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

[Headspin]

You are looking up definitions but it seems to be too complicated for you to understand. Melting is the process. Molten liquid is the final result. Steel goes through quite a few changes before it gets to that stage. Just because metal starts softening doesn’t mean it reaches molten state. Asteneh makes it very clear that he though the steel reached a soft stage and was glowing hot.

if the steel had ONLY softened he would have ONLY said "softened", a description of partially melted steel would have included "melted", "melting", and "SOFTENING". You are seeing ONLY what you want to see.
if a block of ice sits in a pool of water, we can saying it is "melting"!!

You are being dishonest but I am used to that now from 9/11 conspiracy theorists. He does not say ‘melted girders'. He says he saw melting of girders. Melted would be the final result.

I have given you the exact quote and linked to the article a myriad of times, but you can't resist calling me a LIAR over melted/melting. If your argument rests on a distinction between "melted" and "melting", then your argument is fucked.

He is making the point that the WTC steel got very hot, even hotter than the steel at the bridge.

I am not interested in your interpretations anymore, it is clear you prefer word puzzles over logic and evidence.

Interestingly this raises the issue that the steel at the bridge did not reach the temperatures of WTC and the bridge still collapsed.

a bridge is a different structure, would it have survived a hurricane as the towers were designed to withstand? many bridges just collapse with poor maintenance, there have been a few recent examples.

But he did not say anything that contradicted that. He just said that the girders experienced melting and that they were glowing hot. He never said they reached liquid stage.

do you have the answer to 4-across and 10-down?

He had plenty to work with and has made it very clear that the fires alone caused the collapse. But you will keep ignoring this and will take you own interpretations from your quote mining….

He had little to work with - 90% of the steel was never inspected and the blueprints were withheld by silverstein until leaked to Steven Jones in 2007. This is what Astaneh says - "TENTATIVE CONCLUSIONS - The collapse of the towers was most likely due to the intense fire initiated by the jet fuel of the planes and continued due to burning of the building contents". If you understand science, you'll understand that a Hypothesis is not a definitive conclusion, that is why he titles his paper "A HYPOTHESIS FOR WHY THE TOWERS COLLAPSED".

"tentative conclusions", "A hypothesis", "most likely," does that sound like a very clear definitive set-in-stone gospel to you? only a politician or a lawyer or a priest would put it to bed there, a scientist would not. Once more you make a bastard of logic and evidence with your interpretation "he has made it...very clear that the fires alone caused the collapse". and "came to the conclusion that the fires alone caused the collapse."

 

[Headspin]

Good point. But thermate does not make a superhhot jet you need special explosives for that.

This particular device produces a superhot jet of therm?te whose cutting performance is enhanced by using a pressurized gas inside the ceramic chambers, without using an explosive shockwave. in other words it squirts anywheres you want. up down or sideways, will melt through concrete and steel, no prep work necessary.

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2006/0266204.html

"The materials used for the thermite reaction may be premixed or mixed immediately prior to being jetted into the target material. One method for mixing the materials is to fluidize one solid reactant (typically powders or granulates) with a pressurized oxidant, and feeding them into a reaction chamber. Another method includes mixing two or more solid reactants (typically powders or granulates) and feeding them into a reaction chamber with or without pressured oxidant. The materials react and form a jet. The cutting action of the thermite charge can be augmented by pressurizing it with an oxidizing gas (e.g. oxygen or air).

The apparatus and method typically provide for a reaction that provides cutting action in a non-explosive manner. “Non-explosive manner” is defined as a reaction that proceeds below the speed of sound in the reacting material. By proceeding below the speed of sound in the reacting material a shock wave as experienced in explosives is avoided."

 

[Stryder]

Some people can use Melting to express the distortion of a material even if technically it's not melted. What I mean is you could take a metal and heat it until it loses it's rigidness and bends under it's own weight, that can be called melting. It's not the same of course as using a cutting torch which melts the metal to liquid.

The loss of rigidness will be when the beam "glows" in heat, and depending on the type of steel and how it was foundered decides on how many impurities are in the metal. (The larger amount of impurities the less temperature is necessary to cause melting as in bending.)

