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

[scott3x]

Originally Posted by shaman_

Not everyone agrees with Manning’s criticism.
http://www.911myths.com/html/fire_en...ng_letter.html

http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm

Those 2 sites have been exposed as being disinformation sites sponsored by intellence assets whitin the US.

Like Kenny, I would be very interested in seeing any evidence you have to support this claim.

 

[scott3x]

Also, here' another way to point out the spooks on this forum.

1) 90% of their time is spent on debating people who they claim are crazy.

2) They always put in their profiles that they're from the UK or Australia, or some other shithole of a continent to masquerade thier true identities.

Maybe there are spooks in the forum. However, I now doubt it's any of the posters who regularly respond in here. I think you've got to remember that a lot of people want to believe the official 9/11 story. The idea that the government played a part in it would radically alter their world views. Most of the time, people don't like having their world views altered. Best to cling to whatever the official story tellers say. And I don't think this phenomenom is limited to americans.

 

[scott3x]

So he needs to prove that there should have been no barium in the WTC.

I don't know about barium, but take a look at this:

An earlier study notes the presence in the WTC dust of significant “metallic particles (mostly Ti and Fe [iron], although Zn, lead (Pb), Ba, and Cu were also found).”45 The USGS “Particle Atlas of World Trade Center Dust” shows micrographs of a few metallic spherules which they also observed in the dust (see especially Iron-03 and Iron-04.)46


Micrograph from USGS report confirms presence of iron-rich spheres in the dust produced during destruction of theWorld Trade Center.43, 46 How were the required high temperatures produced?

In the thermite/thermate reaction, many molten droplets are typically produced, which form spheres upon cooling in air. They are mostly metallic iron mixed with such other elements which were present in the thermite-analog used. For example, using a mixture of aluminum powder, iron and sulfur, we find small spheres are produced in the thermate reaction. The spheres from the thermite reaction are observed (using X-EDS methods) to contain strong peaks for aluminum and iron, and for “thermate”; sulfur is also prominent. (Note that the iron-aluminum-sulfur spheres from MacKinlay’s apartment contained very low calcium, so the sulfur is evidently not from gypsum, a common building material). Thus we have chemical signatures for thermite variants, and we will compare the composition of the thermite-generated spheres with the spheres found abundantly in the WTC dust.

In addition, if one adds other oxidizers to the mix such as copper oxide, potassium permanganate, zinc nitrate, and/or barium nitrate, then copper, potassium, manganese, zinc and/or barium will show strong peaks in the thermite-produced metallic spherules. Thus, one can determine by X-EDS analysis just what elements were used in the originating aluminothermic mixture.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf

From where does he collect his samples?

One was clearly from "MacKinlay’s apartment". As to the other mentioned, the USGS “Particle Atlas of World Trade Center Dust”, I don't know yet (this isn't my day job after all).

Anyway: unsurprising they kicked Kenny off the Troofer forum. They prefer Troof to truth, so I can imagine his arrival would have been poorly received.

They prefer civility to rudeness, as do I. However, few official story people post there and so it lacks arguments to counter.

 

[Miragememories]

"The sagging and bowing in the WTC was more than 3 inches, therefore these tests did not replicate what was going on in the WTC.

Are you trying to say that something suspicious was causing the extra sagging/bowing in the WTC? I fail to see how thermite or whatever else from your imagination could account for it."

There is no proof that floor trusses bent as much as NIST claimed they would have.

The NIST report, I believe stated that some trusses "sagged" 3 feet, instead of using the more honest terminology; that some trusses expanded in a downward directed "bend".

The NIST based there 3 foot assumption on favored tests and selective interpretation of test results.

According to NIST's theory, the inward "bowing" perimeter columns were a result of "sagging" floor trusses "pulling" them inward.

Maybe you would care to explain this "suck and blow" at the same time phenomenon?

Allow me to explain how this is an impossible "suck and blow" theory.

As the temperature of the steel trusses increased, they would expand.

The expanding trusses would push against the outer perimeter columns and and the inner core columns.

The heavy core columns would easily resist this pressure.

