steel in buildings just would not melt and cause a controlled collapse in the manner shown as all three buildings did. The structural steel beams and columns had spray fireproofing on it and the buildings had fire sprinklers. The collapse of these building is even more unlikely given the time it took from impact of the planes till collapse.

    WTC 1, 2, and 7 show that the official story is false because of the symmetrical collapse, the free-fall speed of the collapse, the pulverization of the concrete to dust, the cutting of the columns to convenient lengths, and the persistent molten pools of steel. The Pentagon event shows that the official story is false because of the improbable flight path flown by the 757. The Shanksville event shows that the official story is false because of the characteristics of the aircraft debris field.

    To me, the evidence shown by Richard Gage in the DVD titled "9/11: Blueprint for Truth" clearly shows that the public was not given the real story behind why those buildings collapsed. You just can't ignore the evidence of molten steel, pulverized concrete, U shaped steel I-beams with no stress fractures, and signs of explosions (squibs) 40 stories below the collapsing rubble. The list of unanswered technical questions surrounding this tragedy is just too long to be ignored.

    The collapse is in complete opposition to Newton's Laws of Motion. Free fall speed with all of the structural opposition is not viable.

    My opinion is that the 3 WTC buildings fell as a result of planted cutting charges - an inside job. Regarding the Pentagon, I believe from the size of the hole in the ext. wall and lack of airplane debris, that it must have been a missile. As for the 4th plane that supposedly crashed near Shanksville, PA, there was only a smoking hole in the ground and all the debris was scattered over a very wide area so it must have been shot down.

    Seismographic evidence proved pre-planted explosives destroyed WTC 1, 2 and building 7 before the planes struck buildings 1 & 2.

    The temperatures in the impact areas due to burning Jet-A fuel and the office furnishings and business tools could NOT rise to the level of 3000-4000 deg. F necessary to deform and fail structural steel joints and the total collapse of the structures. …Look at the destruction of WTC 7. No aircraft or heavy debris collateral from the Towers struck that building.

    The buildings fell at or very near free fall speed and into their own foot prints! The second airplane went through the corner of the building and did not hit the structural core, yet it fell the same as the first tower?

    Foreknowledge includes Gulliani's interview where he states that he was informed that the first tower (south tower) was going to come down in 10 minutes. Additionally, there are the elevated levels of stock put options on United Airlines, American Airlines, and Boeing; Larry Silverstein's comments on "pulling" WTC 7; Silverstein not eating breakfast at the top of the north tower on that day which he did daily otherwise; and CNN and BBC's anouncing that WTC7 had collapsed 20 minutes before it did.

    Experts agree that the fires caused by the burning jet fuel, building materials and contents of buildings were not hot enough to melt steel. Yet molten liquid steel was found in the debris of WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 by FEMA investigators.

    There is no way that these 3 buildings symmetrically collapsed the way that they did. Another interesting fact is how empty the 4 planes were. I have never been on a plane that is 75% empty!! So many inconsistencies!!

    It doesn't make sense that fires from jet fuel could melt structural steel, let alone in sufficient quantity to collapse both towers.

    A perfectly symmetrical collapse resulting from eccentric impact and fire is simply not credible.

    1) Molten and glowing steel under all 3 piles of rubble found months later. This would be impossible if the only thing burning were smothered remnants of office supplies and remnants of jet fuel which mostly burned off in the first few minutes. Temperatures of combustion of such an oxygen starved fuel could not even make steel glow.
    2) The inability of the remnants of jet fuel and office supplies to provide sufficient heat to significantly weaken key structural members evenly to the point of failure.

    If the pancake theory is true then we should sure have seen some pancakes, not pulverized concrete and steel.

    I studied the videos of the collapse of the WTC towers. I'm convince that explosions brought those structures down. The towers were pulverized. How can you not believe your own eyes? One can see the buildings exploding. Firemen reported they heard explosions going off at every floor.

    . Pyroclastic-like clouds, symmetrical collapse, and molten steel are all indications of a controlled demolition, and all are seen at each WTC site.

    The freefall collapse of WTC7 appears to be the most flagrant flaw in the official version of 9/11.

    Steel structures do not collapse at free fall speed unless brought down with explosives.

    The many visual images (massive structural members being hurled horizontally, huge pyroclastic clouds, etc.) leave no doubt in my mind explosives were involved.

    Where came the energy to slice steel girders and pulverize concrete? Not from a kerosene fire, that's for sure, yet that's what we're asked, no told, to believe.

    I am convinced beyond any shadow of doubt that:
    1- NORAD could not have been rendered worthless by anyone or any organization but persons in or close to the U.S. government.
    2- No passenger plane hit the pentagon.
    3- The two towers could not have come down in near-free fall speed if explosives were not scientifically planted and distributed throughout the structures and sequentially exploded through computer control. Explosions occurred ahead of the advancing debris so that the near-free fall speed can be achieved.
    4- The 9/11 wars and war on terror were pre-planned and executed according to these plans.

    A more thorough investigation is needed to arrive at a more accurate assessment. There is not enough energy contained in jet fuel to explain the total collapse and destruction of the central core. The molten steel found in the basements of the towers needs to be explained scientifically.

    Upon seeing the video of the WTC 7 collapse, I could see immediately that this was a classic case of controlled demolition. Clearly the core columns were cut first -- as shown by the center of the roof beginning collapse before the rest of the building -- and then the rest comes down at free-fall.


