yes, Gany..you should sue him...the whole "checkmate" thing is kinda your trademark
It's routine when arson is suspected; as one might imagine, buildings being slyly demolished isn't something that comes up too often.
Is it? Where?
Thermite is heavy...frozen smoke is super duper light. Two totally different things. Thermite is notoriously hard to ignite...you put any separation between the particles, as in a foam or something, and the reaction would fizzle out.
If the "Insiders" asked me to lead the black ops team in charge of bringing down the towers...I'd use "collar" charges. Shaped charges enclosed in a steel collar, bolted around the central core columns in the basement.
I would stage a chemical spill in the parking garage area, and blame it on a stupid truck driver leaking something he shouldn't have been carrying...because people are afraid of "toxic waste" and use the opportunity to get my team in and install them.
I'd make sure they looked like part of the structure..and didnt have any wires or blinking lights like you see in the movies.
In addition to the collar charges meant to bring the towers down...I would also install one or more "I'm not bullshitting charges" planted in a very visible place, using a more hollywood style of explosive that would make a big impressive fireball.
Call Channel 5 news, claiming to be Islam terrorists...tell them where to point their cameras, and blow the "Im not bull shitting charge"...then I wait long enough for all of America and the world to be tuned in and blow both tower at the same time on live tv. No need for planes.
If I did it, and I was employed by the government, how the hell is anyone supposed to prove it was actually the government behind it?
When aluminum is melted it is silvery. If you keep heating it turns yellow though. NIST estimated temperatures 1000C. I don't think we can be confident that the test there appropriately simulates the conditions of 9/11. Did they have the correct temperatures, the materials of the plane, the office materials, was there similar slag formation?Perhaps you never saw the response I gave you a long time ago to that very same statement. It's there somewhere in the mighty tangle. I didn't include the post number, but I saved my response. Here it is:
The following video clips show Michael Ware who is an assistant Professor from NIST, trying to recreate what was observed flowing out of WTC 2 just seconds before it collapsed:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQdkyaO56OY
Apparently an official story defender did another test that seemed to vindicate the 'molten aluminum claim'. He failed. Jerry Lobdill, in his "Molten What?" article, explains why:
**************************************
Dr. Wood has claimed that the liquid metal flowing out of the 82nd floor of WTC-2 could be aluminum on the basis of her experiment, wherein a titanium ladle full of pure aluminum was heated until both the ladle and the liquid aluminum were orange hot. The aluminum, as it heated up, appeared to radiate with a less intense energy than the titanium, but the color was the same. As expected, the aluminum melted at 660 degrees Centigrade, and at that temperature the radiant spectrum and the emissivity of aluminum conspired to make the liquid aluminum appear silvery (no apparent glowing). As the temperature of the aluminum rose it began to glow with the same color as the ladle.
The problem with concluding that the liquid flowing from the tower’s 82nd floor could have been aluminum on the basis of Dr. Wood’s experiment is that the liquid in the tower was not confined in a container so that more heat could be applied to raise the temperature of the liquid above its melting point. Instead, as soon as the metal liquefied it flowed away from the heat source under the force of gravity. Therefore, the color of the liquid flowing from the 82nd floor was at approximately the melting point of the metal. And therefore, it was molten iron from steel.
Dr. Jones demonstrated by experiment that organic material floats on the liquid aluminum and burns up (oxidizes). Further, the liquid aluminum in this experiment was never heated to the point where it no longer appeared silvery. This experiment gave the expected result. Organic material would not change the color vs temperature behavior of aluminum.
The conclusion of this analysis is inescapable. The liquid metal was molten iron.
**************************************
http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/MoltenWhat2.pdf
No idea. It's a non issue though as we have discussed several times the steel which was compared to soft licorice and there is evidence of the floor bowing towards the end. Clearly there were high temperatures and the steel was affected.Alright. As you know, the alternate story generally posits that explosives were used. Most if not all ASBs (Alternate Story Believers, I made the term up just now) believe that the temperatures were indeed much higher, but that the fires initiated by the planes and barely sustained afterwards had nothing to do with it. I'm curious: what is the official explanation for them not taking more samples from the impact floors?
