No Explosives Here?

[atavisms]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_349174ab58ab15b041.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17614)
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/docs/site1085c.jpg

greetings,

I am confused how anyone could look at the facts of 9/11 and not see explosives in these events. Are we seeing the same images and results here?

http://www.911review.com/attack/wtc/explosions.html

shorts vids u'v seen im sure. (just wanna be sure)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtx_GcFCs6c

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toUdpeI04pM
**This bottom one was shot while the cameraman was running.. It has been stabilized by holding the building steady and moving the frame.



http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_349174abc6b3763c5d.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17665)
The only constituents of the Twin Towers that survived the "collapses" in the form of recognizable pieces of any size were their metal parts, such as pieces of structural steel and aluminum cladding. Virtually all the non-metallic parts of the towers and their contents were converted to microscopic dust particles or small unrecognizable fragments. (-jim hoffman)

The debris field:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/gzaerial4.html


Read through the work of dozens of serious scientists who have investigated and are currently investigating 9/11 without prejudice. Look at the images and facts of these events without prejudice or personal incredulity.

Dr Niels Harrit, whose paper has been so ignorantly maligned here on this forum, has run the chemistry dept at the prestigious Niels Bohrs Institute in Copenhagen for 37 years. The (actually) peer-reviewed paper he was the lead author on, (Active Thermitic Materials..) involved 8 other scientists who have no reason to lie. Further studies are being conducted in France & Ct., as per Steven Jones.

Scientific papers, and scientific bullying
cmatrix, I asked you some questions. You didn't answer. Twice..

aside, I don't need any authority to explain the obvious to me!

Take a few FACTS:

-Missing Bodies/DNA

Not counting the 122 people on flights 11 & 175 there were approximately
2,630 people in the buildings. Many people died on the streets from falling debris and these must account for most of the 300 intact bodies found because you can clearly see through images the levels of destruction and by what remained of the towers afterwards/ If the concrete was blasted apart what hope for the people?

Authorities conducted a comprehensive 2 year search for victims by looking through the tons of smaller debris. Having carted it to Freshkills Landfill (*What Popular Mechanics tries unsuccessfully to use to 'debunk' the claim that the structural steel, in fact, had not been shipped directly from Ground Zero to overseas recyclers. (it was- check it out if you know how)

In Staten Island, they systematically spread the smaller debris out on conveyor belts which moved past a line of attendants who worked to cull out any body parts they could locate by hand.

Despite this intense and prolonged (2 years) search, and the use of advanced DNA recovery techniques, there remains almost 1100 people completely unaccounted for.
-No discernible trace was found!

The fact is that many people were identified by test tube size pieces (from tens of thousands of body parts recovered) In the case of one family all they got the man's femur which had been located '2.5 blocks away'
200 of the DNA tests matched a single individual. 70 of 343 NYFD personnel located.
Gravity did that?

Demolitions experts have a technique to help them determine the power of any building blast; they look at the macroscopic pieces of concrete. There were virtually no macroscopic pieces of concrete in the debris field of the WTC despite the fact that there were 110 4" reinforced concrete floor slabs in each tower. We have to imagine, whatever so systematically pulveruized all that concrete will do much worse to people

-The concrete of WTC 1&2 :
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_349174abc71aee676c.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17668)http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_349174abc7158489f6.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17667)

-WTC 7's textbook implosion

-The residual heat

The fires that would not go out despite a steady stream of water from numerous lines. So much water in fact, that the NYFD were 'creating a lake' in lower Manhattan and still it would not go out.
My understanding is that thermite burns rather quickly. What was it exactly that was burning at ground zero for 99 days?)

-May 2002 FEMA Reports Evaporated Construction Grade Steel (?huh?)
(through intense high heat corrosion) (?huh?)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_349174ab560a729cdf.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17611)
*images from FEMA BPAT (may 2002)
Appendix C: A limited Metallurgical Examination[/I]
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/WTC_apndxC.htm

Jim Hoffman wrote, "The results of the examination are striking. They reveal a phenomenon never before observed in building fires: eutectic reactions, which caused "intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese." The New York Times described this as "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation."

“A one-inch column has been reduced to Half-inch thickness. Its edges--which are curled like a paper scroll--have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes --some larger than a silver dollar--let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending--but not holes.” -WPI


-Witness testimony to molten metal:

Firefighter Philip Ruvolo, speaking of the Twin Towers, said: “You'd get down below and you'd see molten steel, molten steel, running down the channel rails, like you're in a foundry, like lava." [31]

Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction, which was involved in the clean-up operation, said that he saw pools of “literally molten steel.” [32]

Leslie Robertson, a member of the engineering firm that designed the Twin Towers. [34]

Dr. Ronald Burger of the National Center for Environmental Health. [35]

Dr. Alison Geyh of The Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, who headed up a scientific team that went to the site shortly after 9/11 at the request of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. [36]

Finally, the fact that “molten steel was also found at WTC 7” was added by Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc., which was involved in the clean-up. [37] *references please see: DR Griffin's article posted at: http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article13528.html


NIST:

"Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues?" . . ."NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel."
-- NIST Responses to FAQs, August 2006

In follow-up to this response NIST spokesperson Michael Neuman was challenged by Hartford Advocate reporter Jennifer Abel on this glaring omission in the WTC report

ABEL: … what about that letter where NIST said it didn’t look for evidence of explosives?

NEUMAN: Right, because there was no evidence of that.

ABEL: But how can you know there’s no evidence if you don’t look for it first?

NEUMAN: If you’re looking for something that isn’t there, you’re wasting your time….and the taxpayers money."

This omission is at odds with the requirement of the national standard for fire investigation (NFPA 921), which calls for testing related to thermite and other pyrotechnics. It is also at odds with the video evidence of explosions, and the testimony of fire department personnel, more than 100 of whom officially reported hearing or seeing explosions. NIST also failed to explain the source of large quantities of molten metal in the WTC rubble, or the abundant amounts of iron microspheres in the dust.

NIST, as a matter of routine, should have tested the WTC dust for residue of explosives, such as nanothermite. The Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations put out by the National Fire Protection Association says that a search for evidence for explosives should be undertaken whenever there has been “high-order damage.” Leaving no doubt about the meaning of this term, the Guide says:

High-order damage is characterized by shattering of the structure, producing small, pulverized debris. Walls, roofs, and structural members are splintered or shattered, with the building completely demolished. [27]

That description applied to the destruction of the Twin Towers and WTC 7. The next sentence – “Debris is thrown great distances, possibly hundreds of feet” – applied to the destruction of the Twin Towers, a fact that NIST had to admit in order to explain how fires were started in WTC 7. [28] So NIST should have looked for signs of explosives, such as nanothermite.


*last bit from, http://rockcreekfreepress.tumblr.com/post/98195547/scientists-find-explosives-in-world-trade-center-dust

just for a start.

[dtugg]

No Explosives Here?

Nope.

[R.Mackey]

NIST did look for signs of explosives, and found none. Take a look at NCSTAR1-3.

It isn't "scientific bullying." You're just wrong.

[MikeW]

Despite this intense and prolonged (2 years) search, and the use of advanced DNA recovery techniques, there remains almost 1100 people completely unaccounted for.
-No discernible trace was found!
Misleading. The reality is that Shaler (the man behind the identification project) has access to many remains that he can't identify because of the condition they were in:

But in many cases DNA was also damaged or destroyed. In initial tests, researchers found that fire and water damage rendered the DNA unusable in about sixty-one percent of the remains recovered from the wreckage. "The problem with the World Trade Center samples is that they were exposed to extremes of heat for about three months as those buildings burned," explains Shaler. "In addition to that, they were spraying water on it to keep it cool so the workers could get in there and find the people, and the warm, moist environment is very bad for DNA, it's very bad for tissues, which decompose rapidly under those circumstances."
http://www.sciencentral.com/articles/view.php3?article_id=218392053

The remains are there, there's just no way to tell who's who. :(

[fourtoe]

so wait, I think you're telling us you think that this was an inside job?

[Fjolle]

Dr Niels Harrit, whose paper has been so ignorantly maligned here on this forum, has run the chemistry dept at the prestigious Niels Bohrs Institute in Copenhagen for 37 years.

Wow. What a load of nonsense.

First of all the Niels Bohr Institute (http://www.nbi.ku.dk/)is the department of Physics and Astromony, and has nothing to do with the department of chemistry.

B: He is just an assistant professor at the department of chemistry and has no doctorate, the institute leader is called Mikael Bols (http://www.ki.ku.dk/ansatte/alle/profil/?id=201563).

III: The dean of natural science at KU is called Nils Andersen, and he resigned (http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2009/04/bentham-editor-resigns-over-steven.html)after the article had been published.

[Hokulele]

Wow. What a load of nonsense.


The rest of the post isn't much better.

"Virtually no macroscopic pieces of concrete in the debris field."

*Snork*

[Reactor drone]

so wait, I think you're telling us you think that this was an inside job?

I'm shocked.Why hasn't this been brought up before?


:)

Loads of macroscopic concrete here if you're game to lookhttp://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/wtc/

[Orphia Nay]

That description applied to the destruction of the Twin Towers and WTC 7. The next sentence – “[B]Debris is thrown great distances, possibly hundreds of feet” – applied to the destruction of the Twin Towers, a fact that NIST had to admit in order to explain how fires were started in WTC 7. [28] So NIST should have looked for signs of explosives, such as nanothermite.

How does the sputter of nanothermite burning cause debris to be thrown hundreds of feet?

I don't expect a sensible answer. I'm just asking for them:

[fourtoe]

That description applied to the destruction of the Twin Towers and WTC 7. The next sentence – “Debris is thrown great distances, possibly hundreds of feet” – applied to the destruction of the Twin Towers, a fact that NIST had to admit in order to explain how fires were started in WTC 7.

Is this a part of a textbook implosion?

Also, let me ask you: do you disagree with the findings described in this quote by a 911 researcher who investigated the WTC collapses?

As we examined the WTC-debris sample, we found large chunks of concrete (irregular in shape and size, one was approximately 5cm X 3 cm X 3cm) as well as medium-sized pieces of wall-board (with the binding paper still attached). Thus, the pulverization was in fact NOT to fine dust, and it is a false premise to start with near-complete pulverization to fine powder

And I'm not sure if this has been said but, welcome to the forums! :)

[McHrozni]

My understanding is that thermite burns rather quickly. What was it exactly that was burning at ground zero for 99 days?

Your understanding is correct, and shows, quite conclusively, it wasn't thermite.

McHrozni

[funk de fino]

(*What Popular Mechanics tries unsuccessfully to use to 'debunk' the claim that the structural steel, in fact, had not been shipped directly from Ground Zero to overseas recyclers. (it was- check it out if you know how)

That is a lie

Check Brent Blanchards paper about the investigation of the steel from the WTC.

http://www.jod911.com/WTC%20COLLAPSE%20STUDY%20BBlanchard%208-8-06.pdf

Page 8, assertion 6. If you have a problem with these claims, then you can contact the personnel mentioned. You will be the fist member of the 911TM on here to have done so AFAIK

[Fjolle]

The rest of the post isn't much better.

Yea, I know. I just picked something that i thought wasnt common knowledge...

[funk de fino]

This omission is at odds with the requirement of the national standard for fire investigation (NFPA 921), which calls for testing related to thermite and other pyrotechnics.

NFPA921 is guidelines on fire investigation.

I am sure trifiorcharity will school you on this one.

NFPA 921: Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations, 2008 Edition

http://www.nfpa.org/catalog/product.asp?pid=92108&order%5Fsrc=A292

AFAIK it is not a legal directive or standard.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I believe Popular Mechanics (http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=5) handles the explosives claim best:

FACT: "There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."

The report issued by Lamont-Doherty includes various graphs showing the seismic readings produced by the planes crashing into the two towers as well as the later collapse of both buildings. WhatReallyHappened.com chooses to display only one graph (Graph 1), which shows the readings over a 30-minute time span.

On that graph, the 8- and 10-second collapses appear — misleadingly — as a pair of sudden spikes. Lamont-Doherty's 40-second plot of the same data (Graph 2) gives a much more detailed picture: The seismic waves — blue for the South Tower, red for the North Tower — start small and then escalate as the buildings rumble to the ground. Translation: no bombs.

This is basic physics. Any two objects in direct physical contact will transfer energy to eachother. Your imaginary demo charges are in contact with the steel girders, which are in turn in contact with the girders below them and are in turn in contact with the girders below them. Eventually, you reach the pilings in the foundation which are driven into the bedrock. The detonation of the hallucinatory bombs would have sent the energy of their vibrations into the buildings frame, down through the foundation and into the bedrock and would have come through as loud and clear on LDEOs siesmographs as a Twisted Sister Concert in Carnegie Hall.

There were no explosives in the Twin Towers. It is just not possible in this universe, sorry.

[GlennB]

Virtually all the non-metallic parts of the towers and their contents were converted to microscopic dust particles or small unrecognizable fragments. (-jim hoffman)


Hoffman was wrong, either deliberately or through sheer stupidity. He took his figures from a study into the makeup of the drifting dust plume which, by definition, could contain no macroscopic debris. See how easily you were fooled, atavisms?

[Quad4_72]

Its funny when people post crap that was debunked years ago.

[Hokulele]

Yea, I know. I just picked something that i thought wasnt common knowledge...


I did learn something from your post, I just didn't want people to think there were only minor details wrong with the OP.

[TruthersLie]

blah blah blah

just for a start.

Now sonny. First, google is your friend. Put in each of the twoof claims, and then for giggles put the word DEBUNKED after them. Now read what comes up.

To answer your question. Were explosives used?

No they were not. NIST did an analysis stating that if CD charges were used it would have deafened anyone within a half mile. It would be unmistakable.

Please find any video (that has original audio, not doctored sound) of the collapse and point out the explosions which would be clearly audible.

There are none.

Gravy has a great video explaining it, and showing you the difference between CD including what just 60 lbs of HE sound like.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2873871255585611926#12m50s**

so you would be able to hear CD charges going off.. where are they? There are NONE. it is rather amazing don'tcha think?

now lets move on to the molten metal claim. Do a simple search for melting pionts of metals. You will find that there are 10 metals which melt under 1000C which are commonly used in office buildings. 10 of them. Can you eliminate any of them from the molten metal seen? yes or no? No you can't. So you can't claim it is molten steel.

Now, what CD process has ever had molten steel/molten metal? Can you point out one CD of a building anywhere in the world where there is molten steel/molten metal? I'll wait.

[Brainache]

Thanks for bringing this brand new research to our attention Mr Atavisms. Now tell us what you are going to do about this Earth shattering news.

Will there be front page stories in the New York Times?

Criminal prosecutions?

Huge crowds of protesters marching on Washington demanding President Bush's impeachment?

Who do you think will be elected President in 2008?

[Bad_Doggie]

(it was- check it out if you know how)

Do you know how to use the search function here? Each and every one of your claims has been answered extensively. You’re not bothering to take the step to do a search does not bring any greater validity to these claims.

It happens everyday I am sure but we do not very often see it happening. People become invested in their beliefs (world view) and their positions stem from that.

Many people are brought up in one faith and never really question things until they get older. Perhaps one day they reach a point in their own development which takes them in another even contrary direction. Often it is from having been presented with new information that leads to an inner conception or realization. Hopefully, we are all learning for life.

You have the chance to "learn all your life", but you have to make the effort yourself, nobody can do it for you. Press the search button.

Woof!

[TruthersLie]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_349174ab58ab15b041.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17614)
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/docs/site1085c.jpg

greetings,

I am confused how anyone could look at the facts of 9/11 and not see explosives in these events. Are we seeing the same images and results here?

http://www.911review.com/attack/wtc/explosions.html

shorts vids u'v seen im sure. (just wanna be sure)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtx_GcFCs6c

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toUdpeI04pM
**This bottom one was shot while the cameraman was running.. It has been stabilized by holding the building steady and moving the frame.



and in all of those videos do you have the sounds of rapid fire explosions right before the collapse in any of the buildings? no. why not? Explosives make noise. Lots of them.
LptXaQ4Wkjw
That is 1,000 lbs of TNT at over a MILE away. Notice how they jump.

please show me a video of anyone nearby right before the buildings collapse wehre they jump. Any video (and don't try passing off the firemen at the phone booth which is AFTER the first tower collapsed)


The only constituents of the Twin Towers that survived the "collapses" in the form of recognizable pieces of any size were their metal parts, such as pieces of structural steel and aluminum cladding. Virtually all the non-metallic parts of the towers and their contents were converted to microscopic dust particles or small unrecognizable fragments. (-jim hoffman)

It is amazing. Absolutely amazing. I know my cell phone could withstand the impact of several hundred thousand tons of debris on them. It is indestructible.


The debris field:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/gzaerial4.html


This actually proves it was NOT explosives. When you use CD to bring down a building you bring it down into its own footprint (or pretty close). Each tower had a footprint of one acre. The debris was spread out over 16 acres. oops.

of course you will say well it was EXPLOSIVES which threw the debris that distance, but you then have the problem from above. Where is the sound on the dozens of recordings of the collapses? And to top that off, where is the schrapnel and the debris being thrown around. Again watch the mythbusters clip I posted. At over a MILE you can hear the schrapnel of the cement truck.

Anyone nearby would have been ripped to shreds and debris would have been thrown miles.


Read through the work of dozens of serious scientists who have investigated and are currently investigating 9/11 without prejudice. Look at the images and facts of these events without prejudice or personal incredulity.


Great provide citations which support your claims. Realize that S Jones and co. are not "serious scientists."


Dr Niels Harrit, whose paper has been so ignorantly maligned here on this forum, has run the chemistry dept at the prestigious Niels Bohrs Institute in Copenhagen for 37 years.


That is a lie as has already been pointed. Niels Bohrs Institute is physics and has NOTHING TO DO WITH CHEMISTRY. And he wasn't "running" that department. 5 minutes of real investigoogling will find that for you.

The (actually) peer-reviewed paper he was the lead author on, (Active Thermitic Materials..) involved 8 other scientists who have no reason to lie. Further studies are being conducted in France & Ct., as per Steven Jones.


Steven Jones was forced to retire or be FIRED from BYU for academic fraud and unethical practices. Yup, he is a "serious" scientist. Of course you could be talking about Kevin Ryan, who was FIRED for talking about what his employer did and being wrong. He is so incompetent his wrongful termination lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice because he couldn't even make basic filing dates. You may want to check into your "leaders" there sparky.


Scientific papers, and scientific bullying

Please provide any scientific papers published in real peer reviewed journals from ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD. I'll wait.


aside, I don't need any authority to explain the obvious to me!

No but you do need to go back and maybe finish high school, or ask a real structural engineer to explain what happened to you.


Take a few FACTS:

-Missing Bodies/DNA

Not counting the 122 people on flights 11 & 175 there were approximately
2,630 people in the buildings. Many people died on the streets from falling debris and these must account for most of the 300 intact bodies found because you can clearly see through images the levels of destruction and by what remained of the towers afterwards/ If the concrete was blasted apart what hope for the people?


Ah yes... Missing bodies. Lets see, over 1900 of them were in the towers when they collapsed. They were in the piles for up to 3 months, with fires burnign, high temperatures and water seaping into their remains. It is absolutely amazing that they recovered ANYTHING from anyone in the pile.


Authorities conducted a comprehensive 2 year search for victims by looking through the tons of smaller debris. Having carted it to Freshkills Landfill (*What Popular Mechanics tries unsuccessfully to use to 'debunk' the claim that the structural steel, in fact, had not been shipped directly from Ground Zero to overseas recyclers. (it was- check it out if you know how)

google is your friend, but basic research skills seem beyond you.