 

[Headspin]

So any time something is not there we assume it evaporated. Genius.

No, you are twisting it.

If you actually read the article you would see that he is not quoted..

what word would you prefer people use instead of "quote"?

I think you will find that piece is from WTC7 not WTC1+2.

So magic alchemy only occurs in wtc7 and not wtc1 and 2 ?

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Biederman/Biederman-0112.html

“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 approached ~1,000ºC, forming the eutectic liquid by a process similar to making a “blacksmith’s weld” in a hand forge.”

Are we talking about the same piece?

"approached ~1000 degrees", did you know on a linear scale there are two directions to approach a point ?

Don't you find it interesting the mention of the figure of ~1000 degrees? when the minimum possible temperature of a liquid iron sulphur eutectic is 996C degrees. The paper leaves room for higher temperatures, but it leaves NO ROOM for lower temperatures. And it is also interesting that this minimum temperature of 996 Celcius for the molten Fe-S eutectic only exists if the Sulfur content of the eutectic mix is precisely 31.40%. if there is deviation either side by a percentage point or two for the sulfur content, the liquid eutectic can only exist at MUCH HIGHER temperatures, actually approaching the melting point of iron.

So i ask which is more likely - did this sulfidation occur as the temperature cooled from 2500C to 1000C (as would happen if thermate residue splashed on the steel), or did sulfidation occur at precisely 1000C as it heated up from room temperature, and just happened to find itself in the presence of an iron sulfur eutectic with precisely 31.40% content sulfur.

Also sulfur evaporates at 444 degrees Celcius, so if you choose the second option, you have to explain how free sulfur can itself exist liberated from any calcium sulphate compounds, but also how this free sulfur (once liberated) can avoid being evaporated as the temperature gradually rises to 1000C in order that the theoretically liberated free sulfur forms the iron sulfur eutectic.

 

[scott3x]

Originally Posted by shaman_

Originally Posted by Headspin

Oh what lies!
Asteneh said "melted", "I saw melting of girders at the wtc"

ABOLHASSAN ASTANEH: Here <at the Oakland freeway>, it most likely reached about 1,000 to 1,500 degrees. And that is enough to collapse them, so they collapsed. So the word "melting" should not be used for girders at the freeway, because there was no melting of girders at the freeway. I saw melting of girders in <the> World Trade Center.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/jan-june07/overpass_05-10.html

Melting of girders is not the same as liquid metal.

]

Then you are a moron, go and look up the definition of melting.
"Melting is a process that results in the phase change of a substance from a solid to a liquid"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten

Headspin, I believe you are truly amazing in this debate; I admit that at times you speak of things that even I can't really follow. However, I don't think that using terms like 'moron' really helps the debate. If I can't always follow you, it stands to reason that others might not as well. You may have noticed that I frequently criticize my opponents when they insult me with such terms, so I would be remiss if I didn't ask you to also try to restrain yourself. I can easily understand that as time has gone by, you may have gotten frustrated with people who apparently make the same arguments over and over. I myself have certainly gotten frustrated when I see this. However, I have a great fear that if people start to think that it's ok to swear at each other that this debate can go from substantial issues into an insult fest.

Perhaps I have a bit of a thin skin, but when people insult me with terms like 'moron', 'stupid' and other such words, it actually hurts me emotionally. As you may remember, there was one point where such an insult coming from Geoff (who I still consider to be my main opponent even if he's apparently taking a hiatus from the frey) caused me to stop posting altogether until the issue was cleared (Geoff was apparently aggrieved over something I said). While this may not happen in the case of others, I'm certainly afraid that it might eventually lead to the tit for tat name calling I'd really like to avoid.

 

[ScyentsIzLief]

Perhaps I have a bit of a thin skin, but when people insult me with terms like 'moron', 'stupid' and other such words, it actually hurts me emotionally. As you may remember, there was one point where such an insult coming from Geoff (who I still consider to be my main opponent even if he's apparently taking a hiatus from the frey) caused me to stop posting altogether until the issue was cleared (Geoff was apparently aggrieved over something I said). While this may not happen in the case of others, I'm certainly afraid that it might eventually lead to the tit for tat name calling I'd really like to avoid.