That was addressed in what I quoted. I will requote the relevant section:
**************************
[NIST]"The jet fuel greatly accelerated the fire growth. Only about 60 percent of the combustible mass of the rubblized workstations was consumed. The near-ceiling temperatures varied between 800 ºC and 1,100 ºC. (p 125-6/175-6) "
[Kevin Ryan]Temperatures of 800 ºC to 1,100 ºC (1472 ºF to 2012 ºF) are normally observed only for brief times in building fires, in a phenomenon known as flashover. Flashover occurs when uncombusted gases accumulate near the ceilings and then suddenly ignite. Since flame consumes the pre-heated fuel-air mixture in an instant, very high temperatures are produced for a few seconds. Note that this temperature range includes the 900 ºC recorded using the megawatt super-burner, so they must have had to pour on quite a lot of jet fuel.
The first section of the Report describing the fires deceptively implies that 1,000 ºC (1832 ºF) temperatures (rarely seen in even momentary flashovers) were sustained, and that they were in the building's core.
**************************
Show me a large structure demolished with thermite, thermate, super thermite, mega thermite nanothermite or whatever the theory is this year.It's nanothermite, super thermite or thermate. This superfragilistic stuff doesn't discredit the fact that this explosive does exist and its capabilities have been proven.
Sigh. You have twisted steel girders which were softened by the heat. These soft steel girders alone can explain the collapse of the building. So does your thermite family explain this softened steel? Are you saying that the columns were cut and caused collapse? Are you saying that an explosive caused the collapse? (even though one was not seen) Which one is it? What is the theory and does it explain softened girders? Stop being evasive.As to soft steel, put the comment in a relevant context; explain soft steel in what?
No!Nanothermite is clearly a type of thermite. But its properties are different then regular thermite, mainly that it is an explosive whereas regular thermite is only an incendiary. It may be that at first Steven Jones was unaware of nanothermite, or thermate. I could certainly believe that Steven Jones' original expertise in explosives was somewhat lacking;
As clear as the evidence for a missile hitting the pentagon? It would not matter if every single line of his papers were debunked you would believe regardless. Some would consider this an admirable quality. I do not.he had been studying energetics of a different type prior to 9/11, namely muon catalyzed fusion. However, after he began doubting the official story, I believe that he made it his business to learn a great deal regarding explosives. The evidence of this is clear in my mind and in the minds of many more.
You cannot seriously think you can use (questionable) evidence for WTC7 to to determine the cause of the WTC1+2 collapse? Why not look at the wreckage of the Pentagon to determine what happened as well? This reasoning would be dishonest and flawed.When did I say otherwise? And how does this change anything?
It cracks me up when I see this catchcry. By using it you are implying that a plane is enough to bring down a building.If anything, the temperature should have been -less- there if it was caused by office fires alone. After all, no plane hit WTC 7.
Ah the article which states that they have found the reason for the collapse. While the evaporated comment is a strange one, if there were genuinely temperatures in that range then how did the engineers come to that conclusion?The theory propagated in the article is that diesel fuel tanks were the cause. But this was later discredited by NIST. Perhaps there was a fatal flaw in the theory that even NIST couldn't cover up, but there is some irony here: The 'diesel fuel' explanation sounds more plausible then that it was just office fires alone. I have a strong feeling that not everyone was paid off in FEMA and -someone- who played a part in the report felt that office furniture alone didn't have a chance in hell of evaporating steel, which would have required temperatures of 5000 degrees.
The source article is here:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E02E3DE143DF93AA15752C1A9679C8B63
No you are not thinking through what you are suggesting. If he was involved in the a cover up why would he make the comment? If he wasn't involved why would he be allowed to see steel and investigate it?That is a good question, isn't it? Perhaps it's hard to wrap your head around the concept of a government official trying to tow the party line, but do you believe it may be because it didn't mesh well with the idea that office fires alone were its cause?
Firstly we still have no reliable evidence for molten steel. This has been done over and over. Well touch on it once more for the fun of it.Yep:
**************************************************
The unexplained presence of molten metal at the World Trade Center (WTC) puzzled Jones and he contacted this writer to confirm the reports first published in American Free Press in 2002. These reports came from two men involved in the removal of the rubble: Peter Tully of Tully Construction of Flushing, N.Y., and Mark Loizeaux of Controlled Demolition, Inc. of Phoenix, Md.
Tully told AFP that he had seen pools of “literally molten steel” in the rubble.
Loizeaux confirmed this: “Yes, hot spots of molten steel in the basements,” he said, “at the bottom of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven levels.”
The molten steel was found “three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed,” he said. He confirmed that molten steel was also found at WTC 7, which mysteriously collapsed in the late afternoon.