In Staten Island, they systematically spread the smaller debris out on conveyor belts which moved past a line of attendants who worked to cull out any body parts they could locate by hand.

Despite this intense and prolonged (2 years) search, and the use of advanced DNA recovery techniques, there remains almost 1100 people completely unaccounted for.
-No discernible trace was found!


Hey sparky, what happens as soon as something dies? Oh it starts to decompose. Guess what happens in HOT WET enviornments? Decompositon SPEEDS UP. OF course that is also leaving out that many of the victims were crushed into paste from the collapse.


The fact is that many people were identified by test tube size pieces (from tens of thousands of body parts recovered) In the case of one family all they got the man's femur which had been located '2.5 blocks away'
200 of the DNA tests matched a single individual. 70 of 343 NYFD personnel located.
Gravity did that?


Yup. Gravity, fires, hot environment and time. Sure did. You may want to stop watching CSI, and actually try to read some stuff on forensics, human decomposition, and the rest.


Demolitions experts have a technique to help them determine the power of any building blast; they look at the macroscopic pieces of concrete. There were virtually no macroscopic pieces of concrete in the debris field of the WTC despite the fact that there were 110 4" reinforced concrete floor slabs in each tower. We have to imagine, whatever so systematically pulveruized all that concrete will do much worse to people


You may want to do 5 minutes of research again sparky. I've seen hundreds of images showing large sections of concrte. It helps if you can actually support your claims.

I'll let others rip this part apart.


-WTC 7's textbook implosion


Whose textbook? Provide a citaiton.
How is a building which has an asymetrical collapse, which damages buildings that are adjacent to it, that has an 18 second collapse with NO SOUNDS OF CD CHARGES going off a "textbook implosion?"



-The residual heat

The fires that would not go out despite a steady stream of water from numerous lines. So much water in fact, that the NYFD were 'creating a lake' in lower Manhattan and still it would not go out.
My understanding is that thermite burns rather quickly. What was it exactly that was burning at ground zero for 99 days?)


It is amazing. ARe you really so daft? I bet you are. Lets see. The fires were not aggressively fought for the first two weeks as the FDNY were in a recovery mode. This means they were not fighting the fires. So there was very little water being sprayed on the pile, which let the fires burn.

Since there were several subways under the WTC complex they fed the fires. Look up underground fires...

try again.


-May 2002 FEMA Reports Evaporated Construction Grade Steel (?huh?)
(through intense high heat corrosion) (?huh?)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_349174ab560a729cdf.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17611)
*images from FEMA BPAT (may 2002)
Appendix C: A limited Metallurgical Examination[/I]
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/WTC_apndxC.htm

Jim Hoffman wrote, "The results of the examination are striking. They reveal a phenomenon never before observed in building fires: eutectic reactions, which caused "intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese." The New York Times described this as "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation."


Oh sparky. 1. This is from erosion due to high sulphur atmosphere. It is fully explained. Again, basic chemistry. You shoudl try it.


and I'm done with it... I have kids to go and play with.

ta ta sparky.

try to do at least 10 minutes of REAL research... use the SEARCH function, all of these claims have been completely demolished. They pulled it.

[T.A.M.]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_349174ab58ab15b041.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17614)
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/docs/site1085c.jpg

greetings,

I am confused how anyone could look at the facts of 9/11 and not see explosives in these events. Are we seeing the same images and results here?

http://www.911review.com/attack/wtc/explosions.html

shorts vids u'v seen im sure. (just wanna be sure)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtx_GcFCs6c

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toUdpeI04pM
**This bottom one was shot while the cameraman was running.. It has been stabilized by holding the building steady and moving the frame.



http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_349174abc6b3763c5d.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17665)
The only constituents of the Twin Towers that survived the "collapses" in the form of recognizable pieces of any size were their metal parts, such as pieces of structural steel and aluminum cladding. Virtually all the non-metallic parts of the towers and their contents were converted to microscopic dust particles or small unrecognizable fragments. (-jim hoffman)

The debris field:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/gzaerial4.html


Read through the work of dozens of serious scientists who have investigated and are currently investigating 9/11 without prejudice. Look at the images and facts of these events without prejudice or personal incredulity.

Dr Niels Harrit, whose paper has been so ignorantly maligned here on this forum, has run the chemistry dept at the prestigious Niels Bohrs Institute in Copenhagen for 37 years. The (actually) peer-reviewed paper he was the lead author on, (Active Thermitic Materials..) involved 8 other scientists who have no reason to lie. Further studies are being conducted in France & Ct., as per Steven Jones.

Scientific papers, and scientific bullying


aside, I don't need any authority to explain the obvious to me!

Take a few FACTS:

-Missing Bodies/DNA

Not counting the 122 people on flights 11 & 175 there were approximately
2,630 people in the buildings. Many people died on the streets from falling debris and these must account for most of the 300 intact bodies found because you can clearly see through images the levels of destruction and by what remained of the towers afterwards/ If the concrete was blasted apart what hope for the people?

Authorities conducted a comprehensive 2 year search for victims by looking through the tons of smaller debris. Having carted it to Freshkills Landfill (*What Popular Mechanics tries unsuccessfully to use to 'debunk' the claim that the structural steel, in fact, had not been shipped directly from Ground Zero to overseas recyclers. (it was- check it out if you know how)

In Staten Island, they systematically spread the smaller debris out on conveyor belts which moved past a line of attendants who worked to cull out any body parts they could locate by hand.

Despite this intense and prolonged (2 years) search, and the use of advanced DNA recovery techniques, there remains almost 1100 people completely unaccounted for.
-No discernible trace was found!

The fact is that many people were identified by test tube size pieces (from tens of thousands of body parts recovered) In the case of one family all they got the man's femur which had been located '2.5 blocks away'
200 of the DNA tests matched a single individual. 70 of 343 NYFD personnel located.
Gravity did that?

Demolitions experts have a technique to help them determine the power of any building blast; they look at the macroscopic pieces of concrete. There were virtually no macroscopic pieces of concrete in the debris field of the WTC despite the fact that there were 110 4" reinforced concrete floor slabs in each tower. We have to imagine, whatever so systematically pulveruized all that concrete will do much worse to people

-The concrete of WTC 1&2 :
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_349174abc71aee676c.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17668)http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_349174abc7158489f6.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17667)

-WTC 7's textbook implosion

-The residual heat

The fires that would not go out despite a steady stream of water from numerous lines. So much water in fact, that the NYFD were 'creating a lake' in lower Manhattan and still it would not go out.
My understanding is that thermite burns rather quickly. What was it exactly that was burning at ground zero for 99 days?)

-May 2002 FEMA Reports Evaporated Construction Grade Steel (?huh?)
(through intense high heat corrosion) (?huh?)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_349174ab560a729cdf.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17611)
*images from FEMA BPAT (may 2002)
Appendix C: A limited Metallurgical Examination[/I]
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/WTC_apndxC.htm

Jim Hoffman wrote, "The results of the examination are striking. They reveal a phenomenon never before observed in building fires: eutectic reactions, which caused "intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese." The New York Times described this as "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation."

“A one-inch column has been reduced to Half-inch thickness. Its edges--which are curled like a paper scroll--have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes --some larger than a silver dollar--let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending--but not holes.” -WPI


-Witness testimony to molten metal:

Firefighter Philip Ruvolo, speaking of the Twin Towers, said: “You'd get down below and you'd see molten steel, molten steel, running down the channel rails, like you're in a foundry, like lava." [31]

Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction, which was involved in the clean-up operation, said that he saw pools of “literally molten steel.” [32]

Leslie Robertson, a member of the engineering firm that designed the Twin Towers. [34]

Dr. Ronald Burger of the National Center for Environmental Health. [35]

Dr. Alison Geyh of The Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, who headed up a scientific team that went to the site shortly after 9/11 at the request of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. [36]

Finally, the fact that “molten steel was also found at WTC 7” was added by Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc., which was involved in the clean-up. [37] *references please see: DR Griffin's article posted at: http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article13528.html


NIST:

"Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues?" . . ."NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel."
-- NIST Responses to FAQs, August 2006

In follow-up to this response NIST spokesperson Michael Neuman was challenged by Hartford Advocate reporter Jennifer Abel on this glaring omission in the WTC report

ABEL: … what about that letter where NIST said it didn’t look for evidence of explosives?

NEUMAN: Right, because there was no evidence of that.

ABEL: But how can you know there’s no evidence if you don’t look for it first?

NEUMAN: If you’re looking for something that isn’t there, you’re wasting your time….and the taxpayers money."

This omission is at odds with the requirement of the national standard for fire investigation (NFPA 921), which calls for testing related to thermite and other pyrotechnics. It is also at odds with the video evidence of explosions, and the testimony of fire department personnel, more than 100 of whom officially reported hearing or seeing explosions. NIST also failed to explain the source of large quantities of molten metal in the WTC rubble, or the abundant amounts of iron microspheres in the dust.

NIST, as a matter of routine, should have tested the WTC dust for residue of explosives, such as nanothermite. The Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations put out by the National Fire Protection Association says that a search for evidence for explosives should be undertaken whenever there has been “high-order damage.” Leaving no doubt about the meaning of this term, the Guide says:

High-order damage is characterized by shattering of the structure, producing small, pulverized debris. Walls, roofs, and structural members are splintered or shattered, with the building completely demolished. [27]

That description applied to the destruction of the Twin Towers and WTC 7. The next sentence – “Debris is thrown great distances, possibly hundreds of feet” – applied to the destruction of the Twin Towers, a fact that NIST had to admit in order to explain how fires were started in WTC 7. [28] So NIST should have looked for signs of explosives, such as nanothermite.


*last bit from, http://rockcreekfreepress.tumblr.com/post/98195547/scientists-find-explosives-in-world-trade-center-dust

just for a start.

Just another shill for the truth movement.

Here, go read,

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/
http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Main_Page
http://wtc.nist.gov/

Of course I know you will not go and read them, but I am required to provide you with something outside of scorn and disgust, so there you go.

TAM:)

[Mancman]

blah blah blah

Explosives?

Nope: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmS36uSdtvw

Sorry twoof.

[fuelair]

Other than the explosion of the fuel in/from the tanks, no!

But, I will happily defer to your degree in explosives technology from an accredited University/College.

[Comrade Raptor]

*snip*

greetings,

I am confused how anyone could look at the facts of 9/11 and not see explosives in these events. Are we seeing the same images and results here?

*snip*



There are no explosives.

Since there are no explosives, sane people do not see them in these events.

Just like sane people don't see evil monkeys in their closets.

Do you have an evil monkey in your closet?

[CHF]

This thread just goes to show how insulated the hardcore truthers are from the outside world.

Here we have atavisms wandering onto this forum with talking points from 2006 which he honestly thinks are rock solid.

NIST, as a matter of routine, should have tested the WTC dust for residue of explosives, such as nanothermite.

Super-duper-nanothermite is possibly the worst tool imaginable for taking down a building. NIST might as well have tested for nuclear fallout.

[WildCat]

Its funny when people post crap that was debunked years ago.
Every day, some kid is let loose on the internet unsupervised for the first time and discovers a conspiracy site that hasn't been updated since 2006.

[Carlos]

How can you say things like that are evidence of controlled demolition if these things don't happen in controlled demolition?

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=controlled+demolition&search_type=&aq=f

Did you see any piece ejected blocks away?

[TruthersLie]

There are no explosives.

Since there are no explosives, sane people do not see them in these events.

Just like sane people don't see evil monkeys in their closets.

Do you have an evil monkey in your closet?

Hey now, don't go bringing evil monkeys into this... I see them... and they throw poo!!!

Of course I believe that Mothra did it. After all there is just as much evidence that Mothra did it as there were explosives in the towers.

[TruthersLie]

This thread just goes to show how insulated the hardcore truthers are from the outside world.

Here we have atavisms wandering onto this forum with talking points from 2006 which he honestly thinks are rock solid.



Super-duper-nanothermite is possibly the worst tool imaginable for taking down a building. NIST might as well have tested for nuclear fallout.

And Mothra poo... can't forget they forgot to test for pixy dust or sonic vibrations from David Hasselhoff's CD's as the cause either... wait. CD's? Did the Hoff do it?

[Comrade Raptor]

Hey now, don't go bringing evil monkeys into this... I see them... and they throw poo!!!

Of course I believe that Mothra did it. After all there is just as much evidence that Mothra did it as there were explosives in the towers.

No way, man. I'm a No-Mothra believer. There is no evidence of any Mothra at any of the scenes. You're an NWO Mothra-shill!

I put together a compelling case that it was definitely, positively, absolutely, beyond a shadow of a doubt... Magneto.

Think about it.

[Sabrina]

Might wanna use that time machine and join us in 2009.

Every single one of those claims was debunked by 2006. Check out http://www.911myths.com for more information please.

[triforcharity]

NFPA921 is guidelines on fire investigation.

I am sure trifiorcharity will school you on this one.



http://www.nfpa.org/catalog/product.asp?pid=92108&order%5Fsrc=A292

AFAIK it is not a legal directive or standard.

NFPA921 is not a legal directive. Once the initial investigation is done by the locaal law enforcement, then and only then does the NFPA or fire department start THEIR investigation. And it is typically to figure out if anything could have been prevented or done differently. It COULD possibly be used as evidence in court, but it typically would only be used in a Civil trial if the fire department was negligent.
Here are some reports that would be common.

http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/PDF/LakeWorth.PDF
http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/pdf/FIphoenixsum.pdf

The author is using conclusions he found on the Firefighters for 9/11 BS page. It is absolutely wrong, and is used in the wrong context.

[twinstead]

Oh. Another seagull OP. What a surprise.

[AdinDraco]

No way, man. I'm a No-Mothra believer. There is no evidence of any Mothra at any of the scenes. You're an NWO Mothra-shill!

I put together a compelling case that it was definitely, positively, absolutely, beyond a shadow of a doubt... Magneto.

Think about it.

Wait a minute! Everyone's completely overlooking the fact that no psychic, in the world, saw this coming! Who has the anti-psi cloaking capabilities of this magnitude?! This is a vital clue! Has Magneto entered into some sort of unholy alliance with Prof X???!!!

[Comrade Raptor]

He does run a secret school in NY, after all. And they were best friends.

[triforcharity]

No big concrete?? Right. And that is NOT a car I see in there.

http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h131/triathlete247/concreteremains2.jpg

[paulheinze]

III: The dean of natural science at KU is called Nils Andersen, and he resigned (http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2009/04/bentham-editor-resigns-over-steven.html)after the article had been published.

From this link
He informs videnskab.dk that the decision has nothing to do with Niels Harrit’s article, and that he otherwise did not achieve having any experiences with the journals, so that he cannot shed further light on how the journal operates.
So why are your citing this? This is a deceitful attempt to connect his resignation to the scientific article.

[paulheinze]

III: The dean of natural science at KU is called Nils Andersen, and he resigned (http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2009/04/bentham-editor-resigns-over-steven.html)after the article had been published.

From this link
He informs videnskab.dk that the decision has nothing to do with Niels Harrit’s article, and that he otherwise did not achieve having any experiences with the journals, so that he cannot shed further light on how the journal operates.
So why are your citing this? This is a deceitful attempt to connect his resignation to the scientific article.

[paulheinze]

Super-duper-nanothermite is possibly the worst tool imaginable for taking down a building. NIST might as well have tested for nuclear fallout.

Worse than paper?

[Justin39640]

Worse than paper?

paper burns pretty good
and in the WTC there was plenty of it

[triforcharity]

Paper and.......and........and......

Carpet
desks
petitions
chairs
tvs
computers
plastics
more wood
stuff on desks
curtains
cleaning supplies

should I continue?? And yes, Paper. Thousands of pounds of paper.

couches
clothes
people
trash

and yet, should I continue???

Ok,

Electrical componets
HVAC equipment
ceiling tile
wire insulation

oh, wait....is there more???

[tsig]

This thread just goes to show how insulated the hardcore truthers are from the outside world.

Here we have atavisms wandering onto this forum with talking points from 2006 which he honestly thinks are rock solid.



Super-duper-nanothermite is possibly the worst tool imaginable for taking down a building. NIST might as well have tested for nuclear fallout.

Could his username be a hint that he knows his arguments are dated?

[Macgyver1968]

Another drive by truthing.

[Dave Rogers]

greetings,

I am confused how anyone could look at the facts of 9/11 and not see explosives in these events. Are we seeing the same images and results here?

Yes, we are. But still pictures are rather poor for identifying explosions, don't you think? And the videos don't show any flash, and the soundtracks don't record any bangs. Explosions without bangs are a logical impossibility.

The only constituents of the Twin Towers that survived the "collapses" in the form of recognizable pieces of any size were their metal parts, such as pieces of structural steel and aluminum cladding. Virtually all the non-metallic parts of the towers and their contents were converted to microscopic dust particles or small unrecognizable fragments. (-jim hoffman)

As has been pointed out to you, this is simply not true. Therefore, there's no need to comment on it.

Dr Niels Harrit, whose paper has been so ignorantly maligned here on this forum,

Dr. Harrit's paper has been examined by experts in engineering, physics and materials science on this forum. This is not ignorant malignance, but informed criticism.

The (actually) peer-reviewed paper he was the lead author on,

The chief editor of the journal in which it was published admitted that the paper had not been subject to the normal peer review process.

involved 8 other scientists who have no reason to lie.

What exactly is the basis for this claim?

And, please note, even if the paper's conclusions followed from its data (which they do not), they would not be evidence for explosives capable of producing the effects you began the post by claiming to have seen.

-Missing Bodies/DNA

Not counting the 122 people on flights 11 & 175 there were approximately
2,630 people in the buildings. Many people died on the streets from falling debris and these must account for most of the 300 intact bodies found because you can clearly see through images the levels of destruction and by what remained of the towers afterwards/ If the concrete was blasted apart what hope for the people?

Authorities conducted a comprehensive 2 year search for victims by looking through the tons of smaller debris. Having carted it to Freshkills Landfill (*What Popular Mechanics tries unsuccessfully to use to 'debunk' the claim that the structural steel, in fact, had not been shipped directly from Ground Zero to overseas recyclers. (it was- check it out if you know how)

In Staten Island, they systematically spread the smaller debris out on conveyor belts which moved past a line of attendants who worked to cull out any body parts they could locate by hand.

Despite this intense and prolonged (2 years) search, and the use of advanced DNA recovery techniques, there remains almost 1100 people completely unaccounted for.
-No discernible trace was found!

Please explain your reasoning why an explosion would be particularly effective at destroying any identifiable DNA from human remains. A more likely cause would be extended incineration by slow-burning underground fires, as was known to have happened at the WTC.

Demolitions experts have a technique to help them determine the power of any building blast; they look at the macroscopic pieces of concrete.

Source, please. I think you've just made this up.

There were virtually no macroscopic pieces of concrete in the debris field of the WTC despite the fact that there were 110 4" reinforced concrete floor slabs in each tower.

Untrue, as previously stated.

-WTC 7's textbook implosion

Textbook implosions include extremely loud explosive reports, which were not observed immediately before the collapse of WTC7, and do not produce substantial toppling of the building during collapse, as can be seen in the few videos of WTC7 which show more than the first third of the collapse (at which point the toppling was not great enough to be clearly discernible from the angle of the most commonly referenced video).

