9/11 Loose Change vs Pop. Mechanics

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by timbit

Remarkable production....opened my eyes to some of the true science that they present and the improbabilities of the "official" story.

You've been so sarcastic lately I don't know whether you are being straight up or not???

[timbit]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

You've been so sarcastic lately I don't know whether you are being straight up or not???

I watched the whole thing...really compelling..

When have I been sarcastic?

[Red Mile Style]

Originally Posted by Azure

Because most of us have him on ignore...and you keep quoting him...over and over again.

The best way to deal with trolls is to ignore them...I think numerous Mods have pointed that out already.

I have to throw this back at you, to stop quoting Agamemnon for the same reasons...

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Man, I sooooo gave up on Tolstoy. When he didn't have me after the first eight pages of War and Peace I know it was going to be a crap book.



There's part of the problem with this whole issue. There are those that "don't have the time" to read a book (or 12) or watch a series of films/documentaries, yet they have the idea that they have the whole story. I'm not picking on you Rouge, but crap like that ****es me off. The dittoheads do that garbage all the time. They talk about crap they have no comprehension of, and then when challenged on it they say, I really don't have anything to back it up, but I heard it on FoxNews! Makes me wanna puke.

I did have the time to watch the first eight minutes and found them pretty weak. I now have the time to watch the remaining 85 minutes but I don't know that I'll bother, considering how poorly it started.

I thought I pointed out some legitimate faults in what I did see. No?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

I have to throw this back at you, to stop quoting Agamemnon for the same reasons...

I haven't been around much...so I'm out of touch if there was a problem.

Fair enough...although I find a huge difference between White Doors and Agamemnon.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Azure

Because most of us have him on ignore...and you keep quoting him...over and over again.

The best way to deal with trolls is to ignore them...I think numerous Mods have pointed that out already.

I hear what you're saying. At the same time, I think the constant trolling on his part reduces the quality of many threads. If it wasn't me pointing it out it would be someone else.

As for the topic at hand, Looger: does the Pentagon give any justification for the videos they haven't released yet about the attack? Seems they could disprove all of these conspiracies by just showing a clear shot of the jet... is that video due to be released at some point?

[Looger]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

As for the topic at hand, Looger: does the Pentagon give any justification for the videos they haven't released yet about the attack? Seems they could disprove all of these conspiracies by just showing a clear shot of the jet... is that video due to be released at some point?

Agamemnon:

PLEASE don't make the pentagon issue the central focus. this is a serious mistake.

there is a reason that the 'debunkers' focus on this aspect of the attack - there is no serious evidence that anyone can point to. there isn't a clear picture of the hole before the pentagon caves in, too much smoke in every pic i've seen.

i'm not saying that something funny didn't happen at the pentagon, i mean it's pretty interesting the the office of naval intelligence was hit, many casualties of that attack (that section was under major renovation) were accountants and budget analysts.

especially when they were responsible for tracking things like this:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/...in325985.shtml

On Sept. 10, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld declared war. Not on foreign terrorists, "the adversary's closer to home. It's the Pentagon bureaucracy," he said.
...

"According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions," Rumsfeld admitted.

oops.

september 10th, 2.3 trillion missing, rumsfeld tells congress. what happened to that money? it's an interesting question.

but at the end of the day if you focus on the pentagon you will miss the serious evidence in new york.

as to when those tapes get released, if they're smart they'll wait until the right moment, perhaps it's approaching:

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/inde...m/itemID/13469

Polling Data
When it comes to what they knew prior to September 11th, 2001, about possible terrorist attacks against the United States, do you think members of the Bush Administration are telling the truth, are mostly telling the truth but hiding something, or are they mostly lying?
Oct. 2006
May 2002
Telling the truth
16%
21%
Hiding something
53%
65%
Mostly lying
28%
8%
Not sure
3%
6%



Source: The New York Times / CBS News
Methodology: Telephone interviews with 983 American adults, conducted from Oct. 5 to Oct. 8, 2006. Margin of error is 4 per cent.

[Looger]

if the debate is centered on the pentagon and hanni hanjour and flight 77 and some amazing aerobatic maneuver and the amazing skid-proof 'pentalawn' and all the flight data released that pilots for 9/11 truth have sourced: http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/ et cetera, then the major issues get glazed over when the video is released.

the evidence, if you're interested, is highlited in 9/11 mysteries, the video Lanny posted and timbit reviewed, also "Improbable Collapse":

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...73566596731782

please pay attention to the actual evidence, leave the sideshow to the side.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

I hear what you're saying. At the same time, I think the constant trolling on his part reduces the quality of many threads. If it wasn't me pointing it out it would be someone else.