**************************************************
http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/cutter_charges_brought_down_wt.html
The problem is that the temperatures required are extremely unlikely and it would leave much more evidence than a comment by an engineer which seems to be contradicted by his team's report. You have an extremely unlikely scenario with no reliable evidence to support it.The New York Times article doesn't specify how many people found evidence for the evaporated steel. The person who mentioned there was evidence of evaporated steel was Dr. Barnett. The New York times article said this:
***************************************
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."
No but when you are taking something to be true when there is a lack of evidence you are using blind faith. Conspiracy theorists do not critically look at the evidence because they don't want to see that the conspiracy isn't there. (Don't even think about arguing the definition of conspiracy theory with me you know damn well what I meant)Unlike the case of the firefighters, I haven't seen any FEMA employees saying that this was the case. A lack of evidence is not evidence of its lack,
Are you like the guy out of Memento? We have discussed those two before. Perhaps you think that you can wait a month and then bring something up which has been addressed and no one will notice. Wow so much evidence! Never mind that it is all crap.but there's no smoking gun there at any rate.
However, writing this got me to thinking of the one firefighter who -outright- said that there was high up interference, Paul Isaac Jr. I've now found the article from the reporter who spoke to him as well as to another firefighter. Here is the relevant excerpt:
***********************************
Before beginning this article, I met Auxiliary Lieutenant Fireman and former Auxiliary Police Officer, Paul Isaac Jr. at the World Trade Center Memorial. Paul, along with many other firemen, is very upset about the obvious cover-up and he is on a crusade for answers and justice. He was stationed at Engine 10, across the street from the World Trade Center in 1998 and 99; Engine 10 was entirely wiped out in the destruction of the towers. He explained to me that, many other firemen know there were bombs in the buildings, but theyre afraid for their jobs to admit it because the higher-ups forbid discussion of this fact. Paul further elaborated that former CIA director Robert Woolsey, as the Fire Departments Anti-terrorism Consultant, is sending a gag order down the ranks. There were definitely bombs in those buildings, he told me. He explained to me that, if the building had pancaked as its been called, the falling floors would have met great resistance from the steel support columns, which would have sent debris flying outward into the surrounding blocks. I asked him about the trusses, and quoted the history channels dont trust a truss explanation for the collapses. He responded in disbelief, and told me, You could never build a truss building that high. A slight wind would knock it over! Those buildings were supported by reinforced steel. Building dont just implode like that; this was a demolition.
***********************************
http://www.prisonplanet.com/analysis_lavello_050503_bombs.html
You are sounding more desperate now.Just after the disaster, Firefighter Louie Cacchioli said, We think there were bombs set in the building. Notice he said we. At 9:04, just after flight 175 collided with the South Tower, a huge explosion shot 550 feet into the air from the U.S. Customs House known as WTC 6. A huge crater scars the ground where this building once stood. Something blew up WTC 6 - it wasnt a plane; it must have been a bomb of some sort.
"Furthermore, Cacchioli was upset that People Magazine misquoted him, saying "there were bombs" in the building when all he said was he heard "what sounded like bombs" without having definitive proof bombs were actually detonated."
When aluminum is melted it is silvery. If you keep heating it turns yellow though.
There may certainly be something other than just aluminum flowing out of the building. Maybe there is lead or sulfur in there I don't know.
However it is almost certainly not iron or steel.
If there was molten steel/iron flowing for a few minutes why is the steel around the area of the flow keeping its strength?
If there were temperatures of 1500C + and material that temperature flowing out like a river why is the face of the building not affected by this molten flow?
If it were 1500C it would be. However it would have had no trouble withstanding a molten light alloy that was less than 1000C. There was bowing nearby but that was not localized to the area of the molten flow.
According to http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm the color of the material would have turned black as it fell and cooled.
If we ignore these issues another question would be, where did the tonnes of aluminium go?
Originally Posted by scott3xAlright. As you know, the alternate story generally posits that explosives were used. Most if not all ASBs (Alternate Story Believers, I made the term up just now) believe that the temperatures were indeed much higher, but that the fires initiated by the planes and barely sustained afterwards had nothing to do with it. I'm curious: what is the official explanation for them not taking more samples from the impact floors?
No idea. It's a non issue though as we have discussed several times the steel which was compared to soft licorice and there is evidence of the floor bowing towards the end. Clearly there were high temperatures and the steel was affected.