-The residual heat

The fires that would not go out despite a steady stream of water from numerous lines. So much water in fact, that the NYFD were 'creating a lake' in lower Manhattan and still it would not go out.
My understanding is that thermite burns rather quickly. What was it exactly that was burning at ground zero for 99 days?)

Thermite does indeed burn rather quickly. It also isn't an explosive. If you're claiming that explosions took place, thermite doesn't explain them. Of course, explosives burn even more quickly than thermite. So what was it exactly that was burning at GZ for 99 days? By your own argument, it was neither thermite nor explosives. Debris from the collapsed buildings seems a more rational possibility.

Jim Hoffman wrote, "The results of the examination are striking. They reveal a phenomenon never before observed in building fires: eutectic reactions, which caused "intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese." The New York Times described this as "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation."

“A one-inch column has been reduced to Half-inch thickness. Its edges--which are curled like a paper scroll--have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes --some larger than a silver dollar--let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending--but not holes.” -WPI

None of this is evidence of explosives. And, of course, it's already been explained; eutectic melting can take place at temperatures below 1000ºC, easily accessible in a normal fire.


-Witness testimony to molten metal:

Ignored, because demolition explosives do not produce molten metal. This therefore doesn't support your argument.

just for a start.

I suspect not; I suspect this will be another drive-by truthing. However, if it is "just for a start", could you perhaps continue by deciding which of two mutually contradictory theories you're supporting, then stop presenting evidence that contradicts the one you favour and pretending it supports it? After that, you could try evaluating the evidence in totality and forming a fully realised hypothesis that explains all of it better than the generally accepted explanation that the devastation at Ground Zero was the result of a terrorist attack.

Just a suggestion, of course. If you prefer spouting long-debunked idiocy that you've copied from somebody else's website, please feel free to do so. It isn't a very effective technique for convincing skeptics that your views have merit, but chacun a son gout.

Dave

[johnny karate]

Please provide a list of witnesses and on-site investigators who believe explosives were used to bring down any of the WTC buidlings on 9/11.

[WildCat]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_349174ab58ab15b041.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17614)
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/docs/site1085c.jpg

greetings,

I am confused how anyone could look at the facts of 9/11 and not see explosives in these events. Are we seeing the same images and results here?

http://www.911review.com/attack/wtc/explosions.html

shorts vids u'v seen im sure. (just wanna be sure)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtx_GcFCs6c

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toUdpeI04pM
**This bottom one was shot while the cameraman was running.. It has been stabilized by holding the building steady and moving the frame.



http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_349174abc6b3763c5d.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17665)
The only constituents of the Twin Towers that survived the "collapses" in the form of recognizable pieces of any size were their metal parts, such as pieces of structural steel and aluminum cladding. Virtually all the non-metallic parts of the towers and their contents were converted to microscopic dust particles or small unrecognizable fragments. (-jim hoffman)

The debris field:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/gzaerial4.html


Read through the work of dozens of serious scientists who have investigated and are currently investigating 9/11 without prejudice. Look at the images and facts of these events without prejudice or personal incredulity.

Dr Niels Harrit, whose paper has been so ignorantly maligned here on this forum, has run the chemistry dept at the prestigious Niels Bohrs Institute in Copenhagen for 37 years. The (actually) peer-reviewed paper he was the lead author on, (Active Thermitic Materials..) involved 8 other scientists who have no reason to lie. Further studies are being conducted in France & Ct., as per Steven Jones.

Scientific papers, and scientific bullying


aside, I don't need any authority to explain the obvious to me!

Take a few FACTS:

-Missing Bodies/DNA

Not counting the 122 people on flights 11 & 175 there were approximately
2,630 people in the buildings. Many people died on the streets from falling debris and these must account for most of the 300 intact bodies found because you can clearly see through images the levels of destruction and by what remained of the towers afterwards/ If the concrete was blasted apart what hope for the people?

Authorities conducted a comprehensive 2 year search for victims by looking through the tons of smaller debris. Having carted it to Freshkills Landfill (*What Popular Mechanics tries unsuccessfully to use to 'debunk' the claim that the structural steel, in fact, had not been shipped directly from Ground Zero to overseas recyclers. (it was- check it out if you know how)

In Staten Island, they systematically spread the smaller debris out on conveyor belts which moved past a line of attendants who worked to cull out any body parts they could locate by hand.

Despite this intense and prolonged (2 years) search, and the use of advanced DNA recovery techniques, there remains almost 1100 people completely unaccounted for.
-No discernible trace was found!

The fact is that many people were identified by test tube size pieces (from tens of thousands of body parts recovered) In the case of one family all they got the man's femur which had been located '2.5 blocks away'
200 of the DNA tests matched a single individual. 70 of 343 NYFD personnel located.
Gravity did that?

Demolitions experts have a technique to help them determine the power of any building blast; they look at the macroscopic pieces of concrete. There were virtually no macroscopic pieces of concrete in the debris field of the WTC despite the fact that there were 110 4" reinforced concrete floor slabs in each tower. We have to imagine, whatever so systematically pulveruized all that concrete will do much worse to people

-The concrete of WTC 1&2 :
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_349174abc71aee676c.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17668)http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_349174abc7158489f6.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17667)

-WTC 7's textbook implosion

-The residual heat

The fires that would not go out despite a steady stream of water from numerous lines. So much water in fact, that the NYFD were 'creating a lake' in lower Manhattan and still it would not go out.
My understanding is that thermite burns rather quickly. What was it exactly that was burning at ground zero for 99 days?)

-May 2002 FEMA Reports Evaporated Construction Grade Steel (?huh?)
(through intense high heat corrosion) (?huh?)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_349174ab560a729cdf.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17611)
*images from FEMA BPAT (may 2002)
Appendix C: A limited Metallurgical Examination[/i]
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/WTC_apndxC.htm

Jim Hoffman wrote, "The results of the examination are striking. They reveal a phenomenon never before observed in building fires: eutectic reactions, which caused "intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese." The New York Times described this as "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation."

“A one-inch column has been reduced to Half-inch thickness. Its edges--which are curled like a paper scroll--have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes --some larger than a silver dollar--let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending--but not holes.” -WPI


-Witness testimony to molten metal:

Firefighter Philip Ruvolo, speaking of the Twin Towers, said: “You'd get down below and you'd see molten steel, molten steel, running down the channel rails, like you're in a foundry, like lava." [31]

Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction, which was involved in the clean-up operation, said that he saw pools of “literally molten steel.” [32]

Leslie Robertson, a member of the engineering firm that designed the Twin Towers. [34]

Dr. Ronald Burger of the National Center for Environmental Health. [35]

Dr. Alison Geyh of The Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, who headed up a scientific team that went to the site shortly after 9/11 at the request of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. [36]

Finally, the fact that “molten steel was also found at WTC 7” was added by Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc., which was involved in the clean-up. [37] *references please see: DR Griffin's article posted at: http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article13528.html


NIST:

"Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues?" . . ."NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel."
-- NIST Responses to FAQs, August 2006

In follow-up to this response NIST spokesperson Michael Neuman was challenged by Hartford Advocate reporter Jennifer Abel on this glaring omission in the WTC report

ABEL: … what about that letter where NIST said it didn’t look for evidence of explosives?

NEUMAN: Right, because there was no evidence of that.

ABEL: But how can you know there’s no evidence if you don’t look for it first?

NEUMAN: If you’re looking for something that isn’t there, you’re wasting your time….and the taxpayers money."

This omission is at odds with the requirement of the national standard for fire investigation (NFPA 921), which calls for testing related to thermite and other pyrotechnics. It is also at odds with the video evidence of explosions, and the testimony of fire department personnel, more than 100 of whom officially reported hearing or seeing explosions. NIST also failed to explain the source of large quantities of molten metal in the WTC rubble, or the abundant amounts of iron microspheres in the dust.

NIST, as a matter of routine, should have tested the WTC dust for residue of explosives, such as nanothermite. The Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations put out by the National Fire Protection Association says that a search for evidence for explosives should be undertaken whenever there has been “high-order damage.” Leaving no doubt about the meaning of this term, the Guide says:

High-order damage is characterized by shattering of the structure, producing small, pulverized debris. Walls, roofs, and structural members are splintered or shattered, with the building completely demolished. [27]

That description applied to the destruction of the Twin Towers and WTC 7. The next sentence – “Debris is thrown great distances, possibly hundreds of feet” – applied to the destruction of the Twin Towers, a fact that NIST had to admit in order to explain how fires were started in WTC 7. [28] So NIST should have looked for signs of explosives, such as nanothermite.


*last bit from, http://rockcreekfreepress.tumblr.com/post/98195547/scientists-find-explosives-in-world-trade-center-dust

just for a start.
Wow, I never heard that before! Can you tell us more?

[Fjolle]

From this link

So why are your citing this? This is a deceitful attempt to connect his resignation to the scientific article.

No. What I said was true.

He resigned after the article was published, and what he says about why he resigned has nothing to do with that.

Also he cant say in public that he resigns because of an article one of his employees wrote.

Also the nano-article is not in KU's list of articles published by Harrit...

Edit: I just posted because it was relevant to Harrit and the article. UNLIKE the Dean of the Niels Bohr Institute

[Scott Sommers]

Wow...I've certainly never been presented with this sort of argument before. It's so convincing it's overwhelming. But wait...there are 911 Truth demonstrations all the time all over the country. Angry Americans get together and protest that serious facts about 911 are being overlooked. Such demonstrations almost never get more than a dozen people. Certainly, none of the scientists and firefighters you cite have ever attended one of these demonstrations. They have never been quoted in the mainstream press that they believe there were explosives present at the WTC collapse. None of the firefighter and scientists you cite are members of any of the various 911 Truth groups for their professions.

I'm confused. Either they believe the idea of - what is it you guys call it? - an 'Inside Job' is just plain retarded or they're part of the conspiracy, too.

Come off it Edited for civility. How much quote mining did you have to do to make this?

Name calling is generally considered uncivil/unpolite and does nothing to advance your point of view.

[Grizzly Bear]

Another drive by truthing.

Kinda boring when they bring the time machines back to 2006.....

[TruthersLie]

From this link

So why are your citing this? This is a deceitful attempt to connect his resignation to the scientific article.

You are soooooo right. He only signed off on the paper, and is listed and credited with some of the oversight and peer review. I'm sure that he had perfectly valid reasons for resigning from his post. Maybe he was caught with a hooker, or was busted for illegal drugs.

of course it is rather remarkable how people keep resigning from posts based on this horrendous paper. Don'tcha think?

I mean, the head editor of the Open Chemical Physics journal resigned in a huff because as the head editor you'd think they would pass any papers they would publish by her, right? Great peer review process.

And we can't forget that other bastion of Bentham prowess which accepted a completely CRAP paper and told the author it had passed peer review if he'd just send the $800 to get it published. I for one completely believe the spokesperson who said they knew it was bogus and were trying to "catch him" for it... other than the fact that the Head editor of that journal also quit in disgust.

I mean, it is the highest form of academia we are talking about here...

So of course I believe Harrits boss when he resigns RIGHT after his buddy N. Harrit publishes a completely junk journal and states it has NOTHING to do with it.

Maybe he was found with a transgendered prostitute... After all, those are much less damaging than being tied to a POS (piece of stuff) twoof paper, isn't it?

[TruthersLie]

Worse than paper?

Ummm yea actually. Paper has a much higher energy density... of course not as high as gasoline, but it is actually HIGHER than thermite.

Can you do even 5 minutes of research? I mean, REAL research sparky?

[carlitos]

NIST, as a matter of routine, should have tested the WTC dust for residue of explosives, such as nanothermite. Right. Making thermite smaller makes it an explosive. A super-duper, silent killer of an explosive. A magic explosive. An explosive as versatile and deadly as a banana riding a llama.

:bananalama: :bananalama: :bananalama:

[CHF]

Right. Making thermite smaller makes it an explosive. A super-duper, silent killer of an explosive. A magic explosive. An explosive as versatile and deadly as a banana riding a llama.

:bananalama: :bananalama: :bananalama:

And remember - super-dooper nanothermite also blasts steel beams in all directions. And firefightters heard explosions!!!

[TruthersLie]

And remember - super-dooper nanothermite also blasts steel beams in all directions. And firefightters heard explosions!!!

don't forget it will clean your room, walk the dog, get you a date, rent a movie, do the dishes and even make julian fries.

[twinstead]

don't forget it will clean your room, walk the dog, get you a date, rent a movie, do the dishes and even make julian fries.

And 4 out of 5 dentists recommend it for their patients who chew gum.

[atavisms]

NIST did look for signs of explosives, and found none. Take a look at NCSTAR1-3.

It isn't "scientific bullying." You're just wrong.

really?

Regardless, 'Appeal to authority' is on the list of logical fallacies bc you can find an expert to say anything. (ie. Thomas Eager's embarrassment of a paper!

You can say 'You're just wrong" but you cannot explain observed events with the gravity driven collapse hypothesis; only explosives can do that.

I see a lot of personal incredulity here in this forum, not to mention name calling, intolerance and just plain ignorance -

As someone who lived through the events in Manhattan, saw the streets littered with body parts and lost two good friends, I find it difficult to fathom where all this hate comes from.

When people seek the truth they are on the same side. I wish more than anything you were correct but I have reality to contend with.
And just like I cannot believe in a loving god just because it is reassuring to do so, I cannot pretend the facts of 9/11 are other than what they are.

"The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is." - Winston Churchill

[Pardalis]

Any explosives here?

MuLNsJkecxM

[atavisms]

Wow...I'm confused..[/mod]

That much is certain

[WildCat]

don't forget it will clean your room, walk the dog, get you a date, rent a movie, do the dishes and even make julian fries.
Julienne (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julienning) fries.

But I prefer steak fries myself, stupid nano-thermite.

[WildCat]

really?

Regardless, 'Appeal to authority' is on the list of logical fallacies bc you can find an expert to say anything.
It's not a logical fallacy when the expert in question is actually an expert on the subject at hand.

What is Steven Jones' expertise again? David Ray Griffin? Kevin Ryan? :rolleyes:

[twinstead]

When people seek the truth they are on the same side. I wish more than anything you were correct but I have reality to contend with.
And just like I cannot believe in a loving god just because it is reassuring to do so, I cannot pretend the facts of 9/11 are other than what they are.

"The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is." - Winston Churchill

But, there is no proof of a living god. You have been given a HUGE amount of evidence that is contrary to your belief. So, it is YOU who needs to question your faith about 9/11, not us. The evidence is on OUR side.

[atavisms]

Misleading. The reality is that Shaler (the man behind the identification project) has access to many remains that he can't identify because of the condition they were in:

The remains are there, there's just no way to tell who's who. :(

right! Why? 10,000 body parts frozen for later study.
as per your statement, 'bc they are so badly damaged.'
by what ?? The gravity driven collapse of this 1,350 foot 'highly redundant' (thomas eager) structure fell with such force it did that ?
(yet left the basements intact.)

[lapman]

really?

Regardless, 'Appeal to authority' is on the list of logical fallacies bc you can find an expert to say anything. (ie. Thomas Eager's embarrassment of a paper! Why don't you look up what "Appeal To Authority Fallacy" is.

You can say 'You're just wrong" but you cannot explain observed events with the gravity driven collapse hypothesis; only explosives can do that.Except the fact that there are dozens of papers, including real peer reviewed paper is respected scientific journals that do this.
As someone who lived through the events in Manhattan, saw the streets littered with body parts and lost two good friends, I find it difficult to fathom where all this hate comes from.Wait a minute. You claim body parts like that don't exist.

When people seek the truth they are on the same side. I wish more than anything you were correct but I have reality to contend with.
And just like I cannot believe in a loving god just because it is reassuring to do so, I cannot pretend the facts of 9/11 are other than what they are.
Yet you do pretend that the facts of 9/11 are other than what they do. You believe a religious theologian has more knowledge of structural engineering than an actual structural engineer that helped design the buildings in question. You ignore the obvious, like explosives are loud and would be recorded by 100% of all recording devices in the area.

[Comrade Raptor]

right! Why? 10,000 body parts frozen for later study.
as per your statement, 'bc they are so badly damaged.'
by what ?? The gravity driven collapse of this 1,350 foot 'highly redundant' (thomas eager) structure fell with such force it did that ?
(yet left the basements intact.)


Yeah, who would ever have thought that a building collapse could ever harm the human body. :rolleyes:

[WildCat]

right! Why? 10,000 body parts frozen for later study.
as per your statement, 'bc they are so badly damaged.'
by what ?? The gravity driven collapse of this 1,350 foot 'highly redundant' (thomas eager) structure fell with such force it did that ?
(yet left the basements intact.)
I love it when truthers claim there were so much explosives used in the WTC that it pulverized all of the concrete, and even the people.

And somehow no sound of such an incredible amount of explosives is audible on any recording device used that day, nor were windows blown out by the shock wave, nor was debris blasted miles around.

Quick atavism, switch to therm*te mode!

:dl:

[Pardalis]

Yeah, who would ever have thought that a building collapse could ever harm the human body. :rolleyes:

I doubt there's anything we can do for atavism after that post, he's clearly "not well".

[TruthersLie]

really?

Regardless, 'Appeal to authority' is on the list of logical fallacies bc you can find an expert to say anything. (ie. Thomas Eager's embarrassment of a paper!

ROFLMAO. Hey twoof. Look up "appeal to authority" logical fallacy. It is when you have NO authority but try to pass it off that it becomes the "appeal to authority." When in fact there is AUTHORITY (you know like the real science about what happened) it is no longer a logical fallacy. It is called proof, support and evidence. Nice try though. Handwave coming in 3...


You can say 'You're just wrong" but you cannot explain observed events with the gravity driven collapse hypothesis; only explosives can do that.


Nist fully explained it. They could have done it better IMHO, but they fully explained it. Please provide the PROOF that only explosives can do that.

I mean no explosives were used here
syzKBBB_THE
complete gravity driven collapse.
or here
NwFHEoiUZ7o

YOu might want to tell the french that it is impossible.


I see a lot of personal incredulity here in this forum, not to mention name calling, intolerance and just plain ignorance -

and the vast majority comes from twoofs... it is rather amazing really.

As someone who lived through the events in Manhattan, saw the streets littered with body parts and lost two good friends, I find it difficult to fathom where all this hate comes from.

I call BS, but maybe you really are from manhattan.. though I seriously doubt it.
Hate? No. Intense dislike of lying sacks of ****? You bet. 10 minutes of real research and you find out that 99% of the crap you twoofs spew is LIES.

Why does a movement dedicated to the "truth" tell so many lies?


When people seek the truth they are on the same side. I wish more than anything you were correct but I have reality to contend with.
And just like I cannot believe in a loving god just because it is reassuring to do so, I cannot pretend the facts of 9/11 are other than what they are.

"The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is." - Winston Churchill

blah blah blah. Nice way to try to wrap a churchill quote in it, but it doesn't change the facts.

If you have PROOF then BRING IT. I'd love to see it. I'd LOVE to blame GWB and the nebulous NWO for 9/11. Unfortunately the evidence does not point to them.

[Pardalis]

Autechre is perfect for a soundtrack for demolition videos. :cool:

[TruthersLie]

repeat post please delete

[TruthersLie]

right! Why? 10,000 body parts frozen for later study.
as per your statement, 'bc they are so badly damaged.'
by what ?? The gravity driven collapse of this 1,350 foot 'highly redundant' (thomas eager) structure fell with such force it did that ?
(yet left the basements intact.)

OH twoof. It helps if you had any idea of biology, physics or chemistry.