Can't disagree with that.

Back to the topic at hand....

[Red Mile Style]

Originally Posted by Azure

I haven't been around much...so I'm out of touch if there was a problem.

Fair enough...although I find a huge difference between White Doors and Agamemnon.

I'm sure Agamemnon has a few quality posts, but it's usually overshadowed by the fact that whenever he is involved in a thread it becomes just like this, rather than about the thread topic.

Originally Posted by Azure

Can't disagree with that.

Back to the topic at hand....

Quit quoting him!!

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by photon

They're experts in marketing I guess. The closest term I can think of after watching those videos and watching those two is "Religious Zealot". 45 seconds of watching those two was enough to know any reasonable discourse is impossible.

Agreed. I just got a chance to watch these. They are zealots alright. He called the Editor of Popular Mechanics a liar. I thoght the loose change guy was going to hit the guy once. funny stuff.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Did anyone happen to catch the South Park episode this week?

I'll just say it was brilliantly done.

[timbit]

When it comes down to Hypotheses and actual scientific evidence.....demolitions explain a lot more than a fire that could not sustain 1200 degreesF.

How come there was 2500 degreeF molten steel lava present 3 weeks after the 3 buildings came down. Absolutely impossible for a fire of any sort to create that lava...now....with explosives...it is entirely possible.

WTC7 came down 7 hours after the first 2... and in the video there was very little fire...it was 350 feet from the first 2 towers...

A 47 story tower comes down perfectly in its own footprint...with very little fire.Hmmmmmm.

Looks like a duck...quacks like a duck...

It was an inside job.

[photon]

Just because claims are made doesn't mean they are true..

There was reports of "molten metal" in the basements of some of the buildings after 9/11, but the composition of the metal was never determined. Some spectrometer readings taken shortly after showed temperatures near the surface of 1375F, enough to melt aluminum.

Explosives don't produce pools of molten metal, and thermite burns out quickly, it doesn't burn for the weeks that some people say molten metal was found afterwards. Another source of fuel was available though; the contents of the buildings.

WTC7 didn't have "very little fire", it was fully engulfed and there was smoke coming from every floor. It was significantly damaged from debris from the other towers. It burned for a long time before finally coming down.

According to NY city code, all steel-framed buildings must have a fire resistant coating applied to their structural steel. Why is that? Maybe because they know that even fires not hot enough to melt steel can still compromise its structural integrity.

Unprotected steel can be expected to fail in as little as 15 minutes in a serious fire.

http://www.firehouse.com/magazine/ar...r/tactics.html

Buildings around the WTC site had damage from debris and fires fuled by office contents only and had structural members that buckled. 130 Liberty Street had only minor fires but has enough structural damage it still has to be torn down.

And WTC7 did not come down in it's own footprint. The pictures of the debris are anything but in it's own footprint; the building to the north (30 West Broadway) is being torn down due to damage from WTC7's collapse.

I'm not saying it wasn't an inside job, I'm just saying if you're going to believe things to support your view, be prepared to question your view if those things are shown to be false.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by photon

Just because claims are made doesn't mean they are true..

You mean like the 9/11 Commission Report? I'm glad we can agree on this point.

There was reports of "molten metal" in the basements of some of the buildings after 9/11, but the composition of the metal was never determined. Some spectrometer readings taken shortly after showed temperatures near the surface of 1375F, enough to melt aluminum.

Reports? The FACTS indicate there were indeed pools of molten metal. Those working on the clean up of the site had to deal with these pools which made clean up efforts grind to a hault for days at a time. As for what the metal was, I think aluminum has been ruled out. The temperatures and the color of the molten metal are no congruent with aluminum, but more so with steel.

Explosives don't produce pools of molten metal, and thermite burns out quickly, it doesn't burn for the weeks that some people say molten metal was found afterwards. Another source of fuel was available though; the contents of the buildings.

According to reseach done by the Scholars for 9/11 Truth you are wrong. Experiments and independent verification have proved the theory suggested that thermite and sulfer would indeed produce the molten metal.

WTC7 didn't have "very little fire", it was fully engulfed and there was smoke coming from every floor. It was significantly damaged from debris from the other towers. It burned for a long time before finally coming down.

Incorrect again. WTC7 sustained little damage and fires were restricted to a few floors. That was fully exposed in the NYC investigation completed in the month after 9/11. The firefighters and EMS staff that worked WTC7 were very clear on the damage to the building, it was superficial, as were the fires. WTC was actually sheltered from damage by other buildings in the complex, all of which remained standing. WTC7 sustained damage to a single corner of the building, which would have had little impact on the integrity of the structure as its core remained undamaged and completely intact because of the sheltering effects of the other buildings around it.