If the external perimeter columns were able to resist this pressure as well, the expanding trusses would have to bend to find space for their increasing length from heat expansion.

"Bending" is not the same as "sagging", although in outward appearance they may look the same.

Each floor truss would only start "pulling" on it's joined perimeter and core column when the steel became so hot that it lost all it's rigidity and was no longer "expanding and pushing".

At that point, the truss would pull and "sag" like a chain.

There is no reason to believe that such an incredibly high temperature was ever reached and sustained long enough to soften the truss steel to that degree.

MM

 

[Miragememories]

"We do know that, at the time the towers were designed, the NYC code called for three hours of fire resistance for the floor assemblies, and four hours of fire resistance for the columns."

"That is, if a 500mph airliner doesn't smash into the building and remove the fire proofing."

Or the tooth fairy with a magic wand.

Even in the impact area of WTC1 (North Tower) where high resolution photographs
provide a great amount of detail, there remained a lot of SFRM coated steel.

It is even more likely that the structural steel that was not in the direct path of the incoming aircraft,
as well as the areas which were shielded by the building's heavy steel core columns, would have had most of it's SFRM remain intact.

MM

 

[Miragememories]

"The initial aircraft impact would have pushed forward a large volume of air that would have pushed down partitions and thrust office furnishings forward.
It would clear large floor areas removing fuel for fire.

These blown office furnishings would also be part of the debris immediately exiting out the back windows of each tower and all the fluttering paper.

According to the references used by NIST, fires should have no heating effect on the SFRM protected steel for a minimum of 2 hours."

"Yes, much debris was seen exiting the other side of the tower with great force. Force great enough - you could say - to remove fire protection from the steel."

Debris (potential fire fuel) indeed exited the other side of the towers.

Exiting debris would be less likely to have removed SFRM because direct contact with SFRM coated structural steel would tend to block it's exit and severely reduce
it's remaining energy.

MM

 

[scott3x]

There you go again quoting external sources meaning when I reply, it becomes invisible.

You mean it's simply taken out. I know. I have dealt with the same problem when responding to posts from you and others. In post 910 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2020895&postcount=910), you state:
***Yes, but Steven Jones does claim it was thermAte. Correct me if I’m wrong, but a thermate reaction will always give off barium nitrate and aluminum oxide.***

If I had simply hit the reply button and attempted to figure out the answer from it, I would have been lost, since I frequently rely on links that I put in my posts and that you quote. So I went back to your original post, copied what you'd quoted from me and put it into my response, post 941 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2022667&postcount=941).

Anyway, when it comes to outside sources, I may begin to put *** to make it easier to respond.

 

[Miragememories]

"According to the references used by NIST, fires should have no heating effect on the SFRM protected steel for a minimum of 2 hours."

"Again, the steel was witnessed to be weakening due to the temperatures. Has the penny dropped yet? The steel had insufficient fire protection."

Show me your proof that steel was witnessed to have been sufficiently weakened
to behave in the manner to which you prescribe?

Again, extensive loss of fire protection is unproven, and the NIST was unable to back up there theory with unequivocal test proofs.

"Except for one case, fires behind windows on WTC1's east face last 6 minutes to 16 minutes. One window on floor 92 shows a fire lasting 28 minutes, which is long enough in duration to have the potential to warp steel." [NCSTAR 1-3, p58].

MM

 

[Miragememories]

"Because the very adhesive SFRM had to be almost all removed to make the simulation work, that appeared to be all the justification the NIST required to accept unsatisfactory testing."

"Their model worked because fire protection was removed by a 200 ton bullet."

A fully-loaded Boeing 767-200 has a maximum takeoff weight of 315,000 lbs or approximately a little more than 155 tons.

A bullet is a solid lead projectile.

A Boeing 767-200 is more like a missile with no warhead, deriving it's destructive ability from aviation fuel and direct impact with it's target.

The NIST model only achieved collapse initiation in their most severe case computer model.

In order to make their computer model succeed, NIST admitted that it was necessary to assume that most of the SFRM was removed.

NIST never proved the validity of that massive assumption.