    Too many witnesses saying they heard explosions in the lower levels and too many unexplained events, such as, the collapse of Building 7 and the steel columns of the trade building appearing to have been purposely weakened.

    1. WTC 1 & 2 collapse at or above free fall speed.
    2. WTC 7 collapse with no aircraft impact and sparse fire damage.
    3. Aircraft was 0.04% of total building mass.
    4. The collapses did not fall according to the basic laws conservation of momentum & energy and angular momentum.
    5. Too much more to list.


    1. The first question deals with the total collapse of World Trade Center Building 7. This 47-story skyscraper was not hit by an aircraft and would have been the tallest building in 33 of our states. Yet, it collapsed into a tidy rubble pile in 6.5 seconds in the exact manner of a controlled demolition at 5:20 PM on September 11, 2001. Please describe or explain a non-explosive scenario for the total collapse of this building that is in agreement with all the evidence known to date.
    2. The second question deals with the Twin Towers (World Trade Center Buildings 1 and 2) and the 90,000 tons of metal decking, concrete floors, drywall, office furniture, and missing bodies that were pulverized in mid-air during the total collapse of these buildings. Please describe or explain a non-explosive scenario for the complete pulverization of all of these materials into dust in 10-13 seconds.
    3. The third question deals with the free-fall speed of the collapse of all three buildings. Please describe a non-explosive scenario that explains the symmetrical collapse of each of these buildings straight down—through the path of greatest resistance—at an acceleration that is indistinguishable from free-fall acceleration in a vacuum.
    4. The fourth question deals with the molten metal that was observed below Ground Zero by many people after the buildings collapsed. Please describe a non-explosive scenario that explains how Ground Zero remained an inferno and how molten metal remained fluid for a least six weeks after the collapse.

    Blatant controlled demolitions due to "free fall" acceleration. Evidence of molten metal streams at key structural points during collapse. Photographic evidence of "cutter charge" angular cuts severing key girders.

    ) Where did the molten steel come from?
    -) Where was the resistance of the steel core and how could the buildings have fallen at free fall speed?
    -) How could WTC7 fall from fire only and never hit by any planes?
    -) The pre-knowledge of WTC7 (Salomon brothers building) collapse aired on BBC is just too accurate to be a misstatement
    -) How does one account for the discharges of smoke in the lower floors as the building is coming down?

    It is inconceivable that three steel skyscrapers would fall in their own footprints at nearly free fall speed without the cause being a controlled demolition. An energy balance defies the official story of a gravitational fall caused by jet fuel fires. The evidence of molten metal, horizontal projection of steel beams and the pulverization of the buildings and their contents cannot be explained by the official story. Our country has been asleep and our democracy depends on learning the truth"




    That’s enough. Many of these people have signed up based on misinformation and lies. Many just signed up because they have doubts and the one liner they leave doesn’t give an indication of much interest. There is a lot of mention of freefall molten steel, symmetrical collapse into footprints (WTC7 would not have been damaged if this were the case) , signing due to explosions being heard ect. These questionable statements, and there are many more, give an indication of just how worthless it is to quote the number supporting the flawed website.



    I haven’t seen you mention any facts.

    There was no peer review on the Bentham paper in the first place. The editor quit over it I believe. Another editor resigned from another Bentham journal last month after a nonsensical article generated by a computer program was published.


    It may have snuck on an online list somewhere but that doesn’t recover the credibility.
     
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2009
  21. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    It's just a -tad- different than a blow torch.


    Thank you for going further into your reasoning. Since you have put in that amount of effort, I have put in some as well. NIST also brings up the issue of the need for inconspicuous placing of the demolition material, but Robert Moore addresses this issue, which can be seen in this excerpt from page 6 of Robert Moore's paper:
    NIST also raises the issue of inconspicuous placement of thermite in their hypothetical. NIST intimates that such surreptitious placement of hypothetical incendiaries would not be possible. Although the issue of inconspicuous behavior is not a scientific matter, the patents do suggest accommodations for ease of deployment in the field. xvi

    Here is the text for the endnote, which can be found on page 9:
    xvi See, US Patent Application No. 2006/0266204 (application published, Nov. 30, 2006), where it states: A “linear thermite charge’s modular unit design will allow adaptation for a desired geometry and will be easily deployed in the field.” See also, US Patent No. 6183569, where it states: “The present invention also provides a formable, and separately storable, thermite powder charge…” In addition, several embodiments mentioned in US Patent Application No.2006/0266204 provide that the devices can be deployed in the field with a smaller degree of preparation and “preconditioning” of the target. In fact, thermite cutting device kits can be provided, which contain “modular linear thermite charges,” connectors, wiring, mounting mechanisms, and an ignition system. Remote detonation can be accomplished as stated in, US Patent 6183569 (Feb. 6, 2001).​

    Scott Forbes, who worked in one of the Twin Towers, has mentioned quite a bit of unusual activity before 9/11. A summary can be found here:
    http://culhavoc.blogsome.com/2006/02/28/scott-forbes/

    George Washington's blog has done an interview with him as well:
    http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/11/interview-with-scott-forbes.html

    I think we should strive to properly investigate the most probable possibilities instead of wild conjectures, don't you?
     
  22. shaman_ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,467
    I can't believe Scott just brought up Scott Forbes again.
     
  23. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Why is that?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page