According to NY city code, all steel-framed buildings must have a fire resistant coating applied to their structural steel. Why is that? Maybe because they know that even fires not hot enough to melt steel can still compromise its structural integrity.

This is a pretty standard code all over North America and adopted around the world. What is your point? Fact of the matter is that WTC7 was a steel and concrete building, and no building of this construction had EVER collapsed prior from fire and subsequent damage. What you also fail to mention is that WTC7 was fortified and constructed to be stronger than your average building. The NYC Emergency Operations Center was actually in WTC7. What is interesting is that the decision to NOT use the EOC located in WTC7 (which is standard operating procedure) was made by Guliani and transfered to a temporary location which had been setup the day before by FEMA for a drill that was to take place the next day. That is so against SOP it isn't even funny. And how lucky was it that there was an extra EOC just waiting to be used! Wow, what a series of coincidences!!!

http://www.firehouse.com/magazine/ar...r/tactics.html

Buildings around the WTC site had damage from debris and fires fuled by office contents only and had structural members that buckled. 130 Liberty Street had only minor fires but has enough structural damage it still has to be torn down.

That is completely incorrect also. The Deutsche Bank Building (130 Liberty) sustained damage from the WTC2 collapse, not fire. A large chunk of debris from WTC2 ripped a 24 story hole in the building a destroyed the lobby. The decision was made by the underwriters to deconstruct the building rather than repair it. The primary reason for this was because the fire supression system (the sprinkers) had been too effective and too much water had spread throughout the building. This caused a black mold problem that created a health risk. Fire and structure damage were NOT the reason for this building's demise.

And WTC7 did not come down in it's own footprint. The pictures of the debris are anything but in it's own footprint; the building to the north (30 West Broadway) is being torn down due to damage from WTC7's collapse.

Where are you getting your information??? Fiterman Hall (30 West Broadway) was in the middle of being gutted on September 11th, as ordered by the EPA. Because of a health risk the building was being gutted and slated for demolition. That decision was made long before September 11th and was fully supported by the EPA and the owner, the City University of New York.

I'm not saying it wasn't an inside job, I'm just saying if you're going to believe things to support your view, be prepared to question your view if those things are shown to be false.

Yes, you better do just that, and also do the homework to find the facts out about what happened or was happening at the time. You really missed the mark on many things in this post.

[photon]

Reports? The FACTS indicate there were indeed pools of molten metal. Those working on the clean up of the site had to deal with these pools which made clean up efforts grind to a hault for days at a time. As for what the metal was, I think aluminum has been ruled out. The temperatures and the color of the molten metal are no congruent with aluminum, but more so with steel.

Source? No source that I've seen shows the composition of any molten metal in either direction. How has aluminum been ruled out?

The photos I've seen from Jone's paper about workers peering into the hot core under WTC rubble appear to be fake; one is of workers using a blow torch (somehow the caption on the photo got removed), the other was colour altered from a rescue operation where white light was changed to look yellow/orange like molten metal.

According to reseach done by the Scholars for 9/11 Truth you are wrong. Experiments and independent verification have proved the theory suggested that thermite and sulfer would indeed produce the molten metal.

Sure thermite would produce molten metal (I've watched the video where they put a thermite on a car engine block), but how does that metal stay molten? Without a source of heat the metal will cool and solidify. Fire needs fuel. And just because thermite and sulfer have the ability to produce molten metal does not prove they did in this case. No evidence of thermite has been found; some trace chemicals have been found (that can be attributed to other sources), and other common byproducts haven't been found.

Scholars for 911 have their own problems.. Jones has been removed from teaching and other things:
http://www.deseretnews.com/dn/view/0...199800,00.html
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com...-scholars.html

Incorrect again. WTC7 sustained little damage and fires were restricted to a few floors. That was fully exposed in the NYC investigation completed in the month after 9/11. The firefighters and EMS staff that worked WTC7 were very clear on the damage to the building, it was superficial, as were the fires. WTC was actually sheltered from damage by other buildings in the complex, all of which remained standing. WTC7 sustained damage to a single corner of the building, which would have had little impact on the integrity of the structure as its core remained undamaged and completely intact because of the sheltering effects of the other buildings around it.