Sounds pretty pansy to me.

I think you need to remember that this a forum and everyone is anonymous. Don't take things personally. You shouldn't give people reasons to call you a moron anyhow. You avoid this stating claims that make sense, have evidence to back it up, and not denying others' evidence just because it questions your value system. For example, the mods put this thread here because they simply can't imagine the U.S. government doing this to the people to further their agenda. The 9/11 truth questions their belief system so they combat it by dismissing it altogether. Sometimes you get called a "moron" or a "sheep" for doing that. Or because you simply make a stupid claim because you have nothing left

Hope this helps.

 

[scott3x]

Originally Posted by scott3x

Perhaps I have a bit of a thin skin, but when people insult me with terms like 'moron', 'stupid' and other such words, it actually hurts me emotionally. As you may remember, there was one point where such an insult coming from Geoff (who I still consider to be my main opponent even if he's apparently taking a hiatus from the frey) caused me to stop posting altogether until the issue was cleared (Geoff was apparently aggrieved over something I said). While this may not happen in the case of others, I'm certainly afraid that it might eventually lead to the tit for tat name calling I'd really like to avoid.

Sounds pretty pansy to me.

I know you are, but what am I? Nya Nya, etc .

I think you need to remember that this a forum and everyone is anonymous. Don't take things personally.

The fact that this forum is generally anonymous in the sense that we don't know each other in the physical world doesn't make me feel that insults shouldn't be taken personally.

You shouldn't give people reasons to call you a moron anyhow.

Personally, such terms are good for one thing, and one thing alone; to fend of violence of some sort or other. In any other circumstance, I don't think that -anyone- should be called a 'moron'. Even if the person actually has an IQ of 51-70.

As you may have surmised from that last statement, I decided to wiki the term. This is what I came up with:
******************************
Moron was originally an English scientific term, coined in 1910 by psychologist Henry H. Goddard from the Greek word moros, which meant "dull" (as opposed to "sharp"), and used to describe a person with a mental age located between 8 and 12 on the Binet scale. It was once applied to people with an IQ of 51-70, being superior in one degree to "imbecile" (IQ of 26-50) and superior in two degrees to "idiot" (IQ of 0-25). The word moron, along with others including "retarded", "idiotic", "imbecilic", "stupid", and "feeble-minded", was formerly considered a valid descriptor in the psychological community, though these words have all now passed into common slang use, exclusively in a derogatory context.

In his later years, starting from the 1920s, Goddard recanted his previous theories.
******************************
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moron_(psychology)

Ironically, even though both 'idiot' and 'imbecile' were classified as of a lesser IQ then moron, I think i'd prefer those terms then moron; something about moron I particularly don't like; I even dislike it more then 'stupid'. I do believe there are worse, ofcourse, but I won't mention them here .

You avoid this stating claims that make sense, have evidence to back it up, and not denying others' evidence just because it questions your value system.

Claims that make sense to whom? And who decides what is and what isn't evidence? I contend that these things are not so easy to resolve as one might think.

For example, the mods put this thread here because they simply can't imagine the U.S. government doing this to the people to further their agenda. The 9/11 truth questions their belief system so they combat it by dismissing it altogether.

I could go for that anyway.

Sometimes you get called a "moron" or a "sheep" for doing that.

Sheep I can handle .

Or because you simply make a stupid claim because you have nothing left

I just don't think the term 'stupid' has to be used. I believe I have used 'absurd', and even that NIST did some very 'shoddy' work (I was feeling particularly angry that day ). I suppose suggesting that certain NIST individuals as well as others in high places are guilty of high treason might be considered a tad worse, but no base insults there at any rate . Besides, if people are so cavalier about accusing 19 alleged hijackers, I don't think it's wrong to suggest others may well have been the true culprits. Ridiculous and ridicule in my view, is where I'm not sure (I don't think I've used them here anyway). Anything beyond that is off limits for me, unless, as I mentioned, it's used to deter actual violence (as in, swear strongly at someone who's considering mugging you, say).

Hope this helps.

