9/11 Conspiracy Thread (There can be only one!)
- Thread starter Stryder
- Start date
- Status
you really cannot tell the difference between sensational headlines and text in a newspaper with zero scientific credentials, and forensic reports written by scientists?
Where did you come up with that figure?
"15-18 perimeter and 5-6 core columns were severed at the 95th and 96th floors.[15] A large section of the 96th floor slab, 40 ft wide and 80 ft in depth, was destroyed upon impact.[15] Insulation was knocked off nearly all the core columns and 40 foot portion of the floor trusses on the south side of the tower.[15] Twelve perimeter columns were severed on the 97th floor.[16] In all, 35 perimeter and six core columns were severed.[16] Fireproofing insulation was stripped off of 43 out of 47 core columns, as well as floor trusses covering 60,000 ft2 of area.[17]"
http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/World_Trade_Center
The outer columns can be seen sagging. Perhaps you could explain that. .. and don't say optical illusion/refraction. Photos from different angles confirm the bowing and it was greatest at the end when less fire was seen.
That is specifically the inner columns.
There were columns of twisted steel that clearly went over that temperature....
6th time. Irrelevant numbers as we don't know the temperature of the surrounding atmosphere. Was it as hot as WTC? You have been presented with tests where the temperature was comparable to WTC and the steel was up around 900C
Last edited:
This is a very simplistic characterisation. Are you claiming that it is impossible that it could not have been applied to the steel as sprayable fireproofing foam, or an intumescent fireproofing paint, or placed inside the box columns?
you say "as you stated all three of these compounds create a pool of super heated molten iron".
No, I never said that, this seems to be your interpretation of the behaviour of thermite materials.
energetic materials such as nanothermite, or MICs (Metastable Intermolecular Composites) can be designed with and without any number of physical properties as required or not required. They can be molecularly designed to contain RDX explosives within the molecular structure which would make them ignitie through shock rather than temperature (as would be the case for your standard macro thermite powder). That is, MICs can be tailor made to requirements and be designed to behave as high-explosives or incendaries or somewhere in between. Indeed the temperature produced by nanocomposite energetic materials can be tailored and increased above that of normal thermite powders to not just melt but evaporate steel. What you are describing is the basic macro thermite powder reaction used for hundreds of years, but technology has advanced somewhat since then.
Last edited:
Can you show me proof that this is the case, or am I just to accept your word on that?
No, there is much more evidence for thermite than just that.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/Ryan_NIST_and_Nano-1.pdf
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JLobdillThermiteChemistryWTC.pdf
or for a wider perspective you could look at all the articles:
http://www.journalof911studies.com
We are discussing "molten" iron, you should not be lumping in "red hot" if you are seeking an honest discussion. I am only aware of unscientific brainstorming ramblings from anti-truth movement people with what seems to be a politically fascist agenda who consider any alternative regardless of plausabilty.
He did pick up something suspicious - melted girders, and he's not the only expert to have done so.
No, that is simply not the case. he says "Here <the bridge>, it most likely reached about 1,000 to 1,500 degrees (Fahrenheit). And that is enough to collapse them, so they collapsed. So the word "melting" should not be used for girders, because there was no melting of girders <at the bridge>.
I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center."
please read the link:
http://tinyurl.com/4sq3ae
He clearly distinguishes between melting at the wtc and non-melting at the bridge.
You are making out that girders just softened and buckled at both events, that is not the case:
"there was no melting of girders <at the bridge>."
"I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center"
Then NIST do not agree with his conclusions, i am not aware that he has published any work with analysis and conclusions, so there can only be a lot of assumptions in your statement unless you want to point me to his published work.
So you are happy to accept that fire will twist and soften steel, but thermite which produces heat, fire and molten iron, will not twist and soften steel. this is not logical.
If thermite is found in the debris, then whether beams melted, were cut, how they were cut, what devices if any, and how it was installed is pretty much irrelevent. like I said, if explosive residues are found in a destructive event we can conclude with confidence that explosives were a cause for that event, wouldn't you agree?
Last edited:
Steel beams twist in a fire, because they are heated along their whole length at various temperatures...the difference in temperatures cause different amounts of expansion of the steel...twisting it. Thermite creates a point source of heat and wouldn't do this.
Beams are also twisted and bent from stresses during a collapse, but we cannot rule out the existence of a fire pre-collapse because collapse stresses can bend steel. You are saying because fire can twist and bend steel we can rule out energetic materials such as nanothermite. This is a logical fallacy.
as I said before- if explosives are forensically found, then we can deduce explosives were used, do you agree?