Some shots of the fires with smoke:
http://tinyurl.com/f3tvd
http://tinyurl.com/zg4un

Videos can be decieving though.. Here are accounts from firefighters (this is their trade) at the scene:

We walked over by number Seven World Trade Center as it was burning and saw this 40-plus story building with fire on nearly all floors. – FDNY Lieutenant Robert LaRocca - NYT

...Just when you thought it was over, you're walking by this building and
you're hearing this building creak and fully involved in flames. It's like, is
it coming down next? Sure enough, about a half an hour later it came down. – FDNY Lieutenant James McGlynn - NYT

I walked out and I got to Vesey and West, where I reported to Frank
[Cruthers]. He said, we’re moving the command post over this way, that building’s coming down. At this point, the fire was going virtually on every floor, heavy fire and smoke that really wasn’t bothering us when we were searching because it was being pushed southeast and we were a little bit west of that. I remember standing just where West and Vesey start to rise toward the entrance we were using in the World Financial Center. There were a couple of guys standing with me and a couple of guys right at the intersection, and we were trying to back them up – and here goes 7. It started to come down and now people were
starting to run. –FDNY Deputy Chief Nick Visconti - firehouse.com

When the building came down it was completely involved in fire, all fortyseven stories. –FDNY Assistant Chief Harry Myers

And 7 World Trade was burning up at the time. We could see it. ... the
fire at 7 World Trade was working its way from the front of the building
northbound to the back of the building. There was no way there could be water put on it, because there was no water in the area. –Firefighter Eugene Kelty Jr. - NYT

There's dozens more quotes from people at the scene on how the building was fully engaged.

As for the damage, the damage to the single corner was 18 stories tall (as shown in a Police Dept photo). The newer report says WTC7 was more damaged than the FEMA report indicated.

"On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." - NIST's Sunder talking to P.M.

They also discovered more damage near the roof of the buliding at the southwest corner.

Quotes about the damage:

The major concern at that time was number Seven, building number Seven, which had taken a big hit from the north tower. When it fell, it ripped steel out from between the third and sixth floors across the facade on Vesey Street. We were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing. –FDNY Chief Frank Fellini

[Shortly after the tower collapses] I don‚t know how long this was going
on, but I remember standing there looking over at building 7 and realizing that a big chunk of the lower floors had been taken out on the Vesey Street side. I looked up at the building and I saw smoke in it, but I really didn't see any fire at that time. Deputy ƒƒChief Nick Visconti

Videos show more damage than the single corner as well. The firefighters talk about the building not looking square, creaking, etc.

This is a pretty standard code all over North America and adopted around the world. What is your point? Fact of the matter is that WTC7 was a steel and concrete building, and no building of this construction had EVER collapsed prior from fire and subsequent damage. What you also fail to mention is that WTC7 was fortified and constructed to be stronger than your average building. The NYC Emergency Operations Center was actually in WTC7. What is interesting is that the decision to NOT use the EOC located in WTC7 (which is standard operating procedure) was made by Guliani and transfered to a temporary location which had been setup the day before by FEMA for a drill that was to take place the next day. That is so against SOP it isn't even funny. And how lucky was it that there was an extra EOC just waiting to be used! Wow, what a series of coincidences!!!

My point is if it is code to do something, there's a reason to do it. That reason is fires of only office contents can and have compromised the structure of a steel building.

Every modern steel-framed skyscraper that has been subjected to these three interdependant conditions has collapsed: 1) Severe structural damage 2) Damage to the thermal protection 3) Numerous uncontrolled fires on multiple floors.

The often talked about Madrid Windsor Building fire had the unprotected steel fail due to fire (though the concrete core still stood; the new WTC7 has a concrete core as opposed to steel core, and has very thick fire resistant coatings on its structural steel).

NIST's final report on WTC7 is due out in 2007, so we have to wait until then for the final info.

No comment on the EOC stuff, haven't read anything about that before. Though a coincidence isn't evidence.

That is completely incorrect also. The Deutsche Bank Building (130 Liberty) sustained damage from the WTC2 collapse, not fire. A large chunk of debris from WTC2 ripped a 24 story hole in the building a destroyed the lobby. The decision was made by the underwriters to deconstruct the building rather than repair it. The primary reason for this was because the fire supression system (the sprinkers) had been too effective and too much water had spread throughout the building. This caused a black mold problem that created a health risk. Fire and structure damage were NOT the reason for this building's demise.

That's what I was saying, that 130 Liberty had very few fires and had little if any structural damage due to fires (sorry, I wasn't implying that the small fires had still caused it to need to be taken down, my sentence wasn't clear).

Hadn't seen that about the mold problem though, that's interesting. I haven't been able to find that on the EPA site though.

Doesn't matter to my point though, I was just trying to show that fires with office contents only are sufficient to compromise structural steel. There's tons of info on it.