Why would they freeze 10,000 body parts that are too badly damaged or decomposed to id? because with technology advancing at the rate it does, hopefully in a few year, they will be able to identify those parts.

Now back to this point about unidentified body parts. How many thousands of tons were dropped on those bodies? Huh? Lets just say a muther *********** ********.

now how long were those body parts in the piles twoof? Some of them up to 3 months. How long does a human body take to start decomposing? (the answer is almost immediately bacteria attacks the tissue). So 3 months, in small pieces in a HOT PILE full of fires, water and every other gas that was there....

It is amazing that they RECOVERED ANY body parts that were identifable.

What part of that do you not understand?

[AWPrime]

Is this another Poe thread or is this a truther that has been stuck in mum basement for 3 years without an internet connection?

[Grizzly Bear]

I love it when truthers claim there were so much explosives used in the WTC that it pulverized all of the concrete, and even the people.

And somehow no sound of such an incredible amount of explosives is audible on any recording device used that day, nor were windows blown out by the shock wave, nor was debris blasted miles around.

Quick atavism, switch to therm*te mode!

:dl:
No blast injuries, no shrapnel injuries... yet these magical tools launched panels several tones over 600 ft! Troofer logic can truly astound!

[Pardalis]

OH twoof. It helps if you had any idea of biology, physics or chemistry.

Why would they freeze 10,000 body parts that are too badly damaged or decomposed to id? because with technology advancing at the rate it does, hopefully in a few year, they will be able to identify those parts.

Now back to this point about unidentified body parts. How many thousands of tons were dropped on those bodies? Huh? Lets just say a muther *********** ********.

now how long were those body parts in the piles twoof? Some of them up to 3 months. How long does a human body take to start decomposing? (the answer is almost immediately bacteria attacks the tissue). So 3 months, in small pieces in a HOT PILE full of fires...

It is amazing that they RECOVERED ANY body parts that were identifable.

What part of that do you not understand?

I would venture a guess, everything from "OH" to "understand?".

[Horatius]

No way, man. I'm a No-Mothra believer. There is no evidence of any Mothra at any of the scenes. You're an NWO Mothra-shill!




You radical amothrists are relying on faith just as much as the Mothra-huggers!

A reasonable amothrist would simply have no belief in Mothra, rather than actively promoting "No Belief in Mothra". As we cannot know for sure if Mothra exists or not, the only sensible position is Mothratic Agnosticism.

[TruthersLie]

sorry... I'm not supposed to say that.

[Comrade Raptor]

You radical amothrists are relying on faith just as much as the Mothra-huggers!

A reasonable amothrist would simply have no belief in Mothra, rather than actively promoting "No Belief in Mothra". As we cannot know for sure if Mothra exists or not, the only sensible position is Mothratic Agnosticism.


Does this mean I should or shouldn't drink the fruit-flavoured beverage the tiny twins are offering me?

Aw hell, I'll just call Rodan.

[MikeW]

right! Why? 10,000 body parts frozen for later study.
as per your statement, 'bc they are so badly damaged.'
by what ?? The gravity driven collapse of this 1,350 foot 'highly redundant' (thomas eager) structure fell with such force it did that ?
(yet left the basements intact.)
The damage was to the DNA, by the conditions in the pile, as it said in the paragraph I quoted.

And why are you moving the goalposts? You said there was no discernible trace of these victims. You were wrong. Is it asking too much to expect you to acknowledge that before moving on?

[johnny karate]

Please provide a list of witnesses and on-site investigators who believe explosives were used to bring down any of the WTC buidlings on 9/11.

Bump for atavisms.

[atavisms]

Wow. What a load of nonsense.

First of all the Niels Bohr Institute (http://www.nbi.ku.dk/)is the department of Physics and Astromony, and has nothing to do with the department of chemistry.

B: He is just an assistant professor at the department of chemistry and has no doctorate, the institute leader is called Mikael Bols (http://www.ki.ku.dk/ansatte/alle/profil/?id=201563).

III: The dean of natural science at KU is called Nils Andersen, and he resigned (http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2009/04/bentham-editor-resigns-over-steven.html)after the article had been published.


you call it a load of nonsense and then use screwloosechnage as a reference.
He doesnt have a doctorate? Would that impress you more if he did? (I think goebbels had one too)
plenty of others PhD's there I believe.

who gives a rat's ass if he has a doctorate!??
Try dealing with the facts of the issue.
The whole point of the post is that the study is not necessary to conclude the obvious.

if you wish to bring it up, well..point is, that he and 9 other scientists from different institutions (who have no reason in the world to lie and fabricate results, unlike NIST) found these material and confirmed their structure, elemental components, and ignition behavior.

re Niels Bohrs being a 'prestigious' institution -I was quoting from the NY Times.

That Anderson or Pileni quit in response to the paper is speculation
(as shown by your reference on the matter) but more importantly it is completely irrelevant either way.

What is relevant, "Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.”

"The peer-review on this paper was grueling, with pages of comments by referees. The tough questions the reviewers raised led to months of further experiments. These studies added much to the paper, including observation and photographs of iron-aluminum rich spheres produced as the material is ignited in a Differential Scanning Calorimeter "

First author is Professor Niels Harrit of Copenhagen University in Denmark, an Associate Professor of Chemistry. He is an expert in nano-chemistry; current research activities and his photo can be found here: cmm.nbi.ku.dk
*http://www.mathaba.net/0_index.shtml?x=619397


The critiques of harrit's paper (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140017) are certainly not an explanation of what this material is. So do not confuse the two.

here is an informative well written essay directed at lay people.
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/thermitics_made_simple.html

but like I said, my point was, that we dont need any scientific paper, or expert opinions in this case, because the tons factual evidence
(i.e. speed, symmetry, explosiveness, foreknowledge, admin's behavior, residual heat, NIST's failure to test for explosives* -etc, etc etc.. all speak for themselves.

*whatever Senor Mackey says, we have NIST saying they "did not test for the steel and dust explosive compounds."

In law, facts are called 'facts' because they can be verified by either side in a case.
Deal with the facts, quit with the fallacious appeals to authority and remember, it is well informed lay people who are given the seat of power on juries in this country

[Arus808]

could you join us in 2009. You know where Harris and Jones are considered idiots. They couldn't even get their "paper" into a respected journal. THEY had to pay to get their paper published

[DGM]

Wow, What a disjointed collection of crapola. Maybe you should read and organize your thoughts before posting (although I don't think it will help).

Sorry, copy and paste is not your strong suit.

[R.Mackey]

really?

Regardless, 'Appeal to authority' is on the list of logical fallacies bc you can find an expert to say anything. (ie. Thomas Eager's embarrassment of a paper!

I'm not appealing to authority. You said in your OP that NIST should have looked for signs of explosives. They did. You lied when you said that. Very simple.

You can say 'You're just wrong" but you cannot explain observed events with the gravity driven collapse hypothesis; only explosives can do that.

Yes I can. I've written hundreds of pages and made thousands of posts doing exactly that.

I see a lot of personal incredulity here in this forum, not to mention name calling, intolerance and just plain ignorance -

Then don't add to it.

As someone who lived through the events in Manhattan, saw the streets littered with body parts and lost two good friends, I find it difficult to fathom where all this hate comes from.

The Truth Movement is particularly unpopular in New York City, which is understandable since the history the Truth Movement denies is theirs.

[TruthersLie]

you call it a load of nonsense and then use screwloosechnage as a reference.
He doesnt have a doctorate? Would that impress you more if he did? (I think goebbels had one too)

Goodwins law much?


plenty of others PhD's there I believe.


How many of them are structural engineers?


who gives a rat's ass if he has a doctorate!??
Try dealing with the facts of the issue.
The whole point of the post is that the study is not necessary to conclude the obvious.


GREAT then PROVE IT. Provide evidence, proof. Come on, it shouldn't be that hard.


if you wish to bring it up, well..point is, that he and 9 other scientists from different institutions (who have no reason in the world to lie and fabricate results, unlike NIST) found these material and confirmed their structure, elemental components, and ignition behavior.


Oh the nanothermite crap. yes. Too bad there are over 20 major methodological errors in said "paper" (snicker). yet you fall for it hook, line and sinker.
You might want to check about those "scientists."

re Niels Bohrs being a 'prestigious' institution -I was quoting from the NY Times.

Too bad Niels Harrit doesn't work for them...


That Anderson or Pileni quit in response to the paper is speculation
(as shown by your reference on the matter) but more importantly it is completely irrelevant either way.

Nice handwave. Too bad it is inaccurate.

What is relevant, "Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.”

No what is relevant is that there are 20 major methodological errors in that "study" (snicker). Why didn't they test it in an inert environment? It would conclusively show it is thermite.. try again.

"The peer-review on this paper was grueling, with pages of comments by referees.


what peer review? It would help if you had any idea what real peer review is. What we have found out about Bentham is that their peer review = "did the check clear?" try again.

The tough questions the reviewers raised led to months of further experiments. These studies added much to the paper, including observation and photographs of iron-aluminum rich spheres produced as the material is ignited in a Differential Scanning Calorimeter "

It is amazing that they got to choose which 4 people would peer review their article. I mean, I can find 4 folks who agree with me. Try again.


First author is Professor Niels Harrit of Copenhagen University in Denmark, an Associate Professor of Chemistry. He is an expert in nano-chemistry; current research activities and his photo can be found here: cmm.nbi.ku.dk
*http://www.mathaba.net/0_index.shtml?x=619397


Who now says that nanothermite was used to ignite up to 100 TONS of HE. Where are the explosions of those 100 TONS of HE?


The critiques of harrit's paper (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140017) are certainly not an explanation of what this material is. So do not confuse the two.

here is an informative well written essay directed at lay people.
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/thermitics_made_simple.html


ReallY? and you fell for it? OMG. Thanks for the laugh. Try some real chemistry. It will help you out. Maybe you should think about going back to school to finish that high school diploma.


but like I said, my point was, that we dont need any scientific paper, or expert opinions in this case, because the tons factual evidence
(i.e. speed, symmetry, explosiveness, foreknowledge, admin's behavior, residual heat, NIST's failure to test for explosives* -etc, etc etc.. all speak for themselves.


Nice handwave. IF you ahve FACTS, then present them.

NIST did the analysis and determined no CD could have been done w/out deafening everyone in a half mile. Where is the video with CD blasts? oh there are none.

Symmetry? You really should look up that word to figure out what it means.

But you are very right. It all speaks volumes... that you are uneducated and fall for crap.


In law, facts are called 'facts' because they can be verified by either side in a case.
Deal with the facts, quit with the fallacious appeals to authority and remember, it is well informed lay people who are given the seat of power on juries in this country

GREAT. PRESENT SOME FACTS.
we are still waiting for you to provide some.

[WildCat]

if you wish to bring it up, well..point is, that he and 9 other scientists from different institutions (who have no reason in the world to lie and fabricate results, unlike NIST) found these material and confirmed their structure, elemental components, and ignition behavior.

...What is relevant, "Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.”
Wow, that sounds real science-ey and everything! I wonder why they haven't submitted it to an actual peer-reviwed science journal? :rolleyes:

"The peer-review on this paper was grueling, with pages of comments by referees. The tough questions the reviewers raised led to months of further experiments. These studies added much to the paper, including observation and photographs of iron-aluminum rich spheres produced as the material is ignited in a Differential Scanning Calorimeter "
:dl:

[DGM]

Yes I can. I've written hundreds of pages and made thousands of posts doing exactly that.
.

Yeah, But can you do it standing on one foot, waving your hands and not using words with more then two syllables?:p

[MarkyX]

I stopped after the first picture. So his argument boils down to "debris fell this way, therefore bombs bought down the towers"

Amazing.

[Fjolle]

you call it a load of nonsense and then use screwloosechnage as a reference.
I could have used the original article, but you wouldnt have understood it...
He doesnt have a doctorate? Would that impress you more if he did? (I think goebbels had one too)
plenty of others PhD's there I believe.
godwins law :)


re Niels Bohrs being a 'prestigious' institution -I was quoting from the NY Times
It IS, but again, it has nothing to to with this subject, Harrit, or chemistry.

That Anderson or Pileni quit in response to the paper is speculation
(as shown by your reference on the matter) but more importantly it is completely irrelevant either way.
You think so?

What is relevant, "Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.”
Not the conclusion a lot of other people who read the paper had.

"The peer-review on this paper was grueling, with pages of comments by referees. The tough questions the reviewers raised led to months of further experiments. These studies added much to the paper, including observation and photographs of iron-aluminum rich spheres produced as the material is ignited in a Differential Scanning Calorimeter "
A real peer review might have suggested that they did an XDS, but my specialty is not chemistry, so you might want to talk to other people about this.

The critiques of harrit's paper (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140017) are certainly not an explanation of what this material is. So do not confuse the two.[

here is an informative well written essay directed at lay people.
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/thermitics_made_simple.html
Probably not, but they explain who it quite simply can not be thermite.

Other will probably go through this better than i'm capable of. And the post didn't really have anything to do with what i posted, so meh..

Edit: Beaten :D

[Thunder]

I am confused how anyone could look at the facts of 9/11 and not see explosives in these events. Are we seeing the same images and results here?
.

i am confused as to why truthers are soo very desperate to convince us at JREF that 9-11 was an inside job, when we clearly do not believe so.

don't we have the right to our own opinions? don't we have the right to our own views on the subject matter?

its like Christian fundamentalists, who lay awake at night because they can't believe that there are folks out there who don't believe in Jesus, and won't be satisfied or confident with their own beliefs until the entire WORLD agreed with them.

Truther, you believe what you are gonna believe. We clearly can't convince you otherwise. Do us a favor and give us the same courtesy.

[Regnad Kcin]

The whole point of the post is that the study is not necessary to conclude the obvious.So the earth IS flat after all! I knew it!

[Comsat Angel]

Dear atavisms. Your post is both accurate, and relevant. Unfortunately, the parts that are accurate are not relevant. And the parts that are relevant are not accurate.

(Apologies to Dr. Johnson)

Meanwhile, HG Wells called from 2006. He wants his time-machine back.

[beachnut]

The photos and videos you supplied are clearly a gravity collapse. There were no blast effects on any WTC steel. And they studied and selected steel. No blast effects.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/wtclookingforThermitenotfound.jpg
911 truth lies when they say the steel was not studied. Why do they lie?

No explosives. If you watch the video all the mass is moving down. In an explosion some mass moves close to the speed of sound in all directions for a short period. Stop action of a gravity collapse looks like an explosion to many of us, but carefully looking at the action the only thing going up is expelled air and smoke and some dust, the rest of the mass of the WTC is falling, not being exploded. Stop looking at the stills and posting junk ideas from web sites of lies.

The only constituents of the Twin Towers that survived the "collapses" in the form of recognizable pieces of any size were their metal parts, such as pieces of structural steel and aluminum cladding. Virtually all the non-metallic parts of the towers and their contents were converted to microscopic dust particles or small unrecognizable fragments. (-jim hoffman) Why does Hoffman lie? People were still alive in the WTC, they did not virtually turn to dust. Liars are all you will find at the web sites you picked to form your delusions on 911.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/12447455d310a46501.jpg
Oops, there are big chunks of concrete, not dust. Hoffman never corrects his web site he keeps posting junk about 911. You can use Hoffman's own work to easily debunk all his failed moronic conclusions. If you can't then get some help from teachers, parents, and anyone who is a rational thinker. Avoid people on meth or people who look like Hoffman.

Explosives make the sound of explosives not sounds like explosives.

The energy of the WTC collapse, gravity collapse without explosives released over 150 TONS of TNT energy in each tower. This is why the destruction of the WTC looked the way it did. Just from gravity the WTC complex looked like 300 2,000 pound bombs had destroyed the site. If Hoffman understood physics instead of being a fringe conspiracy theorist manufacturing false information he would be able to be much more rational.

[McHrozni]

*whatever Senor Mackey says, we have NIST saying they "did not test for the steel and dust explosive compounds."

They also stated why, and they also looked for other distinguishing marks of explosives, which weren't there. Therefore, tests for explosive compounds would be both unnecessary and couldn't show anything meaningful anyway (see why they stated they didn't test for them).

McHrozni

[DavidJames]

So the earth IS flat after all! I knew it!

My personal favorite is the obvious visual evidence that the sun revolves around the earth.

[HeyLeroy]

goebbels


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/619745c2322e69b9f.gif
BZZZZZT

GODWIN
FAIL

[Hokulele]

My personal favorite is the obvious visual evidence that the sun revolves around the earth.


And whales are fish.

[Thunder]

it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that there is clearly a big face in the Moon, and that the stars revolve around the Earth, and that the sun is in fact a giant light bulb.

[Thunder]

The whole point of the post is that the study is not necessary to conclude the obvious.

The Earth is flat. Its obvious to everyone.

[Mangoose]

Atavisms thinks that buildings are blown up with explosives in controlled demolitions, that most of the destructive energy comes from the explosives (hence his 2006-vintage comments about the pulverization of concrete and body parts). The reality is that implosions are instances of gravity-driven collapse as well; the explosives only weaken the structure enough to precipitate gravity-driven collapse. The difference in the case of the WTC is that some other agent (fire) weakened the structure. Different agents but both leading to gravity-driven structural failure.

[lapman]

My personal favorite is the obvious visual evidence that the sun revolves around the earth.
Yeah. The earth can't be spinning. Ever heard of momentum and inertia!

[Juniversal]

really?

Regardless, 'Appeal to authority' is on the list of logical fallacies bc you can find an expert to say anything. (ie. Thomas Eager's embarrassment of a paper! Speaking of appeal to authority.

Dr Niels Harrit, whose paper has been so ignorantly maligned here on this forum, has run the chemistry dept at the prestigious Niels Bohrs Institute in Copenhagen for 37 years. The (actually) peer-reviewed paper he was the lead author on, (Active Thermitic Materials..) involved 8 other scientists who have no reason to lie. Further studies are being conducted in France & Ct., as per Steven Jones.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority ...^

[fourtoe]

Auuugh, if only Godwin's Law was more widely known back in 2006.

Srsly atavisms, this is a link (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5140477&postcount=10) to my post in this thread that you haven't responded to. I understand why, but come onnnnnnnnnnnnn.


Oh and I too also enjoy steak fries more so than julien fries.

[Furcifer]

In law, facts are called 'facts' because they can be verified by either side in a case.
Deal with the facts, quit with the fallacious appeals to authority and remember, it is well informed lay people who are given the seat of power on juries in this country

Your experts failed on cross examination. Capiche?

[HeyLeroy]

Auuugh, if only Godwin's Law was more widely known back in 2006.

Srsly atavisms, this is a link (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5140477&postcount=10) to my post in this thread that you haven't responded to. I understand why, but come onnnnnnnnnnnnn.


Oh and I too also enjoy steak fries more so than julien fries.

Here's another good question that atavisms has ignored:

Also, let me ask you: do you disagree with the findings described in this quote by a 911 researcher who investigated the WTC collapses?

As we examined the WTC-debris sample, we found large chunks of concrete (irregular in shape and size, one was approximately 5cm X 3 cm X 3cm) as well as medium-sized pieces of wall-board (with the binding paper still attached). Thus, the pulverization was in fact NOT to fine dust, and it is a false premise to start with near-complete pulverization to fine powder

And I'm not sure if this has been said but, welcome to the forums! :)

[A W Smith]

it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that there is clearly a big face in the Moon, and that the stars revolve around the Earth, and that the sun is in fact a giant light bulb.


we knew this even way back in the silent film era

http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/atriptothemoon1902.jpg

[Pardalis]

So the clone of Méliès shot the moonlanding, everything makes sense now.