MM

 

[Miragememories]

"But a 56 minute timeline and you say "So?" "

"Because that's what happened. There is nothing suspicious about how the towers fell. The fact that there is no controversy about this amongst experts should tell you that."

How short a lifespan would make you pause and reflect Kenny?

Many experts very much question the NIST Official Theory.

It's particularly questioned because of NIST's failure to successfully explain the
mysterious total high speed collapse of WTC 7.

MM

 

[GeoffP]

In order to make their computer model succeed, NIST admitted that it was necessary to assume that most of the SFRM was removed.

NIST never proved the validity of that massive assumption.

MM

Or the Troofers, of the assumption of thermite that also went boom.

By the by, do gas fires melt steel?

 

[John99]

How short a lifespan would make you pause and reflect Kenny?

Many experts very much question the NIST Official Theory.

It's particularly questioned because of NIST's failure to successfully explain the
mysterious total high speed collapse of WTC 7.

MM

because you have the official story and the unofficial story. with so many people in the world there will always be those hawking unofficial stories. some for political reason, some to build themselves a web site, some to write books and make dvd's. some play movies maker etc. some delusional too.

 

[Miragememories]

Or the Troofers, of the assumption of thermite that also went boom.

By the by, do gas fires melt steel?

When you start making articulate respectful posts, I'll respond to
your questions.

MM

 

[Miragememories]

"because you have the official story and the unofficial story. with so many people in the world there will always be those hawking unofficial stories. some for political reason, some to build themselves a web site, some to write books and make dvd's. some play movies maker etc. some delusional too."

Hawking?

The Official Story is based on the Official Theory.

I've read the NIST 10,000 page report and followed the discussion in many 9/11 forums.

My opinions are honest and I'm quite prepared to change my mind.

So far the Official Theory followers have failed to make a quality case that is supported by the evidence.

MM

 

[KennyJC]

I haven't heard any historians disagreeing with the official story, but that's certainly not the case with demolition and engineering experts. From Steven Jones "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?":

Because you can name a handful of "experts" that agree with you does not mean you have anything like the consensus the "official story" (as you like to call it) has among real experts.

Evidence isn't measured by how many people turn up at a rally. I support alternate 9/11 theories, and yet I certainly didn't go to New York to say so. I personally find that the best place to communicate such things is to people willing to listen. You may disagree with what I have to say, but atleast you're listening to it.

Well it strikes me as a very modest number considering that they actually believe the government orchestrated 9/11. If I genuinely believed the government did this, I would be rallying.

150? That is pathetic! New York City has a population of over 8 million people!

They didn't accuse him of dishonesty; they accused him of offensiveness.

Of course, because what they have is like a religion. Any website that is dedicated to things like religion, conspiracy theories, the paranormal; they all operate of belief and belief alone. They know this, so they get embarrassed when someone ridicules them. They have something to hide, which is why they have to keep a tab on people that come on to ridicule them. I don't feel I ridiculed them anymore than Headspin ridiculed RKOwens, and yet I was the only one that was banned.

I would love to post on Loose Change forums, but if they can't handle being ridiculed, I guess it's not to be.

I must admit I really do wish that Kenny would be more civil at times... but at the same time I recognize that he's helped my ability to counter 9/11 official story arguments. It may be that Kenny is incapable of being civil enough to stay in truther forums, but if you stay in truther forums, you don't get the rich amount of official story arguments that need to be worked on. Anyway, if you're in an interesting debate on abovetopsecret.com, by all means send me a PM with the link ;-).

I'm glad I've helped you become more dishonest than you were when I started with you. Right off the bat, I labeled you as a dishonest person and when confronted with facts I've watched you become more and more dishonest to ignore them.

Maybe there are spooks in the forum. However, I now doubt it's any of the posters who regularly respond in here. I think you've got to remember that a lot of people want to believe the official 9/11 story. The idea that the government played a part in it would radically alter their world views. Most of the time, people don't like having their world views altered. Best to cling to whatever the official story tellers say. And I don't think this phenomenom is limited to americans.

The fact you believe the government would place spies on thousands of forums like this completely discredits anything you say. You are a tin hatter.

 

[GeoffP]

When you start making articulate respectful posts, I'll respond to
your questions.