Originally Posted by scott3x
That was addressed in what I quoted. I will requote the relevant section:
**************************
[NIST]"The jet fuel greatly accelerated the fire growth. Only about 60 percent of the combustible mass of the rubblized workstations was consumed. The near-ceiling temperatures varied between 800 ºC and 1,100 ºC. (p 125-6/175-6) "
[Kevin Ryan]Temperatures of 800 ºC to 1,100 ºC (1472 ºF to 2012 ºF) are normally observed only for brief times in building fires, in a phenomenon known as flashover. Flashover occurs when uncombusted gases accumulate near the ceilings and then suddenly ignite. Since flame consumes the pre-heated fuel-air mixture in an instant, very high temperatures are produced for a few seconds. Note that this temperature range includes the 900 ºC recorded using the megawatt super-burner, so they must have had to pour on quite a lot of jet fuel.
The first section of the Report describing the fires deceptively implies that 1,000 ºC (1832 ºF) temperatures (rarely seen in even momentary flashovers) were sustained, and that they were in the building's core.
**************************
Ryan Mackey again
"This is wrong. To demonstrate the errors above, we will use the temperature data from Appendix C of NCSTAR1-5E, which is both representative of an ordinary fire and well suited to the situation in the WTC Towers.
Mr. Hoffman here again complains about the “megawatt super-burner,” but the author reminds Mr. Hoffman that the “super-burner” was only active for the first 600 seconds of tests 1, 2, and 4, and the first 120 seconds of tests 3, 5, and 6.
Readers may ignore these time periods if desired as they do not affect our conclusions
Mr. Hoffman’s other mistakes in the excerpt above are as follows:
· In our discussion of Mr. Douglas’s claims in Appendix C of this whitepaper, we have criticized NIST on the basis that the jet fuel used in these tests – 4 L per workstation, as described on Page 8 of NCSTAR1-5E – was too little, approximately one third the amount expected to remain after the aircraft impact
and initial fireballs. Mr. Hoffman’s claim that “they must have had to pour on quite a lot of jet fuel” is in fact completely backwards. The author believes the amount was insufficient.
· The NIST Report does not imply, deceptively or otherwise, that there were sustained temperatures in excess of 1100 oC in the core. NIST’s estimates of gas temperatures are given in NCSTAR1-5F, and rarely exceed 700 oC in the core (the hottest example being Floor 96 of Case B). The temperatures and durations reported by NIST are totally consistent with the results of the compartment test in NCSTAR1-5E.
Originally Posted by scott3xIt's nanothermite, super thermite or thermate. This superfragilistic stuff doesn't discredit the fact that this explosive does exist and its capabilities have been proven.
Show me a large structure demolished with thermite, thermate, super thermite, mega thermite nanothermite or whatever the theory is this year.
Originally Posted by scott3xAs to soft steel, put the comment in a relevant context; explain soft steel in what?
Sigh. You have twisted steel girders which were softened by the heat. These soft steel girders alone can explain the collapse of the building.
Are you saying that the columns were cut and caused collapse?
Are you saying that an explosive caused the collapse? (even though one was not seen)
Originally Posted by scott3x
Nanothermite is clearly a type of thermite. But its properties are different then regular thermite, mainly that it is an explosive whereas regular thermite is only an incendiary. It may be that at first Steven Jones was unaware of nanothermite, or thermate. I could certainly believe that Steven Jones' original expertise in explosives was somewhat lacking;
No!
Yet he is still clinging to many flawed theories which he devised while lacking experience.
he had been studying energetics of a different type prior to 9/11, namely muon catalyzed fusion. However, after he began doubting the official story, I believe that he made it his business to learn a great deal regarding explosives. The evidence of this is clear in my mind and in the minds of many more.Originally Posted by scott3x
As clear as the evidence for a missile hitting the pentagon?
It would not matter if every single line of his papers were debunked you would believe regardless.
Geoff, quit kidding around. If you actually -believed- that bolts were important, that'd be one thing. But you're just trying to yank my chain.
Very funny, laugh . Personally, however, I think we'll make a believer out of you yet ;-).
Ah. I certainly don't think I'm the only one who doesn't always see statements that are in brackets. In any case, where did you get that quote to begin with?
It's the theme of Mission Impossible, at any rate. I think now's the time to post the first page of an article I linked to a bit ago...
**************************************
Seven CIA Veterans Challenge 9/11 Commission Report
by Alan Miller
The person who took that picture clearly didn't care much for placing the pieces on the correct squares, laugh .
Ok. You may want to read the following excerpt from an article by Physicist Steven Jones, with Jeffrey Farrer, Wesley Lifferth, John Ellsworth, Jared Dodson, and Jacob Stevenson, from the Department of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young University.