I'm sorry, but this isn't so.
Now, whether or not the site interchanges Celsius and Fahrenheit in describing the lag is not particularly relevant. At the most extreme lag (200C), the corresponding Fahrenheit lag would be 392F. This would put the steel temperature in those locations at around 1400 F, "which is far above the 1100 degree mark that steel loses 50% of its structural integrity". Same same.
Further, from one of your sites that Shaman linked to:
This is a loss of strength that far, far exceeds the definition of "catastrophic" in my book.
I also note your earlier statement:
So you've already tacitly admitted to the point: the steel lost strength. This bugbear has been laid to rest - but it is not something that Troofer physics can explain. Why not simply admit to the admission?
While JFK's assassination was very curious, I don't think it approaches this. But if you have evidence that it does, by all means let us see it.
No. Scott, the word "conspiracy" is a charged one, and it has a single meaning in the mind of the proliteriat with respect to this case: inside job. So, no: I cannot in good faith permit this very politicized assertion, whatever the actual meaning. I would suggest that you refrain from the association, as it has an implicit bias in recognition. Your own recognition of this fact is particularly evident in the next item you accidentally bring up:
Your unfortunate quote above illustrates your own actual impressions of the word "conspiracy" in this matter and, if I were less charitable, I would consider this as evidence of deliberate duplicity.
I regret to inform you that it is not. I have seen nothing - not a single piece of information - that I could in all conscience call "evidence" of your hypothesis. I further regret to inform you that I have seen distortion, avoidance, word play, speculation, begging of the question, rotation of facts around the central hypothesis and refusal of acknowledgement. I would not go so far as deception, although I think your avowals on the use of the word conspiracy come close. Mr. Ryan unfortunately has made the connection between "conspiracy" and "cover-up" for you quite unequivocally.
Heavens alive! You do?
I shall write this in my dream diary.You do realize this isn't helping your case? "Well...maaaaybe you're not a government agent. But you could be." Scott, seek help. I really think you should.
Oh?
Like the guys at Popular Mechanics, you mean? NIST?
Geoff
PS: Heady - way to go on dissing the fifth estate. What sensationalism! What verve!
...a bridge fire, I ask you.
Oh come on. 500C-800C was enough to cause the steel to soften so that a bridge collapsed. Jet fuel burns hotter than that. That bridge collapsed from the gasoline alone.
Here is a toilet paper paper factory that collapsed from the fire alone. No plane hit this building! There must have been explosives...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/hereford/worcs/6105942.stm
I can probably find a document rebutting thermite for every one that you post. Anyway I'll look at those tomorrow.
The hypocrisy... By rambling about honesty you dodged my question.
No he does not think it is suspicious. He was the one who investigated the steel and thinks the fire is responsible. So I will ask you again, if he was talking about molten steel why was convinced that the fire was responsible?
No I am saying that he is not talking about molten steel.
He testified at the 911 commission.
His paper "2003/11 - Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl - World Trade Center Collapse, Field Investigation and Analysis - Proceedings of the Ninth Arab Structural Engineering Conference, 29 November – 1 December 2003, Abu Dhabi - full paper (pdf)" Has been taken off the berkely site though.
How do NIST disagree with his conclusions?
The assumption here is on your part as, since he has been brought up, I have read many articles where he gives his opinion.
While I can't find his that document it is quite clear where he stands.
http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/2007/06/berkeley-engineer-searches-for-truth.html
"
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."
"
No you are, once again, dodging the question. Thermite was brought up by the crackpot Steven Jones. His initial theory (correct me if I'm wrong) was that thermite would cut through the steel like a knife and butter. The theory was that thermite would explain the photos of steel cut on angles.
Now I want you to clarify. Are you saying that thermite could also be used to just make steel hotter somehow, without cutting it, so that it softens. That sounds like you are contradicting Jones.
Not if there were other reasons for the residue which had nothing to do with explosives. Not when it is clear that fire alone can cause steel to weaken.
The funniest part of Headspin's post had to be the "sensational headlines and text". I can just see the grudging typing as he was forced to note that the text did indeed support the headlines completely.
"Oh that Geoff! I wish he didn't read his sources!" grumble grumble
Hee hee!
Geoff
"Oh that Geoff! I wish he didn't read his sources!" grumble grumble
Hee hee!