Definitely. It allowed me to expand on my reasoning ;-).

 

[shaman_]

You are stuck in a simple two choice false dichotomy argument that it could have only been explosives OR incendaries. You neither consider that it could be explosives AND incendaries, nor whether it could be explosive incendaries, either way these are capable of breaking, melting, softening, cutting, corroding, oxidizing, burning bolted joints or seperating floor connections from core columns, or destroying the strength of the corner columns. Normal low tech thermite charges are capabale of melting through 1 inch steel plate. Sol-gel formed nanothermite can be made into into shape charges. All of this you (conveniently) disregard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

I’ve been trying to get Scott to state clearly what the theory is. I have asked many times. I keep hearing about thermite cutting steel and explosions destroying concrete but we have our favorite structural engineer talking about melting steel. So it doesn’t seem to fit. The conspiracy theorist has the luxury of being vague and then saying ‘all those things happened’. That way no theory could ever be invalidated, it just gets added to the list.

All the speculative reasoning is irrelevant since UNREACTED nanothermite WAS FOUND in the rubble!

http://www.911blogger.com/node/18459

Jones found elements whose chemical signature is not distinct to nanothermate.

Jones needs to demonstrate that there is no way those spheres/chips (whatever it is this month) could be there due to the materials in the buildings.

The other problem is demonstrating with certainty that they were not there as part of the original construction or clean up.

 

[MacGyver1968]

I agree with Scott (jesus christ..did I just say that?) Keeping things "above the belt" in this debate is one of the reason this thread is still around. It would be very, very easy for this thread to de-volve into insult fest. As most participants think the other side's argument is ridiculous. The only reason the mods allow this thread to even exist is because actual science is being discussed..sometimes. I've actually learned a few science facts from participating in this thread, and my involvement in it has to do with that, and practicing up on my debating skills. (Y'all have seen me try different types of arguments) Keeping it civil, and discussing the science will keep this thread alive. If I start telling Scott to "Pull his head out of his fucking ass, wipe the shit from his eyes and actually look at this..<insert point being made>" He's going to stop listening to the points I'm trying to make. He will only see me as the guy who insulted him. So lets continue and try to keep it clean. You fucking idiots! j/k

 

[shaman_]

if the steel had ONLY softened he would have ONLY said "softened", a description of partially melted steel would have included "melted", "melting", and "SOFTENING". You are seeing ONLY what you want to see.

If he saw the results of molten metal then why did he only refer to melting girders? Girders are not liquid. Why not mention molten metal? He didn’t and this is consistent with his earlier description.

if a block of ice sits in a pool of water, we can saying it is "melting"!!

That's a poor analogy. Ice can be a solid at -1C and a liquid at 1C. The change of state is not so black and white with steel and we are talking about a much larger range of temperatures. It can be changing states long before it is actually liquid.

I have given you the exact quote and linked to the article a myriad of times, but you can't resist calling me a LIAR over melted/melting.

If you don’t want to have your honesty called into question you should be more careful when quoting ‘melting’ as ‘melted’.

If your argument rests on a distinction between "melted" and "melting", then your argument is .....

My argument is supported by his explanation of very soft glowing steel and his belief that the fires alone were responsible. If you are going to use his words (occasionally), shouldn’t you take into account his analysis?

I am not interested in your interpretations anymore, it is clear you prefer word puzzles over logic and evidence.

a bridge is a different structure, would it have survived a hurricane as the towers were designed to withstand? many bridges just collapse with poor maintenance, there have been a few recent examples. .

There have been other examples of fires causing steel frames to collapse…..

do you have the answer to 4-across and 10-down?

Is it superjumbothermite?

He had little to work with - 90% of the steel was never inspected

There is an article stating that he inspected 40,000 tons. That is more than 10%

and the blueprints were withheld by silverstein until leaked to Steven Jones in 2007. This is what Astaneh says - "TENTATIVE CONCLUSIONS - The collapse of the towers was most likely due to the intense fire initiated by the jet fuel of the planes and continued due to burning of the building contents". If you understand science, you'll understand that a Hypothesis is not a definitive conclusion, that is why he titles his paper "A HYPOTHESIS FOR WHY THE TOWERS COLLAPSED".