[KJC]

When will twoofers learn that explosives don't propel tons of steel outwards? When will they learn that it can't pulverize concrete even when drilled directly in to it? Above all, when will the learn that there is no device that can do all of this silently?

You probably could find bombs that would do the above (except for the silent part), but it would without doubt cause shockwaves so powerful that would damage much of Manhatten and the deathtoll would have been much higher and we would be looking at 9/11 with a completely different perspective.

[Macgyver1968]

Correct me if im wrong, but don't the charges used for demolition use the ultra high temperature, high pressure plasma created in the detonation to cut the steel, by focusing it into one point, rather than the explosive force of the shockwave in the air?

[fourtoe]

Here's another good question that atavisms has ignored:


Stolen 100% from Gravy. People think the box demonstration Gage gave was the best part of that debate but I think when Gravy brought that quote up that that was the best part of the debate.

[HeyLeroy]

Psst... don't give it away...

[Horatius]

The Earth is flat. Its obvious to everyone.


No it's not! There's a hill just behind my house, so the Earth is at least rumpled!

[KJC]

Correct me if im wrong, but don't the charges used for demolition use the ultra high temperature, high pressure plasma created in the detonation to cut the steel, by focusing it into one point, rather than the explosive force of the shockwave in the air?

Yes, they use shape charges. Without the shapes, they do zero damage to the structure which makes throwing steel columns laughable. So they would need to go with humungous bombs that would throw steel columns, but those types of bombs would hardly be discreet.

[stateofgrace]

but like I said, my point was, that we dont need any scientific paper, or expert opinions in this case,

Of course you don't. All you need is a over active imagination, a desperate desire to imagine you see something that everybody else on the planet missed and an ability to totally ignore any scientific paper and/or expert opinion that proves you totally wrong.

[Wolrab]

The photos and videos you supplied are clearly a gravity collapse. There were no blast effects on any WTC steel. And they studied and selected steel. No blast effects.

911 truth lies when they say the steel was not studied. Why do they lie?

No explosives. If you watch the video all the mass is moving down. In an explosion some mass moves close to the speed of sound in all directions for a short period. Stop action of a gravity collapse looks like an explosion to many of us, but carefully looking at the action the only thing going up is expelled air and smoke and some dust, the rest of the mass of the WTC is falling, not being exploded. Stop looking at the stills and posting junk ideas from web sites of lies.

Why does Hoffman lie? People were still alive in the WTC, they did not virtually turn to dust. Liars are all you will find at the web sites you picked to form your delusions on 911.

Oops, there are big chunks of concrete, not dust. Hoffman never corrects his web site he keeps posting junk about 911. You can use Hoffman's own work to easily debunk all his failed moronic conclusions. If you can't then get some help from teachers, parents, and anyone who is a rational thinker. Avoid people on meth or people who look like Hoffman.

Explosives make the sound of explosives not sounds like explosives.

The energy of the WTC collapse, gravity collapse without explosives released over 150 TONS of TNT energy in each tower. This is why the destruction of the WTC looked the way it did. Just from gravity the WTC complex looked like 300 2,000 pound bombs had destroyed the site. If Hoffman understood physics instead of being a fringe conspiracy theorist manufacturing false information he would be able to be much more rational.
I actually did a "find word" search to make sure. "DIRT or DUMB" were not in your post.
I love it when you rip 'em a new one. :)

[Justin39640]

So the clone of Méliès shot the moonlanding, everything makes sense now.

5ZlqqO_AyYA
:D

[Sword_Of_Truth]

As someone who lived through the events in Manhattan, saw the streets littered with body parts and lost two good friends, I find it difficult to fathom where all this hate comes from.

What are your friends names?

"The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is." - Winston Churchill

Nice quote-mine, here's another:


“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities - but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.”
- Winston Churchill


I'm glad you respect Winston Churchill, I strongly reccomend that you study him. He saw World War 2, the Cold War and 9/11 and the war against Islamic extremism coming long before anyone else.

[Justin39640]

Hey if were throwin out quotes
heres one from Ben:
“We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.”

[jhunter1163]

The energy density of methane is 55 kJ/g. I think it was a bunch of guys all lighting their farts at the same time that blew up the Towers.

Like I said in another thread, this is as good as anything the Truthers have.

[atavisms]

Hoffman was wrong, either deliberately or through sheer stupidity. He took his figures from a study into the makeup of the drifting dust plume which, by definition, could contain no macroscopic debris. See how easily you were fooled, atavisms?

actually I think that was Jim Hoffman's own early research which he abandoned for more compelling lines of inquiry.

In the paper he calculates the energy sinks required, based on the size and expansion rates of the massive dust clouds (which are so well documented) When he calculated the gravitational potential of the building and compared it to the sink required expand the clouds, it was off by a factor of like 10. (I believe)

I am not sure why you would think a highly redundant structure would turn it self to dust in midair, but there you are/

Fact is, (as much as I hate saying it) if you believe no explosives were used to accomplish this destruction, then it is clear that you are the one being fooled. The facts are what they are. You can choose to ignore them; many people do. Believe me, I understand this impetus for this.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_349174abd5befe8ed2.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17675)

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evid...gzaerial4.html

[R.Mackey]

In the paper he calculates the energy sinks required, based on the size and expansion rates of the massive dust clouds (which are so well documented) When he calculated the gravitational potential of the building and compared it to the sink required expand the clouds, it was off by a factor of like 10. (I believe)

So you're another one of those guys who believe at least 1000 tons of explosives went off in each Tower, eh?

Can't you find the slightest teeny little problem with that argument on your own?

[Hokulele]

actually I think that was Jim Hoffman's own early research which he abandoned for more compelling lines of inquiry.

In the paper he calculates the energy sinks required, based on the size and expansion rates of the massive dust clouds (which are so well documented) When he calculated the gravitational potential of the building and compared it to the sink required expand the clouds, it was off by a factor of like 10. (I believe)

I am not sure why you would think a highly redundant structure would turn it self to dust in midair, but there you are/


Structures damaged by fire cannot collapse and generate large clouds of dust?

p22OkclAU3o

[stateofgrace]

Fact is, (as much as I hate saying it) if you believe no explosives were used to accomplish this destruction, then it is clear that you are the one being fooled. The facts are what they are. You can choose to ignore them; many people do. Believe me, I understand this impetus for this.


Why would I ignore facts ?

So how did the explosives survive the plane impacts? Facts please.

[stateofgrace]

Double post.

[johnny karate]

Please provide a list of witnesses and on-site investigators who believe explosives were used to bring down any of the WTC buidlings on 9/11.

Bump for atavisms.

[atavisms]

How does the sputter of nanothermite burning cause debris to be thrown hundreds of feet?

I don't expect a sensible answer. I'm just asking for them:

I dont think anyone in their right mind can argue the destruction of Towers 1&2 were not highly explosive events. So that is our starting point and something we can be absolutely certain of. Whatever thermite does!
Besides, no one is saying it was regular thermite/

pls read below. tx


How Could Thermite, an Incendiary, Demolish the Towers, When Buildings Are Normally Demolished Using High-Explosive Cutter Charges?
As is obvious from a review of the literature on energetic materials, thermite-based pyrotechnics can be engineered to have explosive power similar to conventional high-explosives while providing greater energy density and much greater stability. Thus, aluminothermic cutter charges similar to the shaped charges used in commercial demolitions are entirely feasible. However, a variety of forms of thermite might be used to demolish a steel-framed skyscraper in a way that uses no cutter charges at all, as in this Hypothetical Blasting Scenario, (http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/blasting_scenario.html) which posits three types of aluminothermic pyrotechnics: a thermate incendiary coating sprayed onto steelwork, nano-thermite kicker charges placed near steelwork, and thin-film nano-composite high-explosives distributed throughout the building. The strategically applied incendiary coatings, ignited several minutes before the building's take-down, weaken the structure; but obvious failures start only when the kicker charges break key supports, and the thin-film high-explosives begin pulverizing the building from the initial failure zone outward

Why Weren't Demolition Charges Triggered by the Plane Crashes or the Subsequent Fires?
Perhaps the plane crashes did trigger some of the charges. If so, their blasts were lost in the jet-crash fireballs, and their damage was insufficient to budge the Towers' tops. Thermite incendiaries in the core ignited by the crash would not be visible over the fires, unless dislodged to the building's exterior, as apparently happened in the South Tower. However, this probably wasn't an issue because, in contrast to conventional explosives, thermite has a very high ignition temperature -- above 2200ºC. Thus, thermitic incendiaries used around the crash zones could have been designed to survive the fires. As for thermitic explosives, they could have been designed to detonate only on exposure to the very extreme conditions of temperature and pressure provided by specialized detonators, and to deflagrate (merely burn) in response to the kinds of pressures and temperatures produced by the plane crashes and fires. As a fail-safe, the demolition sequence could have been programmed to be triggered by premature ignitions of pyrotechnics.

How Could the Demolition Equipment Have Been Installed in the Twin Towers Without Tenants Noticing?
The simple answer is by disguising the equipment as normal building components, so that not even the workers installing the components are aware of the concealed pyrotechnics. Three aspects of the Hypothetical Blasting Scenario that facilitate this are: the stability and specificity of ignition conditions achievable with aluminothermic pyrotechnics, minimization of the required access to steelwork, and the use of a completely wireless ignition control system.

*from - http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html

[UNLoVedRebel]

http://i472.photobucket.com/albums/rr89/Masamune_Shin/facepalm.gif

[Arus808]

Please provide a list of witnesses and on-site investigators who believe explosives were used to bring down any of the WTC buidlings on 9/11.


He has skipped over this now three time since its been reposted, and responded to several posts after this request has been made.

I suggest that no one engage this fraud until he answers the question above.

[Pardalis]

Bump for atavisms.

I admire your resilience. Hang in there. ;)

[Reactor drone]

Bolded some parts of that for you.You might want to look for "were" and "was",they tend to be more reliable.

I dont think anyone in their right mind can argue the destruction of Towers 1&2 were not highly explosive events. So that is our starting point and something we can be absolutely certain of. Whatever thermite does!
Besides, no one is saying it was regular thermite/

pls read below. tx


How Could Thermite, an Incendiary, Demolish the Towers, When Buildings Are Normally Demolished Using High-Explosive Cutter Charges?
As is obvious from a review of the literature on energetic materials, thermite-based pyrotechnics can be engineered to have explosive power similar to conventional high-explosives while providing greater energy density and much greater stability. Thus, aluminothermic cutter charges similar to the shaped charges used in commercial demolitions are entirely feasible. However, a variety of forms of thermite might be used to demolish a steel-framed skyscraper in a way that uses no cutter charges at all, as in this Hypothetical Blasting Scenario, (http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/blasting_scenario.html) which posits three types of aluminothermic pyrotechnics: a thermate incendiary coating sprayed onto steelwork, nano-thermite kicker charges placed near steelwork, and thin-film nano-composite high-explosives distributed throughout the building. The strategically applied incendiary coatings, ignited several minutes before the building's take-down, weaken the structure; but obvious failures start only when the kicker charges break key supports, and the thin-film high-explosives begin pulverizing the building from the initial failure zone outward

Why Weren't Demolition Charges Triggered by the Plane Crashes or the Subsequent Fires?
Perhaps the plane crashes did trigger some of the charges. If so, their blasts were lost in the jet-crash fireballs, and their damage was insufficient to budge the Towers' tops. Thermite incendiaries in the core ignited by the crash would not be visible over the fires, unless dislodged to the building's exterior, as apparently happened in the South Tower. However, this probably wasn't an issue because, in contrast to conventional explosives, thermite has a very high ignition temperature -- above 2200ºC. Thus, thermitic incendiaries used around the crash zones could have been designed to survive the fires. As for thermitic explosives, they could have been designed to detonate only on exposure to the very extreme conditions of temperature and pressure provided by specialized detonators, and to deflagrate (merely burn) in response to the kinds of pressures and temperatures produced by the plane crashes and fires. As a fail-safe, the demolition sequence could have been programmed to be triggered by premature ignitions of pyrotechnics.

How Could the Demolition Equipment Have Been Installed in the Twin Towers Without Tenants Noticing?
The simple answer is by disguising the equipment as normal building components, so that not even the workers installing the components are aware of the concealed pyrotechnics. Three aspects of the Hypothetical Blasting Scenario that facilitate this are: the stability and specificity of ignition conditions achievable with aluminothermic pyrotechnics, minimization of the required access to steelwork, and the use of a completely wireless ignition control system.

*from - http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html

[atavisms]

Structures damaged by fire cannot collapse and generate large clouds of dust?

p22OkclAU3o

Im sure they can.

But that highly redundant 110 steel reinforced office towers hit 15 storeys from the roof (N Tower) cannot pulverize themselves in 16 seconds, evaporating almost 40% of it's occupants and strewing it's pulverized and steel remains in a 800 foot radial pattern is, I believe,, the issue at hand.
(the towers 'burned' for roughly 60 and 100 minutes) and then exploded...
boom boom boom boom boom.. all the way down (basements intact!)

WTC 7's textbook implosion in 7 seconds (free fall speed = explosives)
(who cares if its slightly faster of slower) It the speed and symmetry that can only mean explosives.

Griffin, making perfect sense, writes of WTC 7:

""When we combine the fact that the collapse of WTC 7 immediately appears to be a controlled demolition, (http://wtc7.net/videos.html) with the twofold fact that all prior collapses of steel-frame high-rise buildings have been produced by explosives, and that the collapse of WTC 7 has many features in common with planned implosions, the view that it was a planned implosion should be the natural assumption. The burden of proof should be placed on any claim that WTC7 was brought down by something other than explosives, because this is the wild, empirically baseless hypothesis devoid of any historical precedent, which is just the kind of hypothesis that one expects to hear from irrational conspiracy theorists.

However the fact that the conspiracy theory being supported by this wild, scientifically and historically baseless speculation is the government's own is, for some reason, thought to justify turning things upside down. In this topsy-turvy framework, those whose theory is consistent with science, the empirical facts, and all historical precedent are ridiculed as nutty conspiracy theorists while those who articulate wildly speculative theory, which contradicts all prior experience, several laws of science, and numerous empirical facts, are considered the sober, sensible thinkers, whose pronouncements can be trusted without examination.""
(Debunking 9/11 Debunking 120p)

[NickUK]

I swear to God we'll be back at 4,000 jews didn't go to work and the planes had pods next. The twoof carousel never stops.

Round and round and round and round and round and round

[Hokulele]

Im sure they can.

But that highly redundant 110 steel reinforced office towers hit 15 storeys from the roof (N Tower) cannot pulverize themselves in 16 seconds, evaporating almost 40% of it's occupants and strewing it's pulverized and steel remains in a 800 foot radial pattern is, I believe,, the issue at hand.


Why not?

[Pardalis]

BTW, it's «its», not «it's», atavisms.


Your friendly neighborhood French guy.

[atavisms]

Bolded some parts of that for you.You might want to look for "were" and "was",they tend to be more reliable.



Originally Posted by atavisms View Post
I dont think anyone in their right mind can argue the destruction of Towers 1&2 were not highly explosive events. So that is our starting point and something we can be absolutely certain of. Whatever thermite does!
Besides, no one is saying it was regular thermite/

pls read below. tx


How Could Thermite, an Incendiary, Demolish the Towers, When Buildings Are Normally Demolished Using High-Explosive Cutter Charges?
As is obvious from a review of the literature on energetic materials, thermite-based pyrotechnics can be engineered to have explosive power similar to conventional high-explosives while providing greater energy density and much greater stability. Thus, aluminothermic cutter charges similar to the shaped charges used in commercial demolitions are entirely feasible. However, a variety of forms of thermite might be used to demolish a steel-framed skyscraper in a way that uses no cutter charges at all, as in this Hypothetical Blasting Scenario, (http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/t..._scenario.html) which posits three types of aluminothermic pyrotechnics: a thermate incendiary coating sprayed onto steelwork, nano-thermite kicker charges placed near steelwork, and thin-film nano-composite high-explosives distributed throughout the building. The strategically applied incendiary coatings, ignited several minutes before the building's take-down, weaken the structure; but obvious failures start only when the kicker charges break key supports, and the thin-film high-explosives begin pulverizing the building from the initial failure zone outward

Why Weren't Demolition Charges Triggered by the Plane Crashes or the Subsequent Fires?
Perhaps the plane crashes did trigger some of the charges. If so, their blasts were lost in the jet-crash fireballs, and their damage was insufficient to budge the Towers' tops. Thermite incendiaries in the core ignited by the crash would not be visible over the fires, unless dislodged to the building's exterior, as apparently happened in the South Tower. However, this probably wasn't an issue because, in contrast to conventional explosives, thermite has a very high ignition temperature -- above 2200ºC. Thus, thermitic incendiaries used around the crash zones could have been designed to survive the fires. As for thermitic explosives, they could have been designed to detonate only on exposure to the very extreme conditions of temperature and pressure provided by specialized detonators, and to deflagrate (merely burn) in response to the kinds of pressures and temperatures produced by the plane crashes and fires. As a fail-safe, the demolition sequence could have been programmed to be triggered by premature ignitions of pyrotechnics.

How Could the Demolition Equipment Have Been Installed in the Twin Towers Without Tenants Noticing?
The simple answer is by disguising the equipment as normal building components, so that not even the workers installing the components are aware of the concealed pyrotechnics. Three aspects of the Hypothetical Blasting Scenario that facilitate this are: the stability and specificity of ignition conditions achievable with aluminothermic pyrotechnics, minimization of the required access to steelwork, and the use of a completely wireless ignition control system.

*from - http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/t..._residues.html

Yes, Thanks for that.
Unfortunately, that is what we are stuck with (the postulating of theoretical hypotheses in an effort to explain observed events) until we have a actual investigation.
What's a 'real' investigation?
One that is independent, with subpoena power.
One that takes into account actual events and testimony is a good place to begin.

[Reactor drone]

Im sure they can.

WTC 7's textbook implosion in 7 seconds (free fall speed = explosives)
(who cares if its slightly faster of slower) It the speed and symmetry that can only mean explosives.



Almost stundie worthy.

So you think the speed of collapse indicates explosives but the speed(distance over time) isn't important?

[TokenMac]

Yes, Thanks for that.
Unfortunately, that is what we are stuck with (the postulating of theoretical hypotheses in an effort to explain observed events) until we have a actual investigation.
What's a 'real' investigation?
One that is independent, with subpoena power.
One that takes into account actual events and testimony is a good place to begin.

That or you could make the hypothetical aluminothermic cutter charges yourselves, offer to demo a building with them, then study the remains of the structure for comparable evidence to the WTC.

[AJM8125]

There were no explosions from bombs on 9/11. I should know, I've been near several hundred of them. (http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1338&dat=19730427&id=GroSAAAAIBAJ&sjid=ivgDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6322,4201786) I was approximately 3 miles away when the bombs started detonating. My mother, be the cautious woman she was, got us the hell out of dodge. We went to my Aunt's home in West Sacramento, about 20 miles away, where we sat listening to bombs cook off all day long. Yes, we heard the explosions 20 miles away. You read that right.

Then in June 2008, I was about 100 feet from this. (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/24/BAOS11EGNF.DTL) The shockwave from this blast was especially strong. It actually shoved me backwards and I nearly lost my balance. I'm not exactly a small person either. The sound of the blast made my ears ring for about thirty seconds afterward.

The commom thread is I have never heard an audio of the attacks that have the distinct, unmistakable sound of an explosion. Even the videos with sound effects added can't duplicate the sound, not even closely. Anyone else whose been near explosions a lot will concur.