Geoff
The whole cut steel thing is absurd. I've seen the cut steel pics - they come from the rescue and cleanup. I think it quite likely that when one is rescuing people - or attempting to do so, in this case - people from collapsed buildings, that it might be necessary to cut some of the beams that form the pile. I really rather doubt they were too terribly concerned over what the Starbucks ratpack might think about it later on.
In what reality does "melting" not mean "molten" ?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/melted
http://www.wordreference.com/definition/melting
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/melting
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/molten
http://www.wordreference.com/definition/molten
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/molten
Last edited:
It really doesn't matter.
So a slightly more contained fire generates melted girders, and when steel hits 1000F, it loses support strength. Not deviant from the explanation for the WTC. Not part of the linked article cited by Headspin. Not a surprise.
I also note this:
Why did the bridge collapse? Why did CalTran remove the girders so quickly?
...could it be a conspiracy? No planes hit those bridges!
So a slightly more contained fire generates melted girders, and when steel hits 1000F, it loses support strength. Not deviant from the explanation for the WTC. Not part of the linked article cited by Headspin. Not a surprise.
I also note this:
Why did the bridge collapse? Why did CalTran remove the girders so quickly?
...could it be a conspiracy?
No planes hit those bridges!Well to be accurate - this one. Read your definitions. Melting is the process where a solid turns to liquid. Molten is the final stage. A girder that is melting is not necessarily the same as a pool of molten steel.
So perhaps you could answer my question. If he saw evidence of molten steel why does he think the fire alone is responsible?
What you are quoting makes absolutely no mention of floor 98 at all. As to my source:
**************************************************
According to the final reports of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the collapse of the North Tower, began on floor 98.[1] NIST also reproduces photographs said to be taken at the time of the collapse showing fire and debris being expelled from floor 98, and showing the section of the building above this floor tilting.[2] Although some aspects of NIST's work on the WTC have been questioned, the author is not aware of any reliable claims giving the collapse initiation floor for WTC1 as anything other than 98. In addition, a review of video sequences appeared to confirm NIST’s view.[3]
Floor 98 was not in the centre of the impact area, but was struck by a portion of the aircraft. The fuselage and the engines hit floors 95 and 96, whereas floor 98 was only hit by the outer section of the plane’s starboard wing. Five of the perimeter columns on floor 98 were severed. If 50% of the building’s gravity load is assumed to be carried by the columns in the building's core and 50% by the 236 perimeter columns, the five severed perimeter columns would have degraded floor 98’s ability to bear the gravity load it supported by slightly more than 1%.
**************************************************
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/FentonWTCInitiationFloors.pdf
There is no distinction here that makes a difference. The evidence of "molten steel" (or "melted steel" if you prefer) is important because it gives us a temperature that the steel underwent. whether there is a pool of molten steel, or a melted end, or a middle section of the steel that melted all means the same thing - the steel was heated to its melting temperature. In order to melt in a fire, its environment temperature has to be above its melting temperature. no molten steel or iron should have existed at the wtc event because the temperature of an office fire does not exceed the melting temperature of steel, yet tons of molten iron was found.
he has offered a hypothesis (not a proof) and says it "might explain", this doesn't mean he is "convinced" as you put it. in fact he actually sounds unconvinced by his own hypothesis.
So which part of his testimony are we supposed to belief then? You claim that tons of molten steel was found, but I really haven't seen any evidence that would indicate that. There were hundreds of contruction workers at ground zero to clear the rubble. If anyone would have seen "tons of molten steel" it would have been them. Why don't hear from them?
Headspin said:
If it's still recognizable as a girder, then it's hardly molten is it?
No matter how much emphasis you put on his use of the word "melting", he does not believe in any alternative theories or conspiracies. Which makes me wonder why you continue to use his testimony when he maintains that fire caused the damage he saw.
Just prove to me that it can be done, then I will listen. With all the people involved in the truth movement, I'm not aware that any of them have tried to cut a thick steel beam with thermite.
I wonder why...
As much as you'd love to be able to avoid the issue of demonstrating the feasibility of thermite initiating the collapse, no thermite was found in the debris or in the dust. What you have are elements that were present in the WTC, and you can not even find barium nitrate and aluminium oxide which would instantly give the thermite hypothesis some merit.
Why should we rule it in? Do you have evidence that will stand up to the scientific test?
So long as it's real evidence.
- Status