If you understand science you will know that a scientific hypothesis is not just a guess. He believes that the evidence supports the hypothesis doesn’t he?

"tentative conclusions", "A hypothesis", "most likely," does that sound like a very clear definitive set-in-stone gospel to you? only a politician or a lawyer or a priest would put it to bed there, a scientist would not. Once more you make a ....of logic and evidence with your interpretation "he has made it...very clear that the fires alone caused the collapse". and "came to the conclusion that the fires alone caused the collapse."

His conclusion did not involve explosives and made no mention of liquid steel.

http://chronicle.com/free/v53/i03/03a02901.htm

“Mr. Astaneh-Asl also rejects such alternative theories. "I certainly don't buy into any of the conspiracy stuff," he says.

"Those are lightweight buildings," he adds. "There was no need for explosives to bring them down."”

Am I twisting his words with my insane logic?

 

[scott3x]

I agree with Scott (jesus christ..did I just say that?)

You've actually agreed with the 'above the belt' thing before, laugh .

Keeping things "above the belt" in this debate is one of the reasons this thread is still around. It would be very, very easy for this thread to de-volve into insult fest.

Something I constantly fear. Or that, at the very least, people get so upset with each other they simply throw in the towel and the thread deep sixes.

As most participants think the other side's argument is ridiculous.

You know, I've been thinking about all of this. I think that, in my case, the real issue is that I frequently don't understand why others could think that 9/11 was anything but an inside job. Certainly not the people who have been going at it with me for ages, such as Geoff, shaman and Kenny. I like to think that Geoff has left the scene because he's having doubts concerning the official story though (allow me to dream ;-)). However, as I've spoken to you guys more and more, I begin to see that there is a -lot- of info out there that can get one to believe that the official story is, in fact, true. If it were so easy to debunk I would have done so ages ago; and yet, here I am, more then 2 months after I started, and although I may dream that Geoff is having doubts and some progress has been made in the discussion, things haven't changed all that much. But then, in a way, what was I expecting? It's been 7 years since 9/11 so a few months shouldn't really make monumental changes. Still, I'm hoping we don't have to wait 50+ years and -still- have people doubting the established alternate story, as people do concerning Roosevelt's foreknowledge concerning Pearl Harbor.

The only reason the mods allow this thread to even exist is because actual science is being discussed..sometimes.

I'd like to think that some moderator out there actually thinks that some of the alternate story might be true instead of this thread only being tolerated because it brings up a bit of science...

I've actually learned a few science facts from participating in this thread, and my involvement in it has to do with that, and practicing up on my debating skills. (Y'all have seen me try different types of arguments)

So you're not even interested in persuading us alternate story believers of the veracity of the official story?

Keeping it civil, and discussing the science will keep this thread alive. If I start telling Scott to "Pull his head out of his fucking ass, wipe the shit from his eyes and actually look at this..<insert point being made>" He's going to stop listening to the points I'm trying to make. He will only see me as the guy who insulted him.

Not necessarily. When it comes to such things, only the gods themselves know what will happen . I may:
1- Criticize you for insulting me, then proceed to respond to your point.
2- Halt all discussion until I understand why you insulted me (this happened once with Geoff)
3- Go play World of Warcraft and forget about you insult prone people for a while (I've definitely done this many times ;-))
4- Some combination of the above and/or another, unforeseen action ;-).

So lets continue and try to keep it clean. You fucking idiots! j/k

Laugh . Sounds good to me.

 

[shaman_]

No, you are twisting it.

You are the one who made the leap that the deterioration of the steel must have been due to evaporation.

what word would you prefer people use instead of "quote"?.

Paraphrase.

So magic alchemy only occurs in wtc7 and not wtc1 and 2 ?

Don’t be stupid you cannot present evidence from WTC7 to determine what happened at WTC1+2. I would not attempt to debunk one by discussing the other.

"approached ~1000 degrees", did you know on a linear scale there are two directions to approach a point ?