Where are you getting your information??? Fiterman Hall (30 West Broadway) was in the middle of being gutted on September 11th, as ordered by the EPA. Because of a health risk the building was being gutted and slated for demolition. That decision was made long before September 11th and was fully supported by the EPA and the owner, the City University of New York.

http://www.epa.gov/wtc/demolish_deco...0wbroadway.htm

According to that info the building was gutted and being rehabed, not demoed. It was almost finished being completely rehabilitated, including removing asbestos, when 911 happened. It was due to damage from WTC7 that the building is being demolished.

And that the building was in the process of being demolished or not doesn't change the amount of damage it took from WTC7.

Yes, you better do just that, and also do the homework to find the facts out about what happened or was happening at the time. You really missed the mark on many things in this post.

I don't see how I missed any mark.

[timbit]

"Jones, the BYU physicist, you speak of, who specializes in metal-catalyzed fusion, archaeometry, and solar energy, joined the 9/11 research effort after being intrigued by the unexplained collapse of the 47-story WTC 7 at 5:25 p.m. on the afternoon of 9/11.

Jones scientific interest was sparked after having read the August 2002 report in American Free Press that molten iron had been found in the rubble of all three collapsed WTC towers ­ including WTC 7. In fact,"literally molten steel" had been found, more than a month after the collapse, at the bases of the collapsed towers, where their load-bearing central support columns . Such persistent and intense residual heat, 70 feet below the surface, could explain how these crucial structural supports failed.....could it not? Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction of Flushing, New York, stated he had seen pools of "literally molten steel" at the World Trade Center, where his company had been contracted to remove debris, weeks after the three towers collapsed.

Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. (CDI) of Phoenix, Maryland, wrote the clean-up plan for the WTC and confirmed the presence of molten metal at the site. "Yes," Loizeaux said, "hot spots of molten steel in the basements."

These incredibly hot areas were found "at the bottoms of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven [basement] levels," Loizeaux said. The molten steel was found "three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed," he said. Loizeaux also confirmed that molten iron had been found in the rubble of WTC 7, the tower owned by Larry Silverstein which was neither hit by an airplane nor severely damaged, but which collapsed mysteriously in the late afternoon of 9/11.

In 2005, Jones began investigating the collapse of WTC 7 and the large amounts of molten iron seen falling from the burning South Tower.

These two subjects remain completely unexplained in the official literature on 9/11.

"The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time," the FEMA-sponsored WTC Building Performance Study of 2002 concluded. "Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence," it said. The way that the building collapsed within its own footprint suggested that it was an "internal collapse," the report said. The long awaited NIST report on the collapse of WTC 7 is supposed to be released next year. BYU ANALYSIS OF MOLTEN METAL The question of what caused the 47 load-bearing central columns of the twin towers to fall has been a fundamental question about the unexplained collapses of the WTC towers. The fire-induced collapse scenario does not explain why these crucial internal box columns would have failed. Last summer, after obtaining pieces of the hardened molten fragments from the WTC, Jones and other scientists at BYU conducted extensive laboratory tests and found that the molten metal was primarily composed of iron ­ with slight traces of structural steel. From the physical and photographic evidence Jones concluded that Thermite, or a similar aluminothermic process, was used to slice the central core columns and bring down the twin towers.

Jones, along with 2 other physicists and a geologist at BYU, conducted Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy (EDS), X-ray Fluorescence (XRF) and Electron Microprobe analyses on the samples. The previously molten metal samples were predominately iron, with very little chromium, Jones said, along with uncommon chemical elements in abundance such as fluorine and manganese.

Aluminum and sulfur were also present, which he said would be expected from thermate reactions. Thermate is Thermite, which is powdered aluminum and ferrous oxide, with 2 percent sulfur added to the mixture to increase the steel-cutting effectiveness of the reaction. "The results," Jones says in a presentation he recently gave at Idaho State University, "coupled with visual evidence at the scene such as the flowing yellow-hot liquid metal still red after falling about 500 feet, provide compelling evidence that Thermite reaction compounds (aluminothermics) were used, meaning Thermite was deliberately placed in both WTC Towers and WTC 7." See: http://worldtradecentertruth.com/vol...Department.pdf Jones' research papers are online at www.journalof911studies.com.


Isn't it strange that no other building in the history of mankind, with this type of steel core....have ever come down because of fire?

ZERO..

Yet....3 come down in the same day within a quarter mile of each other.

The skyscraper in Madrid Spain that was in an inferno for 24 hours had no hint of steel structural damage.

Plain and simple the jet fuel and the sustained heat of the fires was nowhere near strong enough to bring down those towers.