Why bring this up? Just to expedite the conversation so we can get to the heart of the matter:

Hush-a-Booms.:rolleyes:

[DGM]

Yes, Thanks for that.
Unfortunately, that is what we are stuck with (the postulating of theoretical hypotheses in an effort to explain observed events) until we have a actual investigation.
What's a 'real' investigation?
One that is independent, with subpoena power.
One that takes into account actual events and testimony is a good place to begin.
Independent of what? Who's going to serve the subpoenas? You really haven't thought this through have you?

[atavisms]

Why not?

bc of how they were designed. And how they were damaged and destroyed.
The cores could hold up several times the weight of the buildings and they were just shredded! Where do you reckon all that energy came from?

The lightest part of the building, the tops?
You see a pile driver in the videos?

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/index.html

Just because a thing seems highly unlikely to us does not mean it is not so.
Belief should be base don one thing, available evidence.

[atavisms]

You really haven't thought this through have you?

'never is a person so telling of himself as in his judgment of another'
-la rochefoucauld

[Justin39640]

bc of how they were designed. And how they were damaged and destroyed.
The cores could hold up several times the weight of the buildings and they were just shredded! Where do you reckon all that energy came from?

The lightest part of the building, the tops?
You see a pile driver in the videos?

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/index.html

Just because a thing seems highly unlikely to us does not mean it is not so.
Belief should be base don one thing, available evidence.

hmm
firewood will hold my ax up
yet when i strike the wood it splits in one shot

hmmmmmmm

[Sam.I.Am]

You need to learn how the core was designed and supported and how long they lasted after the collapse initiation.

[T.A.M.]

'never is a person so telling of himself, as in the amount of stupid bullcrap he believes in.'

- la TAMfoucauld;)

[beachnut]

'never is a person so telling of himself as in his judgment of another'
-la rochefoucauld
Never is a person so telling of his lack of evidence on 911 when he posts delusions and presents hearsay, lies and failed opinions as evidence. - lalaladedahtruth

Where is your proof of silent explosives? Blast effects?

[KJC]

Again he brings up the radius of the debris as proof of explosives?

What kind of explosives can propell steel outwards without any shockwaves breaking windows or any booms being heard for miles around?

Suggest a device that can do this, or go away.

P.S. Demolitions don't fall at free fall speed. Not that this proves anything since the towers did not collapse at free fall either.

[Grizzly Bear]

Demolition charges launching steel panels weighing several tons over 600 feet... I hear this from Richard Gage a lot. What technology is being implied that has such power to deliver the explosive impulse required to send this mass so far without so much as making a sound? That doesn't create a single case of blast injury, shrapnel injury, or reports of hearing loss? That doesn't send shatter a single window nearby?

The conspiratoids are priceless!

ETA: DAMMIT KJC you stole my question! D:
*spites*
ETA2 image removed... and

[Hokulele]

bc of how they were designed. And how they were damaged and destroyed.
The cores could hold up several times the weight of the buildings and they were just shredded! Where do you reckon all that energy came from?


The potential energy of the building. You may also want to note that the entire columns did not have to be destroyed at once, but section by section. This reduces the amount of energy needed at any one point in time.

The lightest part of the building, the tops?
You see a pile driver in the videos?


The top portions only apply to collapse initiation (i.e., the first intact floor). As the collapse progresses, you add the energy available from the entire building above the collapse front to destroy the lower portions. You are making the same mistake Heiwa makes repeatedly. The top portion does not need to act upon the entire lower portion of the building.

Just because a thing seems highly unlikely to us does not mean it is not so.
Belief should be base don one thing, available evidence.


Ah, so even though a gravity-driven collapse seems unlikely to you, that does not mean it is not so. Got it.

[KJC]

ETA: DAMMIT KJC you stole my question! D:

We could repeat the same question a million times. I don't think I've seen a truther actually directly answer this question. They normally respond with a red herring of some sort.

[Grizzly Bear]

We could repeat the same question a million times. I don't think I've seen a truther actually directly answer this question. They normally respond with a red herring of some sort.

Gage always responds with teh nano-termites... the suspense of atavisms theory is killing me!

ETA you know what never mind... I read a few posts up... the lunacy is just as I feared.... he really does think a paint coat launched perimeter columns like rockets... Not a single face palm can ever express the eminence of such wooo.

[beachnut]

... The lightest part of the building, the tops?
...
Belief should be base don one thing, available evidence.
Please tell me exactly how much weight one floor of the WTC can hold before failing?
Please tell me how much the tops of the lightest part of the WTC were above the impact zone?
Gee, what does one floor weigh?
Got some numbers to go with your moronic delusion?
Or is this tripe off the top of your head? The lightest part?


Next the easy part; where is your evidence? Why are you unable to back up your delusions with evidence? You super nano-evidence? Too small to see?

[Mr.D]

Yes, Thanks for that.
Unfortunately, that is what we are stuck with (the postulating of theoretical hypotheses in an effort to explain observed events) until we have a actual investigation.
What's a 'real' investigation?
One that is independent, with subpoena power.
One that takes into account actual events and testimony is a good place to begin.

So who were the NIST investigators dependant on and how?
Whose testimony needs to be subject to subpoena? (and what's so magical about subpoena power with regards to the WTC collapses anyway?)
Which "actual" events were ignored by NIST?
Whose "actual" testimony was ignored by NIST?


And here's one I'd really like answered. What would you do if you got sworn testimony from one of the many people whose quotes were cherry-picked for "bomb"-similies, and that person explained that they were using a metaphor?

[Carlos]

But that highly redundant 110 steel reinforced office towers hit 15 storeys from the roof (N Tower) cannot pulverize themselves in 16 seconds

Speculation.

evaporating almost 40% of it's occupants and strewing it's pulverized

Strawman.

and steel remains in a 800 foot radial pattern is

It doesn't happen in real controlled demolition.

I believe,, the issue at hand.
(the towers 'burned' for roughly 60 and 100 minutes) and then exploded...
boom boom boom boom boom.. all the way down (basements intact!)

Can you hear any BOOM?
QFDGZvxVzXE

WTC 7's textbook implosion in 7 seconds (free fall speed = explosives)

Fallacy.

(who cares if its slightly faster of slower) It the speed and symmetry that can only mean explosives.

Strawman.

[ElMondoHummus]

As is obvious from a review of the literature on energetic materials, thermite-based pyrotechnics can be engineered to have explosive power similar to conventional high-explosives while providing greater energy density and much greater stability. Thus, aluminothermic cutter charges similar to the shaped charges used in commercial demolitions are entirely feasible. However, a variety of forms of thermite might be used to demolish a steel-framed skyscraper in a way that uses no cutter charges at all, as in this Hypothetical Blasting Scenario, (http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/blasting_scenario.html) which posits three types of aluminothermic pyrotechnics: a thermate incendiary coating sprayed onto steelwork, nano-thermite kicker charges placed near steelwork, and thin-film nano-composite high-explosives distributed throughout the building. The strategically applied incendiary coatings, ignited several minutes before the building's take-down, weaken the structure; but obvious failures start only when the kicker charges break key supports, and the thin-film high-explosives begin pulverizing the building from the initial failure zone outward


Irrelevent. Explanation fails due to lack of residual effects left on the recovered structural elements. Those elements showed zero signs of having been severed via explosives or incendiaries. Failure modes were clearly mechanical strain. See NCSTAR 1-3C; note complete absence of any residual effects consistent with this proposal.


Why Weren't Demolition Charges Triggered by the Plane Crashes or the Subsequent Fires?
Perhaps the plane crashes did trigger some of the charges. If so, their blasts were lost in the jet-crash fireballs, and their damage was insufficient to budge the Towers' tops. Thermite incendiaries in the core ignited by the crash would not be visible over the fires, unless dislodged to the building's exterior, as apparently happened in the South Tower. However, this probably wasn't an issue because, in contrast to conventional explosives, thermite has a very high ignition temperature -- above 2200ºC. Thus, thermitic incendiaries used around the crash zones could have been designed to survive the fires. As for thermitic explosives, they could have been designed to detonate only on exposure to the very extreme conditions of temperature and pressure provided by specialized detonators, and to deflagrate (merely burn) in response to the kinds of pressures and temperatures produced by the plane crashes and fires. As a fail-safe, the demolition sequence could have been programmed to be triggered by premature ignitions of pyrotechnics.


Again, irrelevent. See above.


How Could the Demolition Equipment Have Been Installed in the Twin Towers Without Tenants Noticing?
The simple answer is by disguising the equipment as normal building components, so that not even the workers installing the components are aware of the concealed pyrotechnics. Three aspects of the Hypothetical Blasting Scenario that facilitate this are: the stability and specificity of ignition conditions achievable with aluminothermic pyrotechnics, minimization of the required access to steelwork, and the use of a completely wireless ignition control system.

*from - http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html

Irrelevant, again for the reasons mentioned above, as well as the fact that it merely presumes that access to critical connection points - which has been showed to be where the structural steel components separated - is possible without significant displacement of interior components. The components recovered and described in NCSTAR 1-3C showed no signs of having being severed at any points other than connection points, and showed zero signs of having been severed by anything other than sheer mechanical force. Due to that, access to any point of the structural steel is insufficient; access to those connective points are required. And in many areas, that would require significant removal of interior structures to gain access; as an example, consider the gusset plates connecting the floor trusses to the columns. Those don't appear to be easily accessible.

[Puggy]

What kind of explosives can propell steel outwards without any shockwaves breaking windows or any booms being heard for miles around?


I get the "explosives that propelled debris horizontally and that proves explosives (or thermonuclear nukes <lol>)" bit, quite a lot from truthers.

I've been thinking of a simple explanation for the visual evidence they always present (see the top part of the opening post picture,) I thought that maybe the simple experiment of dropping a ball on top of another would be similar.

http://www.sciencemadesimple.co.uk/page74g.html

What do You guys think?

[atavisms]

Do you know how to use the search function here? Each and every one of your claims has been answered extensively. You’re not bothering to take the step to do a search does not bring any greater validity to these claims.



You have the chance to "learn all your life", but you have to make the effort yourself, nobody can do it for you. Press the search button.

Woof!

Hi Woof

Ive read them, Thank You/ More than I care to think about bc by now I can see right through most of them and it's just sad and defeating bc what i wish more than anything is for you to be correct. If I was less informed something like Popular Mechanics would be compelling, as it is, its a (criminal) joke.

It is a shame that you cannot yourself, being so certain of these facts, paraphrase any of this compelling debunking info on even a single of the various points I raised in my initial post. That's okay it is not like I was expecting that at this point.

The kind of 'debunking' done for 9/11 on JREF, ('the red/gray chips are in fact paint' oh ok! that explains it) Popular Mechanics, NGC, 911myths, 911debunking, etc etc are not compelling bc they DO NOT explain the facts.

They fail to address others, makes liberal use of straw men, and simply ignore or dismisses evidence! (i.e molten metal) If you find that compelling,,..well there you go. What can I say. I am trying to explain the facts as we know them not fit into some comfortable little niche.

[LashL]

In law, facts are called 'facts' because they can be verified by either side in a case.


This is not accurate. In law, facts are what the judge or jury find to be facts.

That is all.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1110349e970a8a61de.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=16070)

[Justin39640]

The kind of 'debunking' done for 9/11 on JREF, ('the red/gray chips are in fact paint' oh ok! that explains it)

sooo
mystery exotic weapons grade explosives with no explosive properties makes more sense than several hundred thousand tons of steel painted with red primer?

makes perfect sense :rolleyes:

[Pardalis]

Ive read them

Of course, but you weren't going by the name atavisms back then right?

What was it? Homeland Insurgency? Docker? Lucus?

[SpitfireIX]

This is not accurate. In law, facts are what the judge or jury find to be facts.

That is all.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1110349e970a8a61de.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=16070)


:dl: :dl: :dl: :dl:

[A W Smith]

Explosives cause a shock wave. Shock waves vibrate and move air molecules causing sounds that are deafening. there is no way around it. No deafening sound? no explosions. simple as that. Debunked

xGAofwkAOlo

Can you point out the explosions occurring during Kevin Cosgrove's final moments? Does he even mention pre-weakening explosions as some troofers assert occurred?

iK8qJ1cJ9EA

[beachnut]

... My understanding is that thermite burns rather quickly. What was it exactly that was burning at ground zero for 99 days? ...
Thermite is done in seconds or minutes.
Building contents burned for months. You ask easy questions and have big delusions.

What was it exactly that was burning at ground zero Office stuff. There were 220 floors of junk, 220 acres of office stuff burning for months. Plus floors below level.

I wonder how long I could keep a fire burning with 220 acres of houses dumped on two acres? Gee; I keep my wood stove burning all winter, months, with only two cords of wood, a cord is very small compared to 220 floors of offices filled with tons of junk.

[HeyLeroy]

atavisms:

Here's is a link to two questions you've evaded. Why?

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5141970&postcount=105

[Trojan]

I dont think anyone in their right mind can argue the destruction of Towers 1&2 were not highly explosive events. So that is our starting point and something we can be absolutely certain of. Whatever thermite does!
Besides, no one is saying it was regular thermite/



Ok, so this is the typical argument from incredulity -- everyone can see that I am right, I must be right and you must agree with me -- so let's start with me being right and go from there :boxedin:

[fourtoe]

The kind of 'debunking' done for 9/11 on JREF, ('the red/gray chips are in fact paint' oh ok! that explains it) Popular Mechanics, NGC, 911myths, 911debunking, etc etc are not compelling bc they DO NOT explain the facts.

They fail to address others, makes liberal use of straw men, and simply ignore or dismisses evidence! (i.e molten metal) If you find that compelling,,..well there you go. What can I say. I am trying to explain the facts as we know them not fit into some comfortable little niche.

atavisms, please address my question, (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5140477&postcount=10) brah.

[A W Smith]

Originally Posted by atavisms http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=5140406#post5140406)
... My understanding is that thermite burns rather quickly. What was it exactly that was burning at ground zero for 99 days? ...



220 acres of office paper, office furniture, electronic office equipment primarily made from pvc/plastics, rayon carpets, carpet padding, cleaning and office chemicals, clothing, cable sheathing, plastic light fixture diffusers, cellulose found in sound deadening board, office cubicle partitions, and ceiling tile, glue under carpets and construction adhesive used in drywall, architectural woodwork in some of the fancier offices and boardrooms. plastic laminate, particle board, wall coverings, and of course, the victims themselves.

[triforcharity]

Correct me if im wrong, but don't the charges used for demolition use the ultra high temperature, high pressure plasma created in the detonation to cut the steel, by focusing it into one point, rather than the explosive force of the shockwave in the air?

Yes, I waatched a show just the other day about demolitions. The inside is usually copper, and the heat that is produced pushes the copper through the steel, cutting it like a hot knife through butter. The thockwave just propels it, then another kicker charge knocks it out of the waay so it can fall.

I alwaays thought it was the shockwave that just broke the steel. Turns out, I was wrong.

[triforcharity]

actually I think that was Jim Hoffman's own early research which he abandoned for more compelling lines of inquiry.

In the paper he calculates the energy sinks required, based on the size and expansion rates of the massive dust clouds (which are so well documented) When he calculated the gravitational potential of the building and compared it to the sink required expand the clouds, it was off by a factor of like 10. (I believe)

I am not sure why you would think a highly redundant structure would turn it self to dust in midair, but there you are/

Fact is, (as much as I hate saying it) if you believe no explosives were used to accomplish this destruction, then it is clear that you are the one being fooled. The facts are what they are. You can choose to ignore them; many people do. Believe me, I understand this impetus for this.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_349174abd5befe8ed2.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17675)

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evid...gzaerial4.html

I always love it when a twoofer self-debunks. The picture he posted can be found here, in HD.

Can you tell me ata, what does this picture show???

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/wtc/images/wtc-photo.jpg

It is certainly not a dustified tower!! That is for DAMN certain!!

Oh, and the dust?? Think about the two most common building materials in the WTC other than steel.

Drywall and ceiling tiles.

[fourtoe]

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/wtc/images/wtc-photo.jpg


Hey tri, I had to log in to my university's proxy to access the HD photo...I dunno if ppl will be able to see the photo.

[WildCat]

Quick atavism, switch to therm*te mode!

And right on cue...

I dont think anyone in their right mind can argue the destruction of Towers 1&2 were not highly explosive events. So that is our starting point and something we can be absolutely certain of. Whatever thermite does!
Besides, no one is saying it was regular thermite/

pls read below. tx


How Could Thermite, an Incendiary, Demolish the Towers, When Buildings Are Normally Demolished Using High-Explosive Cutter Charges?

:p

[triforcharity]

Im sure they can.

But that highly redundant 110 steel reinforced office towers hit 15 storeys from the roof (N Tower) cannot pulverize themselves in 16 seconds,

At least you have the times closer to reality than most of the TM. Too bad you then use the freefall bullocks later in the post.

Now, how many times do I need to post this photo. Tell me, what do you see here that is "pulverized" thata shouldn't be. We all know drywall and ceiling tiles do not hold up well to huge beams and concrete floors falling on them.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/wtc/images/wtc-photo.jpg

Also, it wasn't steel reinforced, as that implies that it was a concrete structure. It was BUILT with steel, not REINFORCED with steel.



evaporating almost 40% of it's occupants and strewing it's pulverized and steel remains in a 800 foot radial pattern is, I believe,, the issue at hand.
(the towers 'burned' for roughly 60 and 100 minutes) and then exploded...
boom boom boom boom boom.. all the way down (basements intact!)

We have been through this before. How many times do we have to point this out to you??
Why do you put the word "burned" in quotes?? Do you not believe it waas a freaking fire?? If so, would you care to explain why, considering you saaw it with your own eyes??

BTW, I personally picked up about 20 fingers not attached as they should have been, umteen complete limbs, again, not attached to what it SHOULD have been, and smelled the decaying bodies there in that pile. Did you step foot on that pile??

WTC 7's textbook implosion in 7 seconds (free fall speed = explosives)
(who cares if its slightly faster of slower) It the speed and symmetry that can only mean explosives.

Symmetry?? Explain Fitterman Hall. Here are some pictures for reference.

http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h131/triathlete247/414px-Fiterman_hall_damage.jpg

Can you explain this please?? Thanks.


Griffin, making perfect sense, writes of WTC 7:

""When we combine the fact that the collapse of WTC 7 immediately appears to be a controlled demolition, (http://wtc7.net/videos.html) with the twofold fact that all prior collapses of steel-frame high-rise buildings have been produced by explosives, and that the collapse of WTC 7 has many features in common with planned implosions, the view that it was a planned implosion should be the natural assumption. The burden of proof should be placed on any claim that WTC7 was brought down by something other than explosives, because this is the wild, empirically baseless hypothesis devoid of any historical precedent, which is just the kind of hypothesis that one expects to hear from irrational conspiracy theorists.

And how many CD can you produce that also fall at free-fall speed?? Please, site the reputable source and a linky please. I'll wait.

Blah blah blah...science....BS...cd....blah blah blah.....

I am not even going to respond to the last part, as my BS meter is driving me crazy with that bell.......

[triforcharity]

I swear to God we'll be back at 4,000 jews didn't go to work and the planes had pods next. The twoof carousel never stops.

Round and round and round and round and round and round

Like a record baby. right round, right round.

You spin me.......


Hilarious. I cannot figure out who sang it though.......


ETA: BINGO!!