Don't you find it interesting the mention of the figure of ~1000 degrees? when the minimum possible temperature of a liquid iron sulphur eutectic is 996C degrees. The paper leaves room for higher temperatures, but it leaves NO ROOM for lower temperatures. And it is also interesting that this minimum temperature of 996 Celcius for the molten Fe-S eutectic only exists if the Sulfur content of the eutectic mix is precisely 31.40%. if there is deviation either side by a percentage point or two for the sulfur content, the liquid eutectic can only exist at MUCH HIGHER temperatures, actually approaching the melting point of iron.

From “Microstructural Analysis of Steels from Buildings 7, 1, and 2 of the World Trade Center,”

"A eutectic microstructure was seen within the "slag" of iron oxides and iron sulfides. If these compounds were pure Wustite (FeO) and Iron sulfide (FeS), the eutectic temperature is 940oC. It appears that the severe "erosion" was due to the sulfidation and oxidation (i.e. hot corrosion) of the steel followed by the liquid "slag" attack of the grain boundaries. "

So i ask which is more likely - did this sulfidation occur as the temperature cooled from 2500C to 1000C (as would happen if thermate residue splashed on the steel),

Temperatures at 2500 and the only evidence is some splashing that could also be sulfidized steel? That's not particularly convincing.

Interesting comment from Ryan Mackey

“Thermate also contains barium – roughly ten times as much barium as sulfur, in the form of barium nitrate before ignition – and there is no evidence of barium.”

What do you think?

or did sulfidation occur at precisely 1000C as it heated up from room temperature, and just happened to find itself in the presence of an iron sulfur euctetic with precisely 31.40% content sulfur.

Also sulfur evaporates at 444 degrees Celcius, so if you choose the second option, you have to explain how free sulfur can itself exist liberated from any calcum sulphate compounds, but also how this free sulfur (once liberated) can avoid being evaporated as the temperature gradually rises to 1000C in order that the theoretically liberated free sulfur forms the iron sulfur eutectic.

Don’t know. So far I have gone by their conclusions that it wouldn't as chemistry is not my thing. So you disagree with their comment above regarding FeO and FeS?

 

[scott3x]

Here is an analogy of the fate I would like to avoid for this thread ;-)...
"Christian infighting in Jerusalem":
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7719843.stm

 

[scott3x]

Originally Posted by Headspin
No, you are twisting it.

You are the one who made the leap that the deterioration of the steel must have been due to evaporation.

Honestly, I'm not sure if Headspin knows how those conclusions were reached, but to be fair, no one is claiming that he's the person who made those conclusions to begin with. The people who allegedly made those conclusions were experts in such things. Thus, I think that the question of how the conclusion of evaporated steel was made should be asked to the people who allegedly made them:
Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl and Jonathan Barnett

I have in the past said that their claims should be investigated. Yes, yes, perhaps the reporter(s) in the New York Times got it all wrong, but why, after all these years, has no one asked the investigators themselves? That in and of itself should give us reason for concern.

 

[shaman_]

Honestly, I'm not sure if Headspin knows how those conclusions were reached, but to be fair, no one is claiming that he's the person who made those conclusions to begin with. The people who allegedly made those conclusions were experts in such things. Thus, I think that the question of how the conclusion of evaporated steel was made should be asked to the people who allegedly made them:
Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl and Jonathan Barnett

Their conclusions were that the fires caused steel to weaken which let to collapse.

I have in the past said that their claims should be investigated. Yes, yes, perhaps the reporter(s) in the New York Times got it all wrong, but why, after all these years, has no one asked the investigators themselves?

Perhaps people have and they were laughed at for asking stupid questions.

 

[scott3x]

Originally Posted by scott3x

Honestly, I'm not sure if Headspin knows how those conclusions were reached, but to be fair, no one is claiming that he's the person who made those conclusions to begin with. The people who allegedly made those conclusions were experts in such things. Thus, I think that the question of how the conclusion of evaporated steel was made should be asked to the people who allegedly made them:
Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl and Jonathan Barnett

Their conclusions were that the fires caused steel to weaken which let to collapse.

A -tentative- conclusion (and a poor one at that), at the very least in the case of Abolhassan.