...all 3 come straight down in their own footprint...in 10 or less seconds .
each?

Hmmmm.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by photon

Source? No source that I've seen shows the composition of any molten metal in either direction. How has aluminum been ruled out?

The colour of molten aluminum and the color of the molten metal and the reported temperatures don't match up. You can't have one without the other being affected and the two variables never meet.

The photos I've seen from Jone's paper ...

Interesting. The photographic evidence always seems to be discounted by those who are trying to debunk any theory as to why thinks happened on 9/11. Thankfully Jones' paper is not based solely on some photographic evidence and uses other data, verified in the lab, so state his case. As to his work, his peer reviewers seem to disagree with you and your opinion.

Sure thermite would produce molten metal ...

Those byproducts you speak of are also the result of thermite being used. Your attempt to discredit the use of thermite by saying that these by products can be produced naturally doesn't fly. The by products support the potential for thermite being used just as much as it does that it doesn't. That is an obfuscation defense. Sure, those by products could form naturally, but there would have to be a whole string of coincidences for that possibly to exist. I can see why you like that defense, as it perfectly aligns with everything else in the "official story". All the evidence in the world to the contrary is just "a coincidence". Conditions have to be perfect for those by products to develop. Sure, its possible they formed naturally, but that doesn't explain away the other evidence that suggests the demolition (the angular cuts in the support columns, the consistency in the length of the columns, the way the cement was pulverized into a fine powder, etc.).

Scholars for 911 have their own problems...

And these two links prove what exactly? That BYU, an ultra-conservative pro-Republican university, is suspending a professor for speaking on something they did not want spoken on? That the "conservatives" can be just as whacky in developing their own conspiracy theories as the "liberals"? The only thing it proves is that the conservative approach to making matters go away is to attack the individual, not the actual thought and science behind it. Frankly, if NIST and the 9/11 Commission did their job in the first place, Jones wouldn't have a voice or an axe to grind.

Some shots of the fires with smoke:

Links don't work, I get nothing but ascii code.

Videos can be decieving though.. Here are accounts from firefighters (this is their trade) at the scene...

You'll have to give me time to go through each individual's testimony from the NYC study completed right after the events. It'll take some time though. None of this data is online anymore, but I did save copies of all of the testimony before it was restricted. This does not jibe with the information I read from what I recall. I'll seach for each of the people listed and get back to you on this testimony.

As for the damage, the damage to the single corner was 18 stories tall (as shown in a Police Dept photo). The newer report says WTC7 was more damaged than the FEMA report indicated...

Interesting stuff. Nice contradictory testimony though. For the building to collapse it would have required the central core to have been destroyed. The exterior fascia is not foing to cause a major collapse.

My point is if it is code to do something, there's a reason to do it. That reason is fires of only office contents can and have compromised the structure of a steel building.

And the contents of a building do not burn with the intensity to generate the heat suggested. It would have taken days for the fires to cause the damage suggested.

Every modern steel-framed skyscraper that has been subjected to these three interdependant conditions has collapsed: 1) Severe structural damage 2) Damage to the thermal protection 3) Numerous uncontrolled fires on multiple floors.

Bull****. There never has been an incident like you suggest, not even on 9/11. All three variables did NOT happen to each and every building and in to the extent you suggest. The whole thermal protection theory is the 9/11 Commission/NIST Resport's magic bullet. All of this happened because the thermal protection shook loose. Another unbeilevable coincidence!

The often talked about Madrid Windsor Building fire had the unprotected steel fail due to fire (though the concrete core still stood; the new WTC7 has a concrete core as opposed to steel core, and has very thick fire resistant coatings on its structural steel).

After burning for 36 hours, and the structure NEVER collapsed!!! Have you seen the pictures from this fire?







And here is the aftermath.



Oh look, it didn't collapse!!! Not even having every single floor completely burned away did the structure collapse. Oh, and look up top. That's the construction crane still standing. The crane, a steel structure with NO fireproofing at all, remianed in tact and standing after being subjected to an inferno that raged on for over a day.

NIST's final report on WTC7 is due out in 2007, so we have to wait until then for the final

Well, if its half as good and near as concise as the first one, it will worthy of being a door stop! But I agree, lets wait and see what they have to say. I must say, it is strange that the WTC reports came out in no time, but WTC7 is taking six years to write? This one must be a page turner!!!

No comment on the EOC stuff, haven't read anything about that before. Though a coincidence isn't evidence.