MM

MM,

I respectfully request that you articulate a response to the conflict of hearing explosions in the Towers with your suddenly and respectfully evoked hypothesis of thermite being used to cut the steel. In the common parlance this is sometimes respectfully referred to as "How thermite go boom?"

With respectful articulation,

GeoffP

 

[GeoffP]

Oh, and: Does gas melt steel or not?

These are questions pertinent to our articulate respectation.

 

[KennyJC]

Or the tooth fairy with a magic wand.

Even in the impact area of WTC1 (North Tower) where high resolution photographs
provide a great amount of detail, there remained a lot of SFRM coated steel.

The same picture NIST provided which showed no fire proofing on the steel?

It is even more likely that the structural steel that was not in the direct path of the incoming aircraft, as well as the areas which were shielded by the building's heavy steel core columns, would have had most of it's SFRM remain intact.

What makes you think the core columns had most of its fire proofing when many of the steel columns would have been severed or heavily damaged by the plane?

Show me your proof that steel was witnessed to have been sufficiently weakened
to behave in the manner to which you prescribe?

The inward bowing of the perimeter columns and initiation of collapse happened exactly where the fire was doing the most damage. This was seen to happen with both towers.

There is also photographic evidence of the floors sagging to be found here:
http://www.debunking911.com/sag.htm

Again, extensive loss of fire protection is unproven, and the NIST was unable to back up there theory with unequivocal test proofs.

In all likelihood, there may have been parts of the steel that were naked prior to the plane crashing into the building. You can see photographs of this here:
http://www.debunking911.com/fires.htm

But since you claim to have read all 10,000 pages of the NIST report, you would have seen them already.

The NIST model only achieved collapse initiation in their most severe case computer model.

In order to make their computer model succeed, NIST admitted that it was necessary to assume that most of the SFRM was removed.

NIST never proved the validity of that massive assumption.

Regardless of how much evidence NIST found of fireproofing being removed, it's the simplest explanation that the destructive force of the impact and explosion removed much of the fireproofing in the areas fire developed.

I think this beats your unproven thermite theory. I'm still waiting for you to show a test in which thermite could horizontally cut a thick steel beam remotely. Instead of cherry picking the NIST report, why don't you give us some calculations on your alternative theory? For all the hot air nutjobs spend on thermite, they never actually proceed in showing how it would be possible.

How short a lifespan would make you pause and reflect Kenny?

On reflection, I'm surprised it stood that long at all. A plane carves a hole in a skyscraper and it still stands. Amazing.

Many experts very much question the NIST Official Theory.

I sure am keen to learn of any controversy about how the towers collapsed. Scott has failed in his attempts as the only thing he can do is cite a kooky website full of noname "experts".

It's particularly questioned because of NIST's failure to successfully explain the mysterious total high speed collapse of WTC 7.

Well obviously you ignore the internal failure that preceded the external collapse of WTC7.

A failure of a critical structural element means that the immense weight from above succumbs to gravity. Depending on the structure, it's entirely believable that the whole thing could come down very quickly. It's nothing like that "clunkity-clunk" nutjob stated. It's simply gravity and momentum.

 

[Miragememories]

Oh, and: Does gas melt steel or not?

These are questions pertinent to our articulate respectation.

Geoff your question is incomprehensible.

MM

 

[Miragememories]

MM,

I respectfully request that you articulate a response to the conflict of hearing explosions in the Towers with your suddenly and respectfully evoked hypothesis of thermite being used to cut the steel. In the common parlance this is sometimes respectfully referred to as "How thermite go boom?"

With respectful articulation,

GeoffP

Boom?

Please Geoff, show me where I characterized thermite ignition as creating a "boom"?

Since you raised the subject, sources tell me that thermite is available in a composition
that is explosive in character.

"nanothermite composite leads to a fast propagating combustion, generating shock waves with Mach numbers up to 3"

Mach 3 is equivalent to 1,020 m/s.

"High explosives...detonates at rates ranging from 1,000 to 9,000 meters per second"

So I guess Nano-thermite can behave similarly to a high explosive including the sound wave.

MM