They don't seem to rule out that aluminum can be orange, but not under daylight conditions. And then there's the fact that "video footage reveals yellow-to-white hot molten metal ", not orange. But I'll let you read the article for yourself...
Loizeaux confirmed this: “Yes, hot spots of molten steel in the basements,” he said, “at the bottom of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven levels.”
The Washington Post is not the BBC. You can claim that the BBC set the standard for 'such pronouncements', but until you show me that the Washington Post -also- retracted its statements, that one still stands. Actually, I'd like to see the BBC retraction again as well. I think the retraction was a little nuanced.
I was merely showing that there was precedent in regards to very suspicious reporting practices by the BBC in regards to 9/11.
What you seem to be saying is that the people who produce BBC television are not the people who produce BBC wire news. But the BBC is a single corporation, and has a few key people at the top.
Hearsay had nothing to do with it. Once again:
The 'question' was, why would she fake it?
Perhaps you are employing a form of Bush Science, wherein sources aren't sources. Creating your own reality, if you will, something like what a New York Times magazine writer quoted a Bush aid as saying:
Janette told me that she had a sense, almost a spiritual or reverential feeling (knowing the origin of the dust) to preserve some of it, which she did, placing dust from her apartment into a plastic bag. My first 9/11-related paper appeared on-line in November 2005, and Janette MacKinlay soon learned from it that I was seeking WTC dust and other samples for study. She contacted me and sent me a small sample by mail. Later, I traveled to her new residence in California and obtained a second small sample in the presence of other scientists.
*****************************************
Steven Jones' makes it clear that the -only- thing that could have done it was thermate. Not exactly something an artist would stock up on.
Beats me what you're smelling. It seems that you're hell bent on not accepting 9/11 as anything other then what the mass media tells you it was and denying any other possibility.
I'm guessing from the above statement that you yourself are a republican. Is that the case?
You were mistaken as to when he received the sample, so perhaps you're also mistaken as to when Steven Jones announced his findings.
Their reasoning has already been debunked. Here is its refutation once more:
Geoff P, It's flattering to see that you're using my Checkmate slogan (and pictures) whenever you think you've made a good point AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. I swear, ever since that first debate I've been scared ever since AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. I never thought I'd see the day where you would be making me look like such an idiot! AHAHAHAHAHAHA
yes, Gany..you should sue him...the whole "checkmate" thing is kinda your trademark
I have seen no evidence of it turning yellow under any conditions, but perhaps in dark conditions. However, Steven Jones et al have from the Department of Physics and Astronomy at Bringham Young University have made it clear that it -never- appears so under daylight conditions:
Laugh if you want. The fact remains, however, that there are numerous issues in regards to the media on and after 9/11. I saw a link somewhere on media sources other then the BBC at one point, but there are so many links regarding 9/11...
Originally Posted by scott3xIf anything, the temperature should have been -less- there if it was caused by office fires alone. After all, no plane hit WTC 7.
It cracks me up when I see this catch cry. By using it you are implying that a plane is enough to bring down a building.
Originally Posted by scott3x
The theory propagated in the article is that diesel fuel tanks were the cause. But this was later discredited by NIST. Perhaps there was a fatal flaw in the theory that even NIST couldn't cover up, but there is some irony here: The 'diesel fuel' explanation sounds more plausible then that it was just office fires alone. I have a strong feeling that not everyone was paid off in FEMA and -someone- who played a part in the report felt that office furniture alone didn't have a chance in hell of evaporating steel, which would have required temperatures of 5000 degrees.
The source article is here:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E02E3DE143DF93AA15752C1A9679C8B63
Ah the article which states that they have found the reason for the collapse.
While the evaporated comment is a strange one, if there were genuinely temperatures in that range then how did the engineers come to that conclusion?
2. Barnett’s team later reported their steel samples not getting over 850C. If he genuinely saw evidence for evaporated steel, why did they not mention that in the report?
That is a good question, isn't it? Perhaps it's hard to wrap your head around the concept of a government official trying to toe the party line, but do you believe it may be because it didn't mesh well with the idea that office fires alone were its cause?
No you are not thinking through what you are suggesting. If he was involved in the a cover up why would he make the comment? If he wasn't involved why would he be allowed to see steel and investigate it?
You claim over and over that not many people need to be involved yet with every post you increase the number of people you think are involved. Have you thought about that? You seem to have recently added the major media networks as well.