It's not A coincidence, its a SERIES of coincidences. This series of coincidences don't add up. It is sooooooooo against SOP to not use your EOC, especially when it is right on site. Gulliani has never been able to explain why he made the decision to go to a different location, he just did. Wow, what a stroke of luck! Imagine what would have happened if that temporary FEMA EOC wasn't available??? Unthinkable!

That's what I was saying, that 130 Liberty had very few fires and had little if any structural damage due to fires (sorry, I wasn't implying that the small fires had still caused it to need to be taken down, my sentence wasn't clear).

The building did not collapse and the building wasn't damaged as part of the attack or the demolition of the towers. This building is irrelevant. It's smoke and mirrors used to obfuscate the facts.

Hadn't seen that about the mold problem though, that's interesting. I haven't been able to find that on the EPA site though.

Doesn't matter to my point though, I was just trying to show that fires with office contents only are sufficient to compromise structural steel. There's tons of info on it.

There's no info on it because it has never happened before. Fires generated from office products do not generate enough heat to cause a collapse. It's never happened and likely never will.

http://www.epa.gov/wtc/demolish_deco...0wbroadway.htm

According to that info the building was gutted and being rehabed, not demoed. It was almost finished being completely rehabilitated, including removing asbestos, when 911 happened. It was due to damage from WTC7 that the building is being demolished.

And that the building was in the process of being demolished or not doesn't change the amount of damage it took from WTC7.

I don't see how I missed any mark.

It is the intent of CUNY and the Dormitory Authority of the State of New York to first abate and decontaminate the building and then demolish it. The plan is to replace the building with a new classroom building similar in size to Fiterman Hall.

I'm not sure how familiar you are with the demolition of buildings that have hazardous products in them, but what is described is SOP. If the building has asbestos as insulation or fireproofing, and the building is earmarked for demolition it (the material) must be completely removed before the shell can come down. It had always been the intention of CUNY to have the building gutted, destroyed, and a new building erected in its place. The demolition of the building was NOT a result of anything to do with 9/11. This is another red herring that is meant to give validity to the every growing legend about the damage to/from WTC7.

[photon]

The colour of molten aluminum and the color of the molten metal and the reported temperatures don't match up. You can't have one without the other being affected and the two variables never meet.

Again, source? Who used what equipment to determine the colour and temperature?

Not that it matters, molten pools do not support demolition anyway.

Interesting. The photographic evidence always seems to be discounted by those who are trying to debunk any theory as to why thinks happened on 9/11. Thankfully Jones' paper is not based solely on some photographic evidence and uses other data, verified in the lab, so state his case. As to his work, his peer reviewers seem to disagree with you and your opinion.

There are lots of peer reviewed papers that aren't worth the paper they are printed on. It depends on who the peers are. Shouldn't a peer reviewed paper have such simple errors caught?

Those byproducts you speak of are also the result of thermite being used. Your attempt to discredit the use of thermite by saying that these by products can be produced naturally doesn't fly. The by products support the potential for thermite being used just as much as it does that it doesn't. That is an obfuscation defense. Sure, those by products could form naturally, but there would have to be a whole string of coincidences for that possibly to exist. I can see why you like that defense, as it perfectly aligns with everything else in the "official story". All the evidence in the world to the contrary is just "a coincidence". Conditions have to be perfect for those by products to develop. Sure, its possible they formed naturally, but that doesn't explain away the other evidence that suggests the demolition (the angular cuts in the support columns, the consistency in the length of the columns, the way the cement was pulverized into a fine powder, etc.).

Exactly, those byproducts can be the result of thermite. By showing that those byproducts could occur through other means does not prove thermite wasn't used, it just shows that you can't prove thermite was used with just that data alone. Not finding the rest of the chemicals that thermite does produce in large quantities suppors that it wasn't used however.

If the proposed thermate is typically 2% sulfer then the other reaction byproduct components of it should be found in greater amounts, but aren't:
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf

Thermite burns through things downwards with gravity, not at an angle. To make the diagonal cut often shown there would have to be something attached to the steel column to hold the thermite/ate in place while it burned. Something that could withstand 4000 degrees. Plus igniting devices that could withstand impact from an aircraft, debris, and the resulting fires and still work perfectly. And these attachments to the columns would have to be done all over the building since they wouldn't know exactly where the plane would it. And then these attachments would have to be removed (since they won't burn up on their own, they can withstand thermite). Sorry, but that stretches the imagination too far.