Originally Posted by scott3x

I have in the past said that their claims should be investigated. Yes, yes, perhaps the reporter(s) in the New York Times got it all wrong, but why, after all these years, has no one asked the investigators themselves?

Perhaps people have and they were laughed at for asking stupid questions.

Must you continue with 'stupid' this and 'stupid' that? Can you atleast switch to absurd? I've used absurd but never 'stupid'.

In any case, I see personally believe that the question has great merit and would be most interested to know if he was or was not asked concerning this. I'd ask him myself if I knew how to, but seeing as he refuses to even consider Steven Jones' evidence, I have a feeling he might be even less interested in responding to an internet poster concerning this.

Anyway, in my search for information regarding evaporated/vaporized steel on the internet, I found quite a blog. For a while I have doubted that nuclear devices were involved in the collapse of the WTC buildings. I doubted it because I found very few people believing this to be the case; all I can remember is that there was just a claim that there was a lot of tritium at ground zero and that no one wanted to examine the debris for radioactivity.

A nuclear device or devices could also easily account for vaporized steel and would substantially lessen the amount of explosives required to bring down the towers. I'm still not sure if they were used, but after reading a fair amount from the below mentioned site, it seems fairly likely.

Anyway, here's the link:
http://wtcdemolition.blogspot.com/

 

[Stryder]

Sounds pretty pansy to me.

I think you need to remember that this a forum and everyone is anonymous. Don't take things personally. You shouldn't give people reasons to call you a moron anyhow. You avoid this stating claims that make sense, have evidence to back it up, and not denying others' evidence just because it questions your value system. For example, the mods put this thread here because they simply can't imagine the U.S. government doing this to the people to further their agenda. The 9/11 truth questions their belief system so they combat it by dismissing it altogether. Sometimes you get called a "moron" or a "sheep" for doing that. Or because you simply make a stupid claim because you have nothing left

Hope this helps.

No the mod's put this here because there is a lot of bullshit that people like to peddle. I mean all this about putting explosives in a building and flying aircraft into it? Why not just through a small nuke into it too while you are at it and glass the place? The reason why not is it's basically absurd.

While there might well of been some behind the seen's manipulation to force an attack, I wouldn't suggest that the attack was planned and carried out under US supervision. That would be like shooting yourself in the foot and claiming the enemy did it and eventually of course getting a gangrene infection and having that whole leg amputated.

 

[MacGyver1968]

Wow...Scott..a mini nuke?..Really? The author talks about the one million degree temperatures that a nuke would create...but completely fails to mention one very important aspect. When you heat up air...it expands..the hotter you heat it up and the more rapidly you heat it up, the faster and stronger it expands. You set off a nuke of any size, and you're going to create a TREMENDOUS shock wave and a boom that would deafen anyone in the near vicinity...and a light bright enough to blind you. Honestly Scott, this one is just ridiculous. Clearly we don't see a super-sonic shock wave emanating from the building at any point...nor do we see any light emissions that are brighter than the sun. Cross that one off your list.

 

[shaman_]

A -tentative- conclusion (and a poor one at that), at the very least in the case of Abolhassan.

You seem keen to ask him about his comment. Why don't you email him and ask him? While you are at it you should explain to him why you think his conclusions were poor.

Must you continue with 'stupid' this and 'stupid' that? Can you atleast switch to absurd? I've used absurd but never 'stupid'.

Actually I use absurd all the time and have been conscious of it. I will make an attempt to use a thesaurus when insulting your posts from now on Scott. Okay?

 

[scott3x]

Originally Posted by scott3x

A -tentative- conclusion (and a poor one at that), at the very least in the case of Abolhassan.

You seem keen to ask him about his comment. Why don't you email him and ask him? While you are at it you should explain to him why you think his conclusions were poor.

If I had his email address, I'd give it a shot, but I couldn't find it; perhaps for good reason, he's fairly well known and might not want to get flooded. I don't think it'd be a good idea to tellhim that I believe his conclusions were poor if I wanted to get a response back; I'd be surprised if I got a response even without doing this.

Actually I use absurd all the time and have been conscious of it. I will make an attempt to use a thesaurus when insulting your posts from now on Scott. Okay?

Woot