Someone embed this for me!! Thanks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJv5qLsLYoo

[triforcharity]

KFC,

It is a HUGE file, and has to be downloaded. I don't think I can link it here, as it is SO huge. It take my compter are 20-30 seconds to load it. Maybe that is why?? I am not sure, because as soon as you said "proxy" you lost me. Sorry, computer dumb.

[Sam.I.Am]

Like a record baby. right round, right round.

You spin me.......


Hilarious. I cannot figure out who sang it though.......

Dead or alive.

[triforcharity]

Thanks Sam.I.Am, see linky above.

[fourtoe]

KFC,

It is a HUGE file, and has to be downloaded. I don't think I can link it here, as it is SO huge. It take my compter are 20-30 seconds to load it. Maybe that is why?? I am not sure, because as soon as you said "proxy" you lost me. Sorry, computer dumb.

Yeah the file is freaking huge. But it is a good picture.

About the proxy, there are online databases and journals etc etc that require a person to be a member in order to see/download their content. Universities will have like a zillion subscriptions to a zillion different journals and such online so that when you use a computer on campus you can just access the site for free. My school allows you to still access all that stuff off campus, if you sign into a proxy with a username.

Anyways, I had to sign in in order to see the photo...I think I just made it a bigger deal than it really is tho, haha.

[triforcharity]

Is a proxy like a network?? I understand network.

yes, that file is a good one, as it is zoomable to incredible detail.

[Sam.I.Am]

There's a Google Earth overlay .kmz file that uses that image.

Link to page it can be found on. (http://bbs.keyhole.com/ubb/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=820556&site_id=1#import)

[The Lone Bolt]

Like a record baby. right round, right round.

You spin me.......


Hilarious. I cannot figure out who sang it though.......


ETA: BINGO!!

Someone embed this for me!! Thanks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJv5qLsLYoo

Well, I tried.

[Pardalis]

And right on cue...



:p

Like clockwork. He must be Swiss.

[Sam.I.Am]

Well, I tried.

Go here (http://forums.randi.org/misc.php?do=bbcode), it's in there somewhere.

[GlennB]

actually I think that was Jim Hoffman's own early research which he abandoned for more compelling lines of inquiry.


From here (http://http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/volumev3_1.html):

However, the size of this sink is critically dependent on the fineness of the concrete powder, and on mechanical characteristics of the lightweight concrete thought to have been used in the towers. Available statistics about particle sizes of the dust, such as the study by Paul J. Lioy, et al. (http://ehpnet1.niehs.nih.gov/docs/2002/110p703-714lioy/abstract.html), characterize particle sizes of aggregate dust samples, not of its constituents, such as concrete, fiberglass, hydrocarbon soot, etc. Based on diverse evidence, 60 microns would appear to be a high estimate for average concrete particle size, suggesting 135,000 KWH is a conservative estimate for the magnitude of the sink.

Which seems to be the most recent version of his 'paper' (v 3.1).
So, no, the particle size was not Hoffman's original work but was taken from Lioy et al. Hoffman has either misled or misunderstood. Lioy's figures cannot be applied to the total non-metallic content of the towers for reasons already given to you.

Hoffman then goes on to calculate the energy required to expand the dust clouds by the vaporisation of water, but there wasn't enough water in the towers (by a long way). He hit a brick wall and gave up that line of research in 2003. It was based on faulty premises.


In the paper he calculates the energy sinks required, based on the size and expansion rates of the massive dust clouds (which are so well documented) When he calculated the gravitational potential of the building and compared it to the sink required expand the clouds, it was off by a factor of like 10. (I believe)

See above.
While you're here (and if you're reading v 3.1 of Hoffman's paper) you might like to explain why thousands of people in the street were not scalded to death by the steam from this vast boiling cloud.

And please provide this 'so well documented' data on the size, density and composition of the clouds that you mention. Hoffman failed, perhaps you can do better?


I am not sure why you would think a highly redundant structure would turn it self to dust in midair, but there you are


Because it didn't. A huge amount of macrospcopic non-metallic debris remained at GZ.

Are you aware that your hero Hoffman subsequently postulated the installation of 900,000 remotely controlled explosive ceiling tiles at WTC? He's barking mad. This is the type you have hitched your wagon to.

[Arus808]

Ata, you've ignored this four times now that its been quoted. You've answered posts that CAME after the many times this has been quoted. THIS is to you. why are you ignoring this?



Please provide a list of witnesses and on-site investigators who believe explosives were used to bring down any of the WTC buidlings on 9/11.


AGAIN guys, until the troll/fraud answers this request, please do not enage him.

[bill smith]

Check out this little video on explosions at the wtc. Note that it has more than 12 million hits.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw

[TruthersLie]

Nice quote-mine, here's another:

“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities - but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.”
- Winston Churchill


I'm glad you respect Winston Churchill, I strongly reccomend that you study him. He saw World War 2, the Cold War and 9/11 and the war against Islamic extremism coming long before anyone else.

Ooowwww that has GOT to hurt. Getting ripped a new ass by winston churchill... I mean DAMN.

[TruthersLie]

blah blah blah, handwave noted[/url]


If it is explosives, then provide any one of the dozens of videos that would have captured their sounds going off.

Still waiting. Do some basic research. 1000lbs of TNT is heard a MILE away and they can hear the scrapnel... where is the video from 9/11 where they can hear it?

[TruthersLie]

Im sure they can.

But that highly redundant 110 steel reinforced office towers hit 15 storeys from the roof (N Tower) cannot pulverize themselves in 16 seconds, evaporating almost 40% of it's occupants and strewing it's pulverized and steel remains in a 800 foot radial pattern is, I believe,, the issue at hand.
(the towers 'burned' for roughly 60 and 100 minutes) and then exploded...


I bolded and italicized the words you may want to go and look up


boom boom boom boom boom.. all the way down (basements intact!)


GREAT. PROVE IT. Just one video.. I'm not asking you to teach the worlds children to read... just provide one video.


WTC 7's textbook implosion in 7 seconds (free fall speed = explosives)
(who cares if its slightly faster of slower) It the speed and symmetry that can only mean explosives.

Again, which textbook?
7 seconds? Try again, it took over 18 seconds since the collapse was initiated when the east mechanical penthouse collapsed.
freefall does not equal explosives. (you should really try to do some basic research), and it wasn't at freefall.
Symmetry? HOw does a building which hits the ROOF of the building across the street fall with symmetry? How does a building which has one whole side of it collapse 8 seconds before the rest fall with symmetry? how does a building which develops a noticable kink fall with symmetry?


Griffin, making perfect sense, writes of WTC 7:

""When we combine the fact that the collapse of WTC 7 immediately appears to be a controlled demolition, (http://wtc7.net/videos.html) with the twofold fact that all prior collapses of steel-frame high-rise buildings have been produced by explosives, and that the collapse of WTC 7 has many features in common with planned implosions, the view that it was a planned implosion should be the natural assumption. The burden of proof should be placed on any claim that WTC7 was brought down by something other than explosives, because this is the wild, empirically baseless hypothesis devoid of any historical precedent, which is just the kind of hypothesis that one expects to hear from irrational conspiracy theorists.

However the fact that the conspiracy theory being supported by this wild, scientifically and historically baseless speculation is the government's own is, for some reason, thought to justify turning things upside down. In this topsy-turvy framework, those whose theory is consistent with science, the empirical facts, and all historical precedent are ridiculed as nutty conspiracy theorists while those who articulate wildly speculative theory, which contradicts all prior experience, several laws of science, and numerous empirical facts, are considered the sober, sensible thinkers, whose pronouncements can be trusted without examination.""
(Debunking 9/11 Debunking 120p)
I love this. What is griffin's degree in? What is his experience in? I'll see your griffin and raise you a NASA scientist.
http://911guide.googlepages.com/ryanmackey

it is rather amazing that in 180 some odd pages Griffin has over 150 factual errors. wowsers scooby.

[TruthersLie]

bc of how they were designed. And how they were damaged and destroyed.
The cores could hold up several times the weight of the buildings and they were just shredded! Where do you reckon all that energy came from?

The lightest part of the building, the tops?
You see a pile driver in the videos?

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/index.html

Just because a thing seems highly unlikely to us does not mean it is not so.
Belief should be base don one thing, available evidence.

You are SOOOOO RIGHT.

Please provide said evidnece.
You claim there are explosions. Provide proof of explosions. One video would suffice. A rapid fire series of concussive blasts would be great.

NO? Ok. Then provide images of the debris showing det cord, blasting caps, or other required and necessary parts?

NO? Ok. The provide a person who saw anyone wiring the buildings?

No? Ok. Then provide a whistleblower who was part of it?

no? Ok. The prove that thermite can EXPLODE and throw debris 500 feet, w/out being so loud everyone has heard it?

no? Can you even prove that thermite can cut horizontally or obliquely through a steel beam?

How about ANY PROOF?

[TruthersLie]

for tri
zJv5qLsLYoo

[dafydd]

Hi Woof

Ive read them, Thank You/ More than I care to think about bc by now I can see right through most of them and it's just sad and defeating bc what i wish more than anything is for you to be correct. If I was less informed something like Popular Mechanics would be compelling, as it is, its a (criminal) joke.

It is a shame that you cannot yourself, being so certain of these facts, paraphrase any of this compelling debunking info on even a single of the various points I raised in my initial post. That's okay it is not like I was expecting that at this point.

The kind of 'debunking' done for 9/11 on JREF, ('the red/gray chips are in fact paint' oh ok! that explains it) Popular Mechanics, NGC, 911myths, 911debunking, etc etc are not compelling bc they DO NOT explain the facts.

They fail to address others, makes liberal use of straw men, and simply ignore or dismisses evidence! (i.e molten metal) If you find that compelling,,..well there you go. What can I say. I am trying to explain the facts as we know them not fit into some comfortable little niche.

Atavisms,please list your engineering qualifications here.

[Regnad Kcin]

So the earth IS flat after all! I knew it!My personal favorite is the obvious visual evidence that the sun revolves around the earth.Yes! I mean, it's so obvious!

[Regnad Kcin]

The cores could hold up several times the weight of the buildings and they were just shredded! Where do you reckon all that energy came from?You really don't know? Really?

[DGM]

'never is a person so telling of himself as in his judgment of another'
-la rochefoucauld
So you don't want to address the questions? OK, dodge noted. Although if you bother to think about it, an "independent investigation with subpoena power" is a pipe dream. Think, who serves (and enforces) your subpoenas if its "independent"? Independent of what?

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Belief should be base don one thing, available evidence.


The definition of the word "belief" (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=belief) makes no mention of evidence.

'never is a person so telling of himself as in his judgment of another'
-la rochefoucauld


Do I need to point out your judgments of the people on this forum? I trust you're well aware of your own words.

[WildCat]

If it is explosives, then provide any one of the dozens of videos that would have captured their sounds going off.

Still waiting. Do some basic research. 1000lbs of TNT is heard a MILE away and they can hear the scrapnel... where is the video from 9/11 where they can hear it?
20 miles away at least. When I was a kid we had a summer house in Indiana, 5 miles or so from a place called Kingsbury. Kingsbury is now a wildlife area, but from 1941-1959 it was an ordnance plant. As late as the mid-1970s they were still disposing of surplus ordnance there by blowing it up, and you could hear it loud and clear from our house miles away. And none of those explosions was anywhere near 1,000 tons. Probably not even 1 ton.

To this day large areas of it are off-limits because of the potential for unexploded ordnance. When I was little we used to drive through it to look at the deer and play in the bomb shelters which weren't sealed off. In recent years I've only gone there to use the shooting range, which is free to use and never crowded. :)

[johnny karate]

Please provide a list of witnesses and on-site investigators who believe explosives were used to bring down any of the WTC buidlings on 9/11.

Bump for atavisms.

[HeyLeroy]

Note that it has more than 12 million hits.

So what?

[bill smith]

You really don't know? Really?

You should tell him to check this out of he really really does not know.

http://911physicstruth.wetpaint.com/

[HeyLeroy]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/619745a54bbe44f13.gif

Hey atavisms, I see you've posted in the "pot potency (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5143173&postcount=17)" thread today.

Why are you ignoring these questions?

Ata, you've ignored this four times now that its been quoted. You've answered posts that CAME after the many times this has been quoted. THIS is to you. why are you ignoring this?


Please provide a list of witnesses and on-site investigators who believe explosives were used to bring down any of the WTC buidlings on 9/11.

AGAIN guys, until the troll/fraud answers this request, please do not enage him.

atavisms:

Here's is a link to two questions you've evaded. Why?

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5141970&postcount=105

atavisms, please address my question, (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5140477&postcount=10) brah.

[jhunter1163]

Check out this little video on explosions at the wtc. Note that it has more than 12 million hits.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw

Argumentum ad Youtubeum.

[AJM8125]

You should tell him to check this out of he really really does not know.

http://911physicstruth.wetpaint.com/

Now that we've established that you're disinfo, can you tell us which letter agency you're from?

[JohnG]

I dont think anyone in their right mind can argue the destruction of Towers 1&2 were not highly explosive events. So that is our starting point and something we can be absolutely certain of. Whatever thermite does!
Besides, no one is saying it was regular thermite/

pls read below. tx


How Could Thermite, an Incendiary, Demolish the Towers, When Buildings Are Normally Demolished Using High-Explosive Cutter Charges?
As is obvious from a review of the literature on energetic materials, thermite-based pyrotechnics can be engineered to have explosive power similar to conventional high-explosives while providing greater energy density and much greater stability. Thus, aluminothermic cutter charges similar to the shaped charges used in commercial demolitions are entirely feasible. However, a variety of forms of thermite might be used to demolish a steel-framed skyscraper in a way that uses no cutter charges at all, as in this Hypothetical Blasting Scenario, (http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/blasting_scenario.html) which posits three types of aluminothermic pyrotechnics: a thermate incendiary coating sprayed onto steelwork, nano-thermite kicker charges placed near steelwork, and thin-film nano-composite high-explosives distributed throughout the building. The strategically applied incendiary coatings, ignited several minutes before the building's take-down, weaken the structure; but obvious failures start only when the kicker charges break key supports, and the thin-film high-explosives begin pulverizing the building from the initial failure zone outward

Why Weren't Demolition Charges Triggered by the Plane Crashes or the Subsequent Fires?
Perhaps the plane crashes did trigger some of the charges. If so, their blasts were lost in the jet-crash fireballs, and their damage was insufficient to budge the Towers' tops. Thermite incendiaries in the core ignited by the crash would not be visible over the fires, unless dislodged to the building's exterior, as apparently happened in the South Tower. However, this probably wasn't an issue because, in contrast to conventional explosives, thermite has a very high ignition temperature -- above 2200ºC. Thus, thermitic incendiaries used around the crash zones could have been designed to survive the fires. As for thermitic explosives, they could have been designed to detonate only on exposure to the very extreme conditions of temperature and pressure provided by specialized detonators, and to deflagrate (merely burn) in response to the kinds of pressures and temperatures produced by the plane crashes and fires. As a fail-safe, the demolition sequence could have been programmed to be triggered by premature ignitions of pyrotechnics.

How Could the Demolition Equipment Have Been Installed in the Twin Towers Without Tenants Noticing?
The simple answer is by disguising the equipment as normal building components, so that not even the workers installing the components are aware of the concealed pyrotechnics. Three aspects of the Hypothetical Blasting Scenario that facilitate this are: the stability and specificity of ignition conditions achievable with aluminothermic pyrotechnics, minimization of the required access to steelwork, and the use of a completely wireless ignition control system.

*from - http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html


Wouldn't it have been simpler to just crash planes into the buildings?

[twinstead]

Wouldn't it have been simpler to just crash planes into the buildings?


Yea, but that's not cool and exciting in a 007ish kind of way. Where's your imagination?

[GlennB]

Yea, but that's not cool and exciting in a 007ish kind of way. Where's your imagination?

I picture MiB swinging, Tarzan-like, from steel wires in the great dark voids that were the WTC cores, planting magnetothermitic devices on the vast steel columns as they went. Maybe they had knee+elbow mounted suction devices too! Then getting the hell out of there on their jetpacks, barely escaping as the blast wave follows them (see "Almost Any Hollywood Action Movie" for the gist)

Or maybe I've been smoking atavisms pot ?

[AJM8125]

I picture MiB swinging, Tarzan-like, from steel wires in the great dark voids that were the WTC cores, planting magnetothermitic devices on the vast steel columns as they went. Maybe they had knee+elbow mounted suction devices too! Then getting the hell out of there on their jetpacks, barely escaping as the blast wave follows them (see "Almost Any Hollywood Action Movie" for the gist)

Or maybe I've been smoking atavisms pot ?

The elevator shafts were hermetically sealed, remember? No oxygen, no jetpack. Debunked. I rule. :cool:

[Sword_Of_Truth]

As someone who lived through the events in Manhattan, saw the streets littered with body parts and lost two good friends, I find it difficult to fathom where all this hate comes from.

Who are your friends that were lost on 9/11? What were their names?

[fourtoe]

for tri
zJv5qLsLYoo

Who decided to give him an eye patch?

atavisms, I would like you to take back and apologize for the statements you made about the debunkers here on JREF. I think this is justified because you haven't answered my questions (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5140477&postcount=10), others questions and when you have responded you were only proven wrong and wrong again.

Come on...show some class.

[atavisms]

Nope.

what there isn't are satisfactory explanations!

Ive read the 'debunkings' (from NIST and others)
I only wish they were as compelling as the evidence.
i.e:
-The squibs are actually air from the pancaking compression of the falling floors (20-30 storeys below in one clear video clip where they shoot out on both visible sides of the tower simultaneously),

-WTC7's column 79 'new phenomenon'

-The 'evaporated' flange and 'swiss cheese' steel examined in appendix C of the FEMA BPAT is not damage from explosives because they has been 'oxidized' (aluminothermics contain a fuel and an oxidizer),

-It wasn't 'freefall speed' it was 40% slower
etc..

[atavisms]

Wow. What a load of nonsense.

First of all the Niels Bohr Institute (http://www.nbi.ku.dk/)is the department of Physics and Astromony, and has nothing to do with the department of chemistry.

B: He is just an assistant professor at the department of chemistry and has no doctorate, the institute leader is called Mikael Bols (http://www.ki.ku.dk/ansatte/alle/profil/?id=201563).

III: The dean of natural science at KU is called Nils Andersen, and he resigned (http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2009/04/bentham-editor-resigns-over-steven.html)after the article had been published.

How about addressing the issues? ANY OF THEM
The fact that you must focus on such a trivial thing only shows how weak your position is.

but thank you for pointing it out, I was writing from memory
I do see many PhD's involved in 911 Truth and obviously f'd up, my bad.

[beachnut]

...

-WTC7's column 79 'new phenomenon'

... etc..
Oops, thermal expansion, around since the big bang. Sorry, your lack of knowledge is feeding your need to believe moronic delusions about 911.

Hoffman's ideas on thermite are insane. Got to love the thermite in the ceiling tiles it ranks right up there with beam weapons and nukes. Do you think Hoffman is smoking too much dope, or just a meth addict?

[Scott Sommers]

How about addressing the issues? ANY OF THEM
The fact that you must focus on such a trivial thing only shows how weak your position is. but thank you for pointing it out, I was writing from memory
I do see many PhD's involved in 911 Truth and obviously f'd up, my bad.

Ya, but they're PhDs in Literature or Religious Studies. Take a look at the members of 911 Scholars for Truth. They are not an army of scientists. And many of their names would have been gathered long ago. Who knows how they feel these days about their membership.

I don't know who you are or whether comments like this come from genuine confusion or diagnosable mental illness. If there was any number of legitimate physical scientists or engineers with REAL experience who supported controlled demolition, you'd be hearing about this all the time. Instead, it's Alex Jones, Jack Blood and - as far as I can tell - TWO real scientists. And both of them have stated, even if there was thermite, the WTC was demolished using vast quantities of conventional explosives.

My question once again: why has no one from Texas Tech Combustion Lab not been involved in this? They're a leader in experimentation on thermite. If Jones had really found thermite, they would be the people to go to for validation. He wouldn't need religions studies scholar Kevin Barrett telling use that Muslims don't kill people and that Steven Jones found thermite.

[AJM8125]

what there isn't are satisfactory explanations!

Ive read the 'debunkings' (from NIST and others)
I only wish they were as compelling as the evidence.
i.e:
<snip>

Of course it's more compelling to ignore everything else and simply let your imagination run wild. That'll get at the truth.

[atavisms]

[QUOTE=scott.in.taiwan;514
I don't know who you are or whether comments like this come from genuine confusion or diagnosable mental illness. [/QUOTE]

way to address the topic there Scott
- my point was that we dont any authority to us the obvious.
(besides, we all know what a PhD is worth, never more than the character of the person whose name is on it)
That you do not (or possibly cannot) come to the same conclusion looking at the same material and yet not be able to express why and then pick on some trivial point (Harrit's creds) and now resort to ad hominem attacks all show how weak your position is.

[atavisms]

I don't know who you are or whether comments like this come from genuine confusion or diagnosable mental illness. oops there you go..


way to address the topic there Scott
- my point was that we dont any authority to us the obvious.
(besides, we all know what a PhD is worth, never more than the character of the person whose name is on it)
That you do not (or possibly cannot) come to the same conclusion looking at the same material and yet not be able to express why and then pick on some trivial point (Harrit's creds) and now resort to ad hominem attacks all show how weak your position is.

[WildCat]

oops there you go..


way to address the topic there Scott
- my point was that we dont any authority to us the obvious.
(besides, we all know what a PhD is worth, never more than the character of the person whose name is on it)
That you do not (or possibly cannot) come to the same conclusion looking at the same material and yet not be able to express why and then pick on some trivial point (Harrit's creds) and now resort to ad hominem attacks all show how weak your position is.
All your claims have been addressed here in great detail, you and the rest of the truthers just ignore all that.

The fact is, 8 years after 9/11 not a single truther has a single article published in an actual, real (not pay-to-publish) science or engineering journal.

It's time for you to put up or shut up. If you have science on your side, it should be no problem at all for you to get something published.

If, OTOH, all you have is speculation, hunches, "it doesn't look right", lies, spin, and cherry-picked quotes out of context then it's youtube and conspiracy sites.

So far it's 100% the latter, which leads rational people to conclude that the truth movement is full of bovine feces.

Now, when do you suppose Jones et al will stop wanking off and submit a inside jobby-job paper to a real science or engineering journal? Because only then can they hope to gain a shred of credibility.

Of course, perhaps it's not credibiity they're after but $ from books, dvds, t-shirts, bumper stickers, etc. Or maybe they just like to be heros of the ignorant. At any rate, whatever their motive, they have failed the credibility test.

Capiche?

[atavisms]

Who are your friends that were lost on 9/11? What were their names?

how is that any of your business?
All of you (you especially sword of confusion bc look what you grabbed onto, even sending me a message with a group of questions! Their names and where they worked is none of your business. I spent 12 years working down there and was there in '93.
You want my employment ref's?- get a life dh!)

anyway.. you are all very sad bc not one has addressed a single point so as to explain or refute it.

You will say, "because they have all been addressed already" "dont you know how to use the search button"
Not by you they haven't - the debunkings are weak and do not explain observed events. That no one can paraphrase even a single aspect is indicative of this.

here is a perfect example :

http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/e/hand-waving-the%20physics-of-911-by-david-griscom.pdf

Truth is I wanna make fun of twoofers too..
but you guys are making it very difficult - thanks for trying.

[TokenMac]

anyway.. you are all very sad bc not one has addressed a single point so as to explain or refute it.


WOW that is one huge lie.

[beachnut]

... I do see many PhD's involved in 911 Truth and obviously f'd up, my bad.
You don't have a single PhD in structural engineering who has built or is qualified to build a building as tall as the WTC towers and WTC7 who supports the lies you post.

The top expert on the WTC in structural engineering says it was a gravity collapse after the impacts and fires. You have some fringe PhDs (less than 0.001 percent of all PhDs) who are paranoid conspiracy theorists making up lies about 911.

I believe the structural engineer who built the WTC, not a few fringe nut case conspiracy theorists with a PhD with no evidence.

[atavisms]

Originally Posted by atavisms View Post
As someone who lived through the events in Manhattan, saw the streets littered with body parts and lost two good friends, I find it difficult to fathom where all this hate comes from.


Who are your friends that were lost on 9/11? What were their names?

911 in numbers
-(Percentage of Americans who knew someone hurt or killed in the attacks: 20 )
http://www.google.com/search?q=911+by+numbers&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a


The question was - where does all this division come from?

This about trying to uncover what really happened. At the very least all of you can agree there were (and so, are) problems with the way it was investigated, (structural steel disposed) admin's reluctance to investigate properly, (FEMA? 600k??)
9/11 comm leaving out mineta's and jennings (and many many many others, ignored most of the victim's families questions) etc etc..
These are a few of the facts/

Whatever 'side' u'r on you should be able to concede the legitimate problems and the questions. If you cannot even do that, and you make it, 'us against them' then you have not only lost your objectivity, you're also helping to cover up for mass murder (in your blind zeal to attack the america-hating, meth smoking, twoofers)

[atavisms]

WOW that is one huge lie.


like?

[fourtoe]

atavisms are you just ignoring my post?

[beachnut]

(structural steel disposed) ...

Whatever 'side' u'r on you should be able to concede the legitimate problems and the questions. If you cannot even do that, and you make it, 'us against them' then you have not only lost your objectivity, you're also helping to cover up for mass murder (in your blind zeal to attack the america-hating, meth smoking, twoofers)
Oops, you posted lie. Why do you post lies? Why do you repeat lies from other people?
Here it is steel saved to study. OOPS
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/steelstuffWTC.jpg

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/wtclookingforThermitenotfound.jpg
You failed to read NIST and other reports. There are many investigation you failed to find. Did you google you way to ignorance?

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/NotMelted.jpg
OOPS, here is a scientist (a PhD I bet) studying WTC steel (the steel you lied an said was disposed of)! OOPS, did you mean to lie and spread false information? Are you working for terrorists?
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/Joneslie-1.jpg
Did you know this is photographic evidence? Jones used this photo as proof it was cut with thermite. He lied, this was cut after 911. Jones lies about 911. He is still making up delusions.


You are apologizing for the terrorist who did 911 by making up and supporting the lies you post trying to blame unknown people for 911. You can't even tell us your evidence; you don't have any!
You are the one posting lies based on hearsay, and false information. You are guilty of telling lies or being very gullible. Which is it?

911 was investigated; Are you willfully being ignorant and ignoring the many investigations and tons of evidence?

[leftysergeant]

like?

Like that nobody has adressed your issues, like the "Swiss cheese steel." I have, repeatedly. It looks just like you would expect steel that has been exposed to a strong acid to look. I have worked with thermite and demonstrated its use for arson and sabotage and it does not leave that kind of marks on the steel.

As for your remarks about the character of a man being more important than the degrees he holds. Steven Jones is a loser. He hangs out with Nazis. To hell with him.

[atavisms]

You should tell him to check this out of he really really does not know.

http://911physicstruth.wetpaint.com/


gimme a break - this makes sense?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDHN1gBkx0M&feature=player_embedded#t=148

(linked from 911physicstruth.wetpaint.com)

I have not been through this site so I should comment. Im commenting on my past experience looking at (what are only hopeful) debunkings (not actual ones imo)

[AJM8125]

911 in numbers
-(Percentage of Americans who knew someone hurt or killed in the attacks: 20 )
http://www.google.com/search?q=911+by+numbers&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a


The question was - where does all this division come from?

This about trying to uncover what really happened. At the very least all of you can agree there were (and so, are) problems with the way it was investigated, (structural steel disposed) admin's reluctance to investigate properly, (FEMA? 600k??)
9/11 comm leaving out mineta's and jennings (and many many many others, ignored most of the victim's families questions) etc etc..
These are a few of the facts/

Whatever 'side' u'r on you should be able to concede the legitimate problems and the questions. If you cannot even do that, and you make it, 'us against them' then you have not only lost your objectivity, you're also helping to cover up for mass murder (in your blind zeal to attack the america-hating, meth smoking, twoofers)

So in your opinion, how was the crime scene improperly processed? What could've been done (or not done) to your satisfaction?

[TokenMac]

like?

How about page one

Despite this intense and prolonged (2 years) search, and the use of advanced DNA recovery techniques, there remains almost 1100 people completely unaccounted for.
-No discernible trace was found!
Misleading. The reality is that Shaler (the man behind the identification project) has access to many remains that he can't identify because of the condition they were in:
But in many cases DNA was also damaged or destroyed. In initial tests, researchers found that fire and water damage rendered the DNA unusable in about sixty-one percent of the remains recovered from the wreckage. "The problem with the World Trade Center samples is that they were exposed to extremes of heat for about three months as those buildings burned," explains Shaler. "In addition to that, they were spraying water on it to keep it cool so the workers could get in there and find the people, and the warm, moist environment is very bad for DNA, it's very bad for tissues, which decompose rapidly under those circumstances."
http://www.sciencentral.com/articles...e_id=218392053


My understanding is that thermite burns rather quickly. What was it exactly that was burning at ground zero for 99 days?
Your understanding is correct, and shows, quite conclusively, it wasn't thermite.






(*What Popular Mechanics tries unsuccessfully to use to 'debunk' the claim that the structural steel, in fact, had not been shipped directly from Ground Zero to overseas recyclers. (it was- check it out if you know how)
That is a lie

Check Brent Blanchards paper about the investigation of the steel from the WTC.

http://www.jod911.com/WTC%20COLLAPSE...d%208-8-06.pdf

Page 8, assertion 6. If you have a problem with these claims, then you can contact the personnel mentioned. You will be the fist member of the 911TM on here to have done so AFAIK

Need any more because there is more.:D

[leftysergeant]

gimme a break - this makes sense?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDHN1gBkx0M&feature=player_embedded#t=148


No. Proudfootz is an idiot. He is comparing the impact of a ten-car freight train to a Bug.

[atavisms]

Quote:
That description applied to the destruction of the Twin Towers and WTC 7. The next sentence – “Debris is thrown great distances, possibly hundreds of feet”

applied to the destruction of the Twin Towers, a fact that NIST had to admit in order to explain how fires were started in WTC 7.
Is this a part of a textbook implosion?

Quote:
As we examined the WTC-debris sample, we found large chunks of concrete (irregular in shape and size, one was approximately 5cm X 3 cm X 3cm) as well as medium-sized pieces of wall-board (with the binding paper still attached). Thus, the pulverization was in fact NOT to fine dust, and it is a false premise to start with near-complete pulverization to fine powder
And I'm not sure if this has been said but, welcome to the forums!

Also, let me ask you: do you disagree with the findings described in this quote by a 911 researcher who investigated the WTC collapses?



No, to your question on the NFPA's Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations definition of “high-order damage.” My quote on 'textbook implosion' was re wtc7
(*actually 'it wasnt really a textbook implosion bc there were not loud separate booms like yuo would normally hear'

obviously it wasn't nearly as explosive.
we can the neat rubble pile on7, and the debris field and smoldering craters on 1&2 - The regulation can clearly be applied to either structure

2: The fact that they found some intact wall board or concrete does not explain what else they found..

Someone can now say, 'there were no smoldering pits of fire that would not go out bc warners bros pieces and numerous basement spaces (doesnt gravity drive thing down) were found intact.' Both are true. and that is a small part of how this division works.

These were massive spaces, the tallest buildings of their day, 'over-designed and highly redundant.'

[atavisms]

No. Proudfootz is an idiot. He is comparing the impact of a ten-car freight train to a Bug.

a second after I sent that I realized, no way..
pretty funny actually

[atavisms]

So in your opinion, how was the crime scene improperly processed? What could've been done (or not done) to your satisfaction?

what could have been done to satisfy yours if they were your children?

[Fjolle]

How about addressing the issues? ANY OF THEM
The fact that you must focus on such a trivial thing only shows how weak your position is.

but thank you for pointing it out, I was writing from memory
I do see many PhD's involved in 911 Truth and obviously f'd up, my bad.

Nah. I just was right thinking that a lot of other posters would handle your ass on all the other nonsense you posted. As the lies you posted in that post might not be obvious to most people I thought I would point them out.

I'm sorry that i didnt specify that in my first post.

[ElMondoHummus]

Time to respond to the OP, which I have not done yet (if I replicate anyone else's work, my apologies). I will break this up into segments for easier reading.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_349174ab58ab15b041.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17614)
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/docs/site1085c.jpg

greetings,

I am confused how anyone could look at the facts of 9/11 and not see explosives in these events. Are we seeing the same images and results here?

http://www.911review.com/attack/wtc/explosions.html

shorts vids u'v seen im sure. (just wanna be sure)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtx_GcFCs6c

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toUdpeI04pM
**This bottom one was shot while the cameraman was running.. It has been stabilized by holding the building steady and moving the frame.


The proposal that explosives were used is contradicted by the established evidence. Your images and videos are showing the natural consequence of a building collapse; you would expect to see large, billowing clouds formed from the huge amount of wallboard, insulation, and other interior components. No resort to concrete "pulverization" is necessary. Undoubtedly some concrete was indeed rendered as dust and contributed to the cloud, but it is a mistake to presume the billowing clouds witnessed were entirely concrete. Photographic evidence shows that many large pieces of concrete remained after the collapse.

Regarding explosives use in general:

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/whattheyheard
http://debunking911.com/explosions.htm
http://debunking911.com/overp.htm
http://911myths.com/html/wtc__demolition_.html
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=148862
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=72894&highlight=pulverized+concrete
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=91469

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_349174abc6b3763c5d.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17665)
The only constituents of the Twin Towers that survived the "collapses" in the form of recognizable pieces of any size were their metal parts, such as pieces of structural steel and aluminum cladding. Virtually all the non-metallic parts of the towers and their contents were converted to microscopic dust particles or small unrecognizable fragments. (-jim hoffman)

The debris field:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/gzaerial4.html


Jim Hoffman is wrong, and is selectively presenting only one piece of evidence in that link. I myself found a few images myself that directly contradicted the notion that the "non-metallic parts of the towers and their contents were converted to microscopic dust particles", and posted them over in a response over at the SLC blog (http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/09/rex-murphy-on-deniers.html#c115835832518997383).

Here's one post that considers Hoffman's claim that things were rendered as dust (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1936951&postcount=33). Conclusion: Hoffman's analysis is flawed. Here's a thread listing some of Hoffman's flaws regarding another, separate claim (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=141118).

Bottom line: Hoffman has not proven to be accurate or correct, any of his analyses on 9/11 are suspect because of his lack of rigor. Each claim should be examined on their own merits, but the fact that he makes them renders them suspect from the beginning. See links above.

[beachnut]

... These were massive spaces, the tallest buildings of their day, 'over-designed and highly redundant.' 95 percent air.
Who built them? He said impacts and fires precipitated the gravity collapse. Oops, you been schooled by the chief structural engineer.

http://media.www.ndsmcobserver.com/media/storage/paper660/news/2005/02/24/News/World.Trade.Center.Engineer.Discusses.Work-876101.shtml

http://www.hera.org.nz/pdf%20files/world%20trade%20centre.pdf What do you think about this independent paper by a structural engineer? What do you think?

http://www.icivilengineer.com/News/WTC/report.php Research reports on 911. Did you google any of these? What did you think about each independent research report?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/broadband/archive/leslie_robertson/ When you researched the number one source for WTC structural information what did you think?

http://www.nae.edu/Publications/TheBridge/Archives/V32-1EngineeringandHomelandSecurity.aspx A real journal. You can read more from real engineers.



If you could do rational googling; You would be able to form rational conclusions on 911. How can you post lies after 8 years of not understanding 911?

This is your evidence? Talk? r u trying to say, "they were super strong, can't fall, like the Titanic can't sink?" LOL

Please stop posting proof you have no clue and go earn a degree in engineering; it hurts to see humans in so much denial and ignorance, unable to comprehend reality.

You are running on empty

[AJM8125]

what could have been done to satisfy yours if they were your children?

I don't have a problem with the way the crime scene was handled. You seem to.

[ElMondoHummus]

Read through the work of dozens of serious scientists who have investigated and are currently investigating 9/11 without prejudice. Look at the images and facts of these events without prejudice or personal incredulity.


We have. Just because there is an unfortunately low signal to noise ratio of considered posts in 9/11 CT here doesn't mean that no analysis has been done. In particular, look at the substantive posts in response to Jones's earlier microspheres work (so many links; just do a forum search yourself) as well as his and Harrit's Bentham paper (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140426), Newton's Bit's (link 1 (http://newtonsbit.blogspot.com/2007/05/failure-of-truth-movements-engineer.html), link 2 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=97584)) and Ryan Mackey's (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1822297&postcount=576) and Dave Roger's (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3174952&postcount=190) refutations of Gordon Ross's claims (overview link (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/theyoughtaknowbetter%3Acritiquesoftheinept); scroll down to Ross section), as well as Sunstealers critique (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4607894&postcount=1694) of the latest Bentham paper (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140017).

It's true that many of us have indulged in somewhat unfortunate black humor and condescension towards those people, but so much of that is driven by their own behavior in peddling mistruths and cargo-cult science. After a while, the insult to proper scientific conduct becomes intolerable.


Dr Niels Harrit, whose paper has been so ignorantly maligned here on this forum, has run the chemistry dept at the prestigious Niels Bohrs Institute in Copenhagen for 37 years. The (actually) peer-reviewed paper he was the lead author on, (Active Thermitic Materials..) involved 8 other scientists who have no reason to lie. Further studies are being conducted in France & Ct., as per Steven Jones.


Citing his CV does not change the fact that the paper he's one of the authors of is fatally flawed, nor does it change the fact that other contributors have written fatally flawed works on 9/11 in the past. Your paragraph here is the classic "appeal to authority" logical fallacy, and it falls flat in the face of the Bentham paper's flaws.

Again:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4607894&postcount=1694
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140426
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140017

[ElMondoHummus]

Scientific papers, and scientific bullying aside, I don't need any authority to explain the obvious to me!

Take a few FACTS:

-Missing Bodies/DNA

Not counting the 122 people on flights 11 & 175 there were approximately
2,630 people in the buildings. Many people died on the streets from falling debris and these must account for most of the 300 intact bodies found because you can clearly see through images the levels of destruction and by what remained of the towers afterwards/ If the concrete was blasted apart what hope for the people?

Authorities conducted a comprehensive 2 year search for victims by looking through the tons of smaller debris. Having carted it to Freshkills Landfill (*What Popular Mechanics tries unsuccessfully to use to 'debunk' the claim that the structural steel, in fact, had not been shipped directly from Ground Zero to overseas recyclers. (it was- check it out if you know how)

In Staten Island, they systematically spread the smaller debris out on conveyor belts which moved past a line of attendants who worked to cull out any body parts they could locate by hand.

Despite this intense and prolonged (2 years) search