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

[shaman_]

Are you suggesting that my logic is flawed? If so, where?

I lol'ed because by using ‘no plane hit this building’ it does imply that being hit by a plane is enough to destroy one. Don't you think that is a fair interpretation?

Your previous point was "Ah the article which states that they have found the reason for the collapse". I show that the article's reason for its collapse has been discredited even by NIST, and now you insist that your point was that the crew couldn't figure out how temperatures could have gotten so hot so as to evaporate steel (about 5000 Fahrenheit, give or take). It's not that I mind your new point- it actually adds weight to the case that explosives were used, which can certainly reach such temperatures. It's just that I mind when you say that your point is one thing and then, when the evidence refutes your point, say that it's another.

I’m really trying to keep my patience here scott. The point in contention was regarding the investigators and a strange comment for evaporated steel. My comment was that they were confident that they found the cause and the explanation made no account for evaporating steel. I am well aware of the report recently released with a different explanation but again, no mention of evaporating steel or temperatures even remotely near what would be needed to evaporate steel. The discussion was not switching to ‘what caused WTC7?’ and no my point was not refuted.

Apparently it's you and many official story believers who are in fantasy land. You argue with me as if I'm the one who came up with the above story. In fact, it was the New York Daily News. The article's main point is its belief that a certain recovered steel girder was key to the cause of the WTC collapse. Its conclusion on that count may be questioned, but do you honestly believe that they'd lie about fire experts telling congress that "80% of the steel was scrapped without being examined because investigators did not have the authority to preserve the wreckage"?

http://www.911myths.com/html/recycled_steel.html

Dr W. Gene Corley, head of the Building Performance Assessment Team, in his testimony to the House of Representatives:

""There has been some concern expressed by others that the work of the team has been hampered because debris was removed from the site and has subsequently been processed for recycling. This is not the case. The team has had full access to the scrap yards and to the site and has been able to obtain numerous samples. At this point there is no indication that having access to each piece of steel from the World Trade Center would make a significant difference to understanding the performance of the structures"."

The evidence was overwhelming and the steel examined supported this. There is no smoking gun or suspicious behavior here. The steel had to be cleaned up at some point, it certainly wasn’t done quickly and thousands of people had access at ground zero.

We have discussed that they had access to,at the very least, 40,000 tons of steel at the scap yard. Nothing was found that indicated a CD.

The funny thing is that, if they had taken a year and investigated every inch and found nothing you would just discard it because the people doing the tests are in on it. If there was steel which would have given the whole conspiracy away why did they let so much of it be looked over? Why would they use a method which could be found just by analysing steel which thousands of people had access to? Think about these flawed theories.

 

[scott3x]

Mackinlay's samples are not even the only spherules that were found, despite Rudi Giuliani's haste to remove all the debris:
*******************************
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
*******************************
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf

Since you have decided to direct the debate in this way, please illustrate that a) this is true and b) that it is suspicious in any way.

In terms of the rapid removal of the steel:
*****************************************
The pace of the steel's removal was very rapid, even in the first weeks after the attack. By September 29, 130,000 tons of debris -- most of it apparently steel -- had been removed. 4

During the official investigation controlled by FEMA, one hundred fifty pieces of steel were saved for future study. 5 One hundred fifty pieces out of hundreds of thousands of pieces! Moreover it is not clear who made the decision to save these particular pieces. It is clear that the volunteer investigators were doing their work at the Fresh Kills dump, not at Ground Zero, so whatever steel they had access to was first picked over by the people running the cleanup operation.
*****************************************
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/groundzero/cleanup.html

Now: I have located similar evidence of spherules. Are these evidence of something? What do you make of the fact that much of the spherules are composed of the same materials that make up glass?

I've heard this glass make up. Let's see your evidence. Steven Jones' evidence has a thermate fingerprint. The other spherules were never tested for thermate from what I've heard.

Surely, if I was more realistic, I would accept the easy authority of those who claim 9/11 was a secret demolition carried out by thousands of government spider-men, or a giant hologram. Or carried out by a giant "la-zer" in orbit.

I have claimed none of these things. Please stick to the facts Geoff.

Because this is a mainstay of the Troofer movement.

No, they aren't. Those ideas are relegated to the fringe of the alternate story movement and some suspect that misinformation agents may be spreading them.

Steven Jones simply goes where the evidence leads him. Something you seem to have a hard time doing...

Stephen Jones only goes where the speaking money leads him.

Do you have actual proof of that or do you just like accusing people?

So you think you can cook some up?

Any data can be falsified at some level, Scott. Surely you must realize this.

I'm just saying that cooking up some thermate isn't exactly easy. Then there's the other issue that you have no motive for him to do so.

I'm simply trying to understand you better. Are you -really- a Marxist-Leninist?

Yes. This is surprising to you?

More then surprising. It seemed like you were making fun of communism in your 'east korea'.

However, I think the findings themselves are far more important then how long it took for him to get them.

Regrettably, that isn't so in this case.

Or atleast that's what you believe.

If there's some kind of delay in presenting this most important of sources, there needs to be a reason.

If there was, I'd agree. As it stands, we don't even know if there was. Even if there was, I believe the reason would be perfectly justifiable.

Evidence given by Steven Jones based on a sample of the WTC dust further corroborates this possibility. Yes, yes, you can believe that an artist, whose apartment was -filled- with WTC dust, got rid of all that and managed to get hold of some thermate, use it to make some iron rich spherules with the tell tale thermate fingerprint and pretend that -that- was the dust that was in her apartment. Why she would do this, even you can't say, but hey, it would mean you wouldn't have to question the official story.

Ah. So I should not question your story, despite its gaping holes. I see.

When have I said you shouldn't question? As to holes: there are pieces of information that neither the official stories or the alternate stories have answered. However, I have argued that the mainstream alternate stories have a lot more evidence then the official ones.

 

[voyager]

That was a drunk post..I was being sarcastic....since I have been trying to use a common sense argument here lately.

pretty slick, slick.

scott3x,
do yourself a favor and scare up 4 or 5 videos of controlled demolitions.
i've found some on the net about farm silos, an outdoor football arena, and 3 different types of buildings. watch them . . . about 4 times each.
now, grab up the nearest WTC towers collapse from various angles and watch them.

i'm not exactly the brightest bulb on the wire but any idiot can see that the WTC towers did not collapse in a manner consistent with a controlled demolition.

 

[scott3x]

scott3x,
do yourself a favor and scare up 4 or 5 videos of controlled demolitions. i've found some on the net about farm silos, an outdoor football arena, and 3 different types of buildings. watch them . . . about 4 times each. now, grab up the nearest WTC towers collapse from various angles and watch them.

i'm not exactly the brightest bulb on the wire but any idiot can see that the WTC towers did not collapse in a manner consistent with a controlled demolition.

I've already seen non controversial controlled demolition videos, thanks. As to the WTC collapses, there were some characteristics that definitely were consistent with a normal CD (Controlled Demolition). There are also some that make it unusual for a CD. However, these unusual characteristics can still be accounted for by simply setting up an unusual CD. The characteristics for a CD that the WTC collapses displayed can be found here:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2067218&postcount=1770

It also exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire:
1. Slow onset with large visible deformations
2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires)
3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel

Finally, high-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”.

 

[voyager]

As to the WTC collapses, there were some characteristics that definitely were consistent with a normal CD (Controlled Demolition).

name them.

the only consistency i can see is that in all cases the buildings fell down.

There are also some that make it unusual for a CD. However, these unusual characteristics can still be accounted for by simply setting up an unusual CD.

what is the nature of this unusual CD and how does it differ from a "normal" CD?

The characteristics for a CD that the WTC collapses displayed can be found here:

in cases like this a person must find their own evidence, not rely on someone elses "word for it".

It also exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire:
1. Slow onset with large visible deformations
2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires)
3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel

Finally, high-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”.

i'm not sure about 1 but:
2. the videos taken on 9-11 does indeed show the tops of the towers leaning to one side right before the collapse. almost one entire side of one of the WTC towers was still standing after the collapse.
3. do you doubt that jet fuel temperatures are sufficient to soften steel?

finally, the buildings you mention were essentially girders with floors and walls attached.
the WTC buildings was of a different construction altogether.

watch and compare the videos, trust your eyes scott

 

[shaman_]

I've already seen non controversial controlled demolition videos, thanks. As to the WTC collapses, there were some characteristics that definitely were consistent with a normal CD (Controlled Demolition). There are also some that make it unusual for a CD. However, these unusual characteristics can still be accounted for by simply setting up an unusual CD.

Can you not see the desperate rationalizing you are employing here? You have a deep belief that it was a CD so the fact that this collapse had little in common with a controlled demolition you just explain away with the line “However, these unusual characteristics can still be accounted for by simply setting up an unusual CD”. The building did not fall like a controlled demolition. Deal with it.

It also exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire:
1. Slow onset with large visible deformations

… like sagging floors

2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires)

Gravity tends to pull downward. Though the collapse was not symmetrical. Remember the lean and the top hitting WTC7.

3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel

Yes never mind the raging fires started with thousands of gallons of jet fuel.

Finally, high-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”.

Smaller buildings with concrete cores that weren’t hit by planes…..

Cases of steel structures collapsing from fire have been presented and ignored.

 

[shaman_]

Welcome to the discussion voyager. Be prepared to repeat yourself many times when discussing with Scott.

 

[GeoffP]

In terms of the rapid removal of the steel:
*****************************************
The pace of the steel's removal was very rapid, even in the first weeks after the attack. By September 29, 130,000 tons of debris -- most of it apparently steel -- had been removed. 4

During the official investigation controlled by FEMA, one hundred fifty pieces of steel were saved for future study. 5 One hundred fifty pieces out of hundreds of thousands of pieces! Moreover it is not clear who made the decision to save these particular pieces. It is clear that the volunteer investigators were doing their work at the Fresh Kills dump, not at Ground Zero, so whatever steel they had access to was first picked over by the people running the cleanup operation.
*****************************************

Thanks. Now here's my question:

How did the cleanup people sort so much steel so fast for the criteria you're alluding to? By this, I mean: on what criteria were they able to separate the suspicious pieces from the non-suspicious pieces so quickly? Did they have a little portable thermite detector or something? This is hundreds of thousands of pieces of steel. Did they check every little one? All the surfaces?

And are they all in on it? Wouldn't this have been rather a lot of people? The amount of the steel retained for analysis is no great surprise either: one doesn't sample every snail in the stream, you realize. We get a few dozen out of the thousands and thousands that are there. Moreover, wouldn't all the steel lying around interfere with rescue and recovery?

The timeframe isn't really suspicious; the families of the victims want the bodies returned ASAP, naturally. Moreover, and more importantly, the tiniest hope of their survival - slim at Sept 29, I'll grant - would make the matter a very urgent one. Even for the dead have their urgencies: muslim burial rites, for instance, demand no more than two days between expiration and interrment. (Possibly three, can't recall exactly.)

I've heard this glass make up. Let's see your evidence. .

Certainly you may have it.

Other glass fragments are present which contain mostly Si with trace amounts of Na, K, and/or Al. The majority (> 90%) of glass spheres, generally less than 500 μm in diameter, are of slag wool composition.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/508OF05-1165.html

Aside from iron and oxygen, that's all the elements in the thermite signature. Or thermate. Or nanothermite. Or nanothermate.

Further to the glass-and-aluminum issue:

Below is a message from Stephen D. Chastain of Metal Talk.

Several times over the last year I have been asked to comment on a photo of one of the Trade Center Towers. The photo shows a molten flow from one of the windows. The flow falls down along the building. It appears orange and turns to a gray color as it cools.

The questions usually want me to address "Is this photo a fake?" and "Is the flow steel or aluminum?" "Is this situation possible?"

First, I will address the temperature range, then the color of the flow.

I am working in imperial units and temperature in degrees F [To convert to C use this link]

Metals lose about 50% of their strength at 60% of their melting temperature. This is common knowledge and may be found in any undergraduate text regarding "Fracture and Deformation of Materials."

If the approximate melting temperature of steel is 2750 F the the material would be plastic at 1650 F. Even assuming a safety factor of 3, you would expect the bolts or other structural members to deform and fail near this temperature, especially with the additional weight if a jet air liner. I would assume that the live load calculations did not include the typical office equipment and an airliner plus a factor of 3. THEREFORE I assume that the flow is not steel and that the temperature of the steel members at the time of the photo is less than 1650 F.

Assuming that the flow would be molten aluminum from the airliner and the color of molten aluminum is silver then why is the flow orange?

The color of pure molten aluminum is silver, It has an emissivity of .12. Steel has an emissivity of .4 and appears orange in the temperature range of molten aluminum.

The emissivity of aluminum oxide is .44 and also appears orange in the melting temperature range of molten aluminum.

The emissivity of plate glass is .937 It begins to soften at 1000 F and flows around 1350 F. Silica has an emissivity of .8

Copper oxide also has an emissivity of .8. however I will assume that their effect is negligible.

Aluminum oxidizes readily in the foundry under ideal melting conditions. Large surface area relative to thickness, turbulence, the presence of water or oil greatly increases the oxidation of aluminum. A jet airliner is made of thin aluminum sheet and most probably suffered considerable oxidation especially in contact with an open flame and being in contact with jet fuel. If you don't believe this, try melting a few soda cans over coals or open flame. If you are lucky you will end up with only 50% aluminum oxide. However, the cans may completely burn up.

The specific gravity of aluminum is 2.7. The specific gravity of aluminum oxide (Al2O3-3H2O) is 2.42 the specific gravity of Si = 2.40 and Glass is 2.65 these are all very similar and likely to be entrained in a molten aluminum flow. Don't believe it? lightly stir the dross into molten aluminum. The surface tension is so high is is almost impossible to separate them.

THEREFORE assuming that the flow consist of molten aluminum and considerable oxides, and assuming that the windows in the trade center were plate glass and also in a plastic state and that they were also likely entrained in the molten aluminum. I would expect the flow to appear to be orange in color. Especially since both the entrained materials have emissivities equal to or more than twice that of iron.

Also since dross cools to a gray color and glass with impurities also turns dark. I would expect that the flow would darken upon cooling.

I would also suggest that not only is the photo possible, but entirely likely.

Summary: The flow is not steel because the structural steel would fail well below the melting temperature. The flow is likely to be a mixture of aluminum, aluminum oxides, molten glass and coals of whatever trash the aluminum flowed over as it reached the open window. Such a flow would appear orange and cool to a dark color.

Stephen D. Chastain

So this theory accounts quite nicely for the whole thermate argument. It was glass, probably mixed with small bits of iron or steel from anything from local hotspots to photocopier filling. See also:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhHzMttUKO0

No, they aren't. Those ideas are relegated to the fringe of the alternate story movement and some suspect that misinformation agents may be spreading them.

Oh, lord, here we go. "Those crazy ideas? Well, they're from government plants! And if you disagree with me...well, you're a government plant! Or at least you might well be. I haven't decided. Since the CD must have occurred (Prophet Steven swears it so by the gods of Thermate), it's the only explanation! It couldn't possibly be that the whole theory is crazy." Who thinks that? Some think that. Who are some? Some people know. It is rumoured. The scuttlebutt agrees. The leaves swirled just so. The entrails were blackened. The stars gave us a poor omen for conspiracies born in the month of September. Come on, Scott.

Do you have actual proof of that or do you just like accusing people?

:shrug: A bit of both, to be honest. Yet, Steven Jones is intricately involved with the theory; he's tacked his career to it. I wouldn't want him punished for that - and in a properly communist nation he wouldn't be - but you can't deny he's got a monetary interest in it. I feel bad for him, really.

I'm just saying that cooking up some thermate isn't exactly easy. Then there's the other issue that you have no motive for him to do so.

Are you being serious now? No motive? None? Come on, Scott.

More then surprising. It seemed like you were making fun of communism in your 'east korea'.

Of course I was.

For the love of God, man, whatever my political beliefs, you do realize that the history of the dialectic has not exactly been 100%? Stalin, Pot bloody Pot, China; communism has had its share of dictators and more. The fact that I can criticize my own system does not alienate me from that system, although it may alienate me from those blind to the faults of that system.

That being said, is capitalism better? Absolutely not. It is a form of utter economic slavery, period, with countless lives broken in the mad, stupid chase for the same bloody dollar. "Trickle-down", my arse. But this doesn't mean I can't laugh at my own dialectic. I think history will prove Marxism-Leninism right, but I'm not going to pretend there were no gulags, no crackdown of dissidents, no massacre of the Ukrainians. I could hardly force my opinions on anyone or muzzle criticism of my beliefs; nor even muzzle my own criticisms. To do so would be the height of immorality and hypocrisy; should I damn Pinochet and cover my eyes to Stalin?

Or atleast that's what you believe.

No, it's a fact. Why was the delay so long? For what reason? Jones had the smoking gun all this time, and only chose to show it now?

If there was, I'd agree. As it stands, we don't even know if there was. Even if there was, I believe the reason would be perfectly justifiable.

In other words: I don't care what the reason was. I believe too strongly in CD to think otherwise. Listen to yourself, Scott.

When have I said you shouldn't question?

When you tell me the only reason I poke holes in this nonsense is because I don't want to question the official story. I should question it, but not you? This seems to be your thesis: I believe everything about 9/11 Troof is troo, and I cannot be convinced otherwise, so you will have to change your beliefs.

However, I have argued that the mainstream alternate stories have a lot more evidence then the official ones.

...eh?

Best,

Geoff

 

[scott3x]

Originally Posted by scott3x

Let's see one of Griffin's counters to this 'definitive debunker':
********************************************
My Response to Ryan Mackey and the Self-Crushing Building Theory, "On Debunking 9/11 Debunking"

http://911guide.googlepages.com/ryanmackey pgs 46-47

(See below for his criticism of my statements, cited by David Ray Griffin in Debunking 9/11 Debunking)
Why Have So Many Been Taken for a Ride?

One of the problems we have with the fraudulent claims that are made regarding the existence of self-crushing steel frame buildings is the fact that many people lack an intuitive sense of the strength and resilience of these structures. They have allowed themselves to become convinced by an alleged scenario that is physically impossible. My Erector Set illustration is intended to address this problem.

The Not-so-Plausible Impossible

I can still remember, as a kid, listening to Walt Disney explain the concept of the "Plausible Impossible." When a cartoon character runs off the edge of a cliff, for example, into mid-air, if he turns around and scrambles back fast enough he can save himself from falling. This is impossible of course in "real life," but a skilled animator can nonetheless make it seem quite plausible.

The self-crushing building theory is another example of the "Plausible Impossible," and tremendous effort has been expended — again involving skillful animation — to sell the plausibility of this notion. But self-crushing steel frame buildings do not actually exist in "real life."
********************************************
The article continues here:
http://www.truememes.com/mackey.html

His essay is a staggering miscomprehension of scale.

I believe that if someone has some staggering miscomprehension, it's Mackey.

First, he claimed that steel girders were integral to the WTC collapse. I investigated his claim, and came back with its refutation.

Excuse me? First, where and how did I claim this?

I went back in the posts and now realized that when you said: "The strength of bolts connecting steel girders vis-a-vis fire resistance?". So the issue was always the bolts, not the steel girders. My apologies. In terms of the bolts, I hope you have now noted not only that no experts on either side of the debate now support the notion that the bolts were the proble and that you have read the following:
**********************************
Bolts stayed strong

Thick bolts fastened to the column more than 30 years ago - securing it to a much thinner structural plate - were still in place. But the plate ripped apart.

"You can tell by looking at this where the failure occurred," DePaola said. "It occurred in the plate - not the bolts."

Exactly why the plate broke will be investigated as part of a $16 million federal probe into the collapse, which is getting underway in Gaithersburg, Md.
**********************************
http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/2002/04/16/2002-04-16_wtc_girder_is_key_to_collaps.html

Secondly, where in hell have you successfully refuted anything I've said so far?

How about the first counter I made in the following post:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2063808&postcount=1695

 

[fedr808]

Once more. Jet fuel of that quantity burns at 8000+ degrees. It could easily shatter the bars just from the extreme difference in heat. Also a lot of people said that the highest temperature of jet fueel is 1000 degrees. The tiny amount of fuel in the engine (and i say tiny) hits 2,400 degrees. So imagine whatan enormous tank of the stuff burns at. Also people claim seeing fires that werent jet fuel. Yah lets remember that it was an office space and there were probably a 20,000 individual sheets of paper in the place that got hit.

 

[Squeak22]

i have no idea what is meant by "frequency bleed". digital technology allows coded communication between multiple devices. wifi technology can handle multiple simultaneous communication devices without catastrophic interruption.

Unlicensed frequencies are causing destructive interference all the time. Yes digital communication reduces this, but it is not eliminated. Cell phones run on 750/850/1750/1800/1900/2100 Mhz frequencies. They don't just run on that frequency, but a band of frequencies around it (to allow for the passage of information). These transmissions generate harmonics at frequencies above and below the band they transmit at. That's just cell phones. All this crap we use causes lots of noise that will interfere with your presumed wireless detonators.

Case in point, have you ever had to push your garage door opener more than once when you are approaching your house? Sometimes mine works from a couple hundred feet away, and sometimes I have to push it again when I get closer, because of the interference from other devices in my neighborhood.

Additionally, computers and electrical wires put out all kinds of harmonics, and I'm sure some of your imaginary explosives would have to be next to power runs.

maybe it was done many weeks prior, maybe there was no drilling, roof voids and elevator shafts would have given unobstrusive access to all parts of the structure. its all speculation that could only be answered with an investigation.

False. Have you ever tried to run wires or cables through a high rise? You definitely do not have "unobtrusive" access to all parts of the structure.

 

[scott3x]

Sure, I could go out on a crusade to prove that bolts were not, in fact, integral to said collapse. But in doing so, I would be wasting precious time addressing an issue that only occurred in Geoff's mind, taking away the time I have to debunk the -official- story claims. Besides, even if I finally found some solid evidence that the bolts were not to blame, he could then simply pick another construction element; screws, wiring, it makes no difference. It takes so little time to come up with a possibility; it can frequently take a lot longer to show evidence for or against such a possibility, however.

Oh, is that so? Well, regrettably, 9/11 Troof was an issue that only developed in the mind of Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan and "Headspin" et al.

That 'et al' for the truth movement runs in the millions. In fairness, however, I will say that the bolts thing now appears to not have been your idea; but as I have shown, no one of any stature appears to believe in it anymore.

You haven't the faintest conception of the establishment of a hypothesis or its testing

Wikipedia defines a hypothesis thusly:
"A hypothesis (from Greek ὑπόθεσις) consists either of a suggested explanation for an observable phenomenon or of a reasoned proposal predicting a possible causal correlation among multiple phenomena. The term derives from the Greek, hypotithenai meaning "to put under" or "to suppose."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis

Anyone can suppose something. Testing it simply means you look to find if evidence one gathers supports or disproves said hypothesis. Why you feel I don't do this, I don't know.

I think that once one -finds- evidence that supports a hypothesis, it could become a scientific theory. Or, as Wikipedia puts it:
"In science a theory is a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

not enough people believe in it is sufficient reason for you. This makes you exactly akin to those who dismiss your theory because not enough people believed in it.

Look, if you or anyone else wants to come up with a hypothesis or theory regarding 9/11, be my guest. However, I'm not going to do your research for you. If you think the bolts or whatever wasn't up to speck even though no one else seems to think it was a problem, I think it behooves -you- to do the research. I feel that I have my hands full defending the many fairly mainstream alternative theories that I believe in to try to disprove theories that come from isolated groups or even a single individual.

 

[scott3x]

In what field, precisely, do you feel they would have to be in? Personally, I think that a physicist who can make discoveries on muon catalyzed fusion is more then a match for this, but by all means, attempt to prove me wrong.

What does that have to do with structural engineering or the chemistry of building materials? You are dazzled because he knows about cold fusion but that is not relevant. People who know more about those fields disagree with him.

Structural engineers are a somewhat rare breed, but they are certainly not uniform in their praise of the official story; glancing briefly a while ago at the list of 520 architects and engineers in the "Architects and Engineers" on the "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth" page, I saw 1 structural engineer in their ranks.

But I think you yourself are the one who's getting a bit dazzled here. You don't need to be a structural engineer in order to realize that the official WTC collapse theory is full of holes. I believe that a firm grasp of physics will do just fine. Even if you only took a high school course in physics (I raise my hand), I think that with a little work and an open mind, you can see that many if not all of the 9/11 official theories collapse under scrutiny.

Originally Posted by scott3x

You may want to take a look at this:
*********************************************
Notable peer-reviewed publications (from over fifty):

• J. Rafelski and S.E. Jones, "Cold Nuclear Fusion," Scientific American, 257: 84-89 (July 1987).

• S.E. Jones, "Muon-Catalysed Fusion Revisited," (Invited article) Nature 321: 127-133 (1986).

# S.E. Jones, et al. "Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction", Open Civil Engineering Journal, April 2008.

# K. Ryan, J. Gourley and S.E. Jones, "Environmental Anomalies at the World Trade Center: Evidence for Energetic Materials", Environmentalist, August 2008.
*********************************************
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/

You just don’t get it. Only one of those is relevant to the discussion at hand and that is the third one.

My point is this is a guy who has been frequently peer reviewed, and has even been peer reviewed on such a sensitive subject such as the events that took place on 9/11.

As we have already been through, it appears that the only requirement to get into that journal was a cash payment.

If he said that it was peer reviewed, I'll take his word for it over yours. This is a guy who has been peer reviewed in such noteworthy scientific magazines as Scientific American and Nature. Have -you- ever been published in a peer reviewed publication like that?

Originally Posted by scott3x

Originally Posted by scott3x

Why have you reached the conclusion that it is almost certainly not iron?

There is no evidence that the fire reached temperatures to melt iron or steel.

It's true that there is no evidence that the -plane- induced fires could have reached those temperatures.

No there is no evidence that the fires reached those temperatures.

Aside from that video and another I have shown (which makes it clear that it was indeed a molten metal other then aluminum), there's plenty and I've already shown a fair amount of it. Here's a good link on the subject:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/moltensteel.html

 

[scott3x]

http://www.911myths.com/html/recycled_steel.html

Dr W. Gene Corley, head of the Building Performance Assessment Team, in his testimony to the House of Representatives:

""There has been some concern expressed by others that the work of the team has been hampered because debris was removed from the site and has subsequently been processed for recycling. This is not the case. The team has had full access to the scrap yards and to the site and has been able to obtain numerous samples. At this point there is no indication that having access to each piece of steel from the World Trade Center would make a significant difference to understanding the performance of the structures"."

I did a little research regarding Gene Corley. Here's a few things I found:
The authors of the Murrah Building report concerning the Oklahoma bombing are the same individuals who comprised the original ASCE team:
* Dr W. Gene Corley
* Charles Thornton
* Paul Mlaker
* Mete Sozen

The link to that info is here: http://911research.wtc7.net/non911/oklahoma/index.html

Kevin Ryan says of this team:
"Several of these individuals have strong connections to industries that benefited from the attack, such as armaments makers and oil and gas producers."
http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/kevin_ryan/newstandard.html

Kevin Ryan speaks a bit more in his article 'The Peculiar WTC "Experts"':
*************************************
When Matthew Rothschild, editor of the online magazine The Progressive, wrote an article called “Enough of the 9/11 Conspiracies, Already”, we all knew he was not talking about the conspiracy theory that the US government sells us to justify the expanding 9/11 Wars.[1] To the contrary, in writing that article Mr. Rothschild was selling that same theory himself. What he actually meant was that people should not question the US government’s story of terror because credentialed experts have been found to support it. But the fact is that the experts found to support the official conspiracy theory of 9/11 are predominantly those who profit from doing so. That’s not to say that all of these people were “part of the conspiracy”. But they are, whether consciously or not, a part of the cover-up. And that, of course, is the greater crime.

The Bush Administration employed a number of such credentialed experts to give us multiple explanations for the unprecedented destruction of three tall steel-framed buildings at the World Trade Center (WTC). Unfortunately, all of those explanations have proven to be false, and this fact reminds us that academic credentials don’t necessarily make a person more capable, or more likely, to tell the truth.

Exactly how they could find so many experts on the fire-induced collapse of tall buildings is not immediately clear, considering such an event had never happened before. But it did help that the questions were quickly framed as being solely matters of structural engineering, a sub-field of civil engineering, because structural engineers cannot find work without continual government approvals. A Chemistry laboratory manager like myself can work without permits or licenses, but people can’t just go out and build a bridge or a tall building on their own. The extensive paperwork necessary to complete civil engineering projects is obtained by working closely with, and staying on good terms with, local and national authorities. That fact may not be enough to ensure vocal support for the official story of “global collapse”, but it has been enough to keep most structural engineers from publicly opposing the intransigent government stance on the WTC events.

From where, then, has the vocal support come within the engineering community? Matthew Rothschild points to some interesting characters when he says that “I made a few calls myself”, including to Gene Corley and to Mete Sozen. Additionally, Rothschild says that he consulted “some of the top building design and engineering firms”, like Skidmore Owings & Merrill, and Greenhorne & O’Mara. To emphasize just how solid the government’s story is, he adds that he “also contacted engineering professors at MIT and other leading universities in the country, and none of them puts any stock in the 9/11 conspiracy theories.”

What Mr. Rothschild failed to tell us is that Gene Corley and Mete Sozen not only created the reports that he is defending, but have also, for many years, worked for the US Department of Defense (DOD) through the Blast Mitigation for Structures Program (BMSP). Since 1997, this program has provided the DOD with expertise in explosives, and has been funded at $10 million annually.[2] After 9/11, astronomical increases in DOD funding were likely to have benefited all DOD partners and programs, like DOD’s Nunn-Perry award winner, Greenhorne & O’Mara, and those involved with the BMSP. Of course, the DOD was probably already awash in black-budget funds prior to 9/11, as indicated by the missing trillions reported by the DOD on 9/10/01.[3]

Rothschild also failed to let us know that Skidmore Owings & Merrill (SOM), one of his independent engineering firms, is responsible for the architectural design of the new Freedom Tower. SOM gained that contract at the personal insistence of Larry Silverstein, the original owner of WTC 7 and the WTC towers’ leaseholder. Mr. Rothschild may also not be aware that William Baker, a top executive at SOM, was involved in several of the official WTC investigations and reports that have been generated. In any case it is clear that the “Freedom Tower” would not be the publicity-rich project it is today if an alternative explanation forced us to rename it the “There Goes Our Freedom Tower”.
*************************************
The article continues here:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5071

 

[GeoffP]

I believe that if someone has some staggering miscomprehension, it's Mackey.

Based on what? A steel-and-concrete building is massive in a way a Lego building simply is not. If the top part of a Lego building suddenly loses its support ( you say demolition, I say failed construction), does it ride the remainder of the edifice all the way to the ground? No. Lego, Connectix, whatever. Surely you see that the scale issues are not at all the same?

I went back in the posts and now realized that when you said: "The strength of bolts connecting steel girders vis-a-vis fire resistance?". So the issue was always the bolts, not the steel girders. My apologies. In terms of the bolts, I hope you have now noted not only that no experts on either side of the debate now support the notion that the bolts were the proble and that you have read the following:**********************************
Bolts stayed strong

Thick bolts fastened to the column more than 30 years ago - securing it to a much thinner structural plate - were still in place. But the plate ripped apart.

"You can tell by looking at this where the failure occurred," DePaola said. "It occurred in the plate - not the bolts."

Exactly why the plate broke will be investigated as part of a $16 million federal probe into the collapse, which is getting underway in Gaithersburg, Md.
**********************************

Indeed. But now I gather that the plates failed. No explosives required, then?

How about the first counter I made in the following post:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2063808&postcount=1695

How about it? What did it effectively counter?

That 'et al' for the truth movement runs in the millions. In fairness, however, I will say that the bolts thing now appears to not have been your idea; but as I have shown, no one of any stature appears to believe in it anymore.

The et al for the official story runs in the millions too. But why would it matter if I proposed it versus anyone else? If an idea makes sense, why would the stature of the person proposing it matter? You have fallen into the trap of Argument from Authority, and you cannot get up.

Wikipedia defines a hypothesis thusly:
"A hypothesis (from Greek ὑπόθεσις) consists either of a suggested explanation for an observable phenomenon or of a reasoned proposal predicting a possible causal correlation among multiple phenomena. The term derives from the Greek, hypotithenai meaning "to put under" or "to suppose."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis

Anyone can suppose something. Testing it simply means you look to find if evidence one gathers supports or disproves said hypothesis. Why you feel I don't do this, I don't know.

Very good. The Troof movement have already concluded demolition (the explanation), and now seek obervable phenomena (nanothermite, squibs, orbital "la-zers") to explain it. Well enough, but the problem is that when these phenomena fail to support the thesis, the hypothesis changes again. It wasn't a hologram, so it must be an actual plane followed by a demolition. It wasn't a demolition, so the building must have imploded under Karl Rove's powerful thought-rays. It's not falsifiable from their perspective; no test can ever result in the H0: It wasn't blown up. So, it's not scientific, but faith-based.

It's like me asking an Evangelist whether or not he'd stop believing in God if I could prove to him evolution was true, or even that God didn't exist: he'd say no. Of course it wouldn't change his view; it's a matter of faith, not intellect.

Will you now view SLC, as I have asked repeatedly. Honestly, this is only fair.

Best,

Geoff

 

[scott3x]

There are so many problems with the iron spheres claim. The conspiracy theorist ignores this gauntlet of rationality and heads straight for the CD theory.

From your favourite debunker Ryan Mackey.

"Iron Spherules: Another curious phenomenon thought to be linked to the structural steel is creation of tiny spheres of steel or iron, found in the dust after collapse. Several researchers report this, including Lowers and Meeker who documented a few examples of particles found to be nearly pure iron and quite spherical, approximately 7 microns in diameter; and the RJ Lee Group, who identified small, round iron particles as evidence of high temperatures. The significance of these spheres is still debated, along the following lines:
As discussed previously, there is• no evidence at all for large amounts of melted steel. If the spheres are formed by melting steel, it must be surface melting or some other highly localized process.
It is also not known when the iron• spheres were produced. The RJ Lee Group report considers samples taken several months after the collapses, and it is certain that torch-cutting of steel beams as part of the cleanup process contributed some, if not all, of the spherules seen in these samples.
There appear to be several• plausible candidate sources of the iron spherules in office materials or other building contents... Another example is magnetic printer toner, used to print financial instruments, that could have been present in printer cartridges or found in a large volume of paper documents. This candidate has the advantage of matching the size, shape, uniformity, and elemental composition of the observed spherules from one report. We also cannot discount their origin in building contents, rather than building structure, without much more careful study.
The quantity of these spherules is• unknown, but thought to be very small – the iron-rich content of all dust samples was between 0.1 and 1.3%, most of which was not in the form of spherules....

I agree with him that we can't discount their origin without a bit more 'careful study'. Fortunately for us, Jim Hoffman is here to do just that:
*************************************
He addresses other features, like the iron-rich micro-spheres, but with tedious lists of possible explanations, few of which make sense. For example, he suggests that the sphere could have been from magnetic printer toner, which he claims have iron particles in that size range. Really? -- particles up to the 1.5mm diameter ones found in the dust? He also claims the quantity of the particles was "thought to be very small" because it was between 0.1 to 1.5 percent of the dust. But how small is that? Just 0.1 percent of 10,000 tons is 10 tons.

Mackey promotes the misconception that aluminothermic reactions are necessarily slow burning to argue that any residues would have to be large pools rather than small droplets.
*************************************
http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/mackey/index.html

 

[scott3x]

Why do you believe that it wasn't affected?

Can you see the steel melting?

Clearly, some did (or nothing would have fallen out of the building). The surrounding metal may have been softened, but that's something else...

If there are temperatures high enough to melt steel then surely we would see some near the face of the building being visibly affected...

What makes you believe this?

Originally Posted by scott3x

I remember that even the alternate theory source wasn't sure that bowing didn't occur. However, molten iron also fell out of the window before the collapse, possibly due to a thermite reaction. So perhaps there was bowing, but not from the plane induced fires, but from thermite.

Okay but this is another example of all the characteristics of someone who has a conclusion and is just rationalising the evidence to fit that preconceived idea. Do you understand what I'm explaining?

As far as I'm concerned, the evidence that the WTC collapses were due to controlled demolitions is overwhelming. Thus, it is my 'working model', if you will. I will certainly try to see if evidence can work with this model. Scientists do this all the time. And just like scientists, if I'm not sure it does or if I find that it outright doesn't, I will certainly take this into account.

Here conspiracy theorists seem to want it both ways: they want to say light refracted due to the heat, yet they also say the fires were almost out toward the end when the bow was greatest. They need to have it both ways but they can't.

My explanation could be the solution.

But do you appreciate just how wrong some of these theories are that your buddies come up with?

I can certainly believe that some of the theories may need a little work. People like Steven Jones have emphatically stated that they would like more research to be done on all of these things. Heck, even Ryan Mackey claims that more research could shed more light on certain issues.

From the plane? From what I remember, there is evidence that a lot of it shot straight through the building and fell on the other side.

No a few pieces were found but most of the plane was in the building.

Even if this is so, it doesn't mean that the metal had to spew out of the windows; it could have stayed within the building.

A large percentage of the planes were aluminium. There were many tons of the stuff right? The temperature was right. The building was sagging. Where was it going to go? Sure a lot could have gone down but it only makes sense that we saw some come out the building.

I think you may have seen from Headspin's youtube video on the subject of molten aluminum at 1000 Fahrenheit that molten aluminum when poured at that temperature is definitely silver. Since even NIST doesn't believe the metal could have been any hotter and yet the metal is yellow/white, it makes it clear that what was coming out of that building couldn't have been molten aluminum.

 

[scott3x]

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?

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.

Yes, clearly there were high temperatures. The disagreement is in what caused those high temperatures. I have never heard of a fire starving for oxygen turning huge steel beams into twisted licorice sticks. And remember that a lot of those huge steel beams were nowhere near the impact zone. You may wish to consider the possibility that the official investigators took so few samples of the impact floor is not a 'non issue', as you put it.

So why do you keep spamming cherry picked comments on the temperatures recorded?

Can you give me an example of one of these 'cherry picked comments'?

You were posting comments regarding the temperature of the samples reached to try and imply that NIST can’t make their mind up regarding the temperature when it is made clear where the samples were from. It is blatantly obvious that the steel reached very high temperatures. I don’t know what you think you can achieve with these attempts to misrepresent the NIST report.

Can you cite where I supposedly did this?

 

[scott3x]

Originally Posted by scott3x

You may have noticed that I've researched quite a bit concerning the WTC buildings, but this view is not mine alone...

No you have only browsed through the poor science, lies and quote mining presented at your conspiracy sites. I don’t consider that to be a lot of research.

If I had only done a bit of browsing, we wouldn't be on the 90th page of this thread.

 

[scott3x]

I believe the following story makes it clear how dangerous the notion is to the official story that the plane induced fires had nothing to do with the collapse of the twin towers is:
***************************************
SOUTH BEND -- The laboratory director from a South Bend firm has been fired for attempting to cast doubt on the federal investigation into what caused the World Trade Center's twin towers to collapse on Sept. 11, 2001....

Ryan wrote that the institute's preliminary reports suggest the WTC's supports were probably exposed to fires no hotter than 500 degrees -- only half the 1,100-degree temperature needed to forge steel, Ryan said. That's also much cooler, he wrote, than the 3,000 degrees needed to melt bare steel with no fire-proofing.

"This story just does not add up," Ryan wrote in his e-mail to Frank Gayle, deputy chief of the institute's metallurgy division, who is playing a prominent role in the agency investigation. "If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I'm sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers."
***************************************
http://www.wanttoknow.info/911kevinrryanfired

Ryan was clearly wrong.

I would argue the opposite. Why is it that you feel that Ryan is wrong?