A lot of this has already been covered before though:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
Separate from the WTC towers investigation, NIST researchers estimated that at least 0.13 pounds of thermite would be required to heat each pound of a steel section to approximately 700 degrees Celsius (the temperature at which steel weakens substantially). Therefore, while a thermite reaction can cut through large steel columns, many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been placed inconspicuously ahead of time, remotely ignited, and somehow held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building. This makes it an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled demolition.

http://911myths.com/Sulfur.pdf

http://www.teamliberty.net/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/240406thermite1.jpg

You can see at the bottom of the column on top of the debris a blob of cooled molten steel, similar in colour and shape to the blobs on the column itself. That column was cut after the collapse.

Links don't work, I get nothing but ascii code.

Here's the expanded links:

http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Smoke.avi
http://www.911myths.com/wtc7moresmoke.avi

You'll have to give me time to go through each individual's testimony from the NYC study completed right after the events. It'll take some time though. None of this data is online anymore, but I did save copies of all of the testimony before it was restricted. This does not jibe with the information I read from what I recall. I'll seach for each of the people listed and get back to you on this testimony.

Sure.. all of the testimony I've seen was linked to either source websites (such as the NYT archives) or from books.

Interesting stuff. Nice contradictory testimony though. For the building to collapse it would have required the central core to have been destroyed. The exterior fascia is not foing to cause a major collapse.

And the contents of a building do not burn with the intensity to generate the heat suggested. It would have taken days for the fires to cause the damage suggested.

Like I said there's tons of info on how office content fires can produce enough heat to compromise unprotected steel, the one fire fighting site said within minutes and hours, not just days.

Relatively small proportional losses of fire protection material are required before significant reductions in fire resistance are realized.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/p2u5816668685277/

http://www.firehouse.com/magazine/ar...r/tactics.html
http://www.arup.com/fire/feature.cfm?pageid=6150
http://www.ilo.org/encyclopedia/?doc&nd=857100058&nh=0
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/r...?ArtNum=148816

Lots more on that if you so desire.

Oh look, it didn't collapse!!! Not even having every single floor completely burned away did the structure collapse. Oh, and look up top. That's the construction crane still standing. The crane, a steel structure with NO fireproofing at all, remianed in tact and standing after being subjected to an inferno that raged on for over a day.

Exactly, look at the aftermath. All the structural steel that was part of the fire collapsed, leaving the concrete core standing, supporting the crane. The crane wasn't in the fire, it was above it. The major heat from a fire is in its core, not at the flames.

It is the intent of CUNY and the Dormitory Authority of the State of New York to first abate and decontaminate the building and then demolish it. The plan is to replace the building with a new classroom building similar in size to Fiterman Hall.

I'm not sure how familiar you are with the demolition of buildings that have hazardous products in them, but what is described is SOP. If the building has asbestos as insulation or fireproofing, and the building is earmarked for demolition it (the material) must be completely removed before the shell can come down. It had always been the intention of CUNY to have the building gutted, destroyed, and a new building erected in its place. The demolition of the building was NOT a result of anything to do with 9/11. This is another red herring that is meant to give validity to the every growing legend about the damage to/from WTC7.

No, the building was not earmarked for demolition before 9/11.
From the characterization report linked:
http://www.epa.gov/wtc/demolish_deco...0wbroadway.htm
Fiterman Hall is a 1950’s-era steel and concrete structure that was used as an office building until the early 1990’s when the building was converted to use as a classroom building by the Borough of Manhattan Community College (BMCC). A number of renovation and upgrade projects were executed at Fiterman Hall. In the 1990’s the ribbon window system was completely replaced with a new, modern window system. In 2000 and 2001 the building underwent a complete interior gut rehabilitation that included extensive asbestos abatement. On September 11, 2001, this renovation was nearly complete, and the building was 50% occupied by BMCC.
The collapse of WTC 7 tore open the façade of Fiterman Hall from the roof down to the basement, filled the southeast corner of the building with debris, and allowed the incursion of WTC dust. The NYC Department of Design and Construction conducted an emergency response clean-out of the building debris that had rained down from WTC 7 into the building, and DASNY conducted a building stabilization project that included shoring of the gash area, the installation of temporary barriers where the façade had been breached, and the netting of the damaged façade.

As fun as this is, I'm not a professional and don't have the tons of resources that others have in debating this. Most of what you mention though I have seen addressed in one way or another though on the various sites and reports. So I'll have to beg off continuing, my goal in posting wasn't to debate the issue, it was only to show that even superficial research by a layperson can find information that demonstrates some claims and evidence as false or at least ambiguous.

[Looger]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Did anyone happen to catch the South Park episode this week?

I'll just say it was brilliantly done.

it sure was.

'it was the jews' - yep, i hear THAT all the time in the 9/11 truth movement...

anyone believing that, well...

interesting that the site "911truth.org" was onscreen as much as it was. why not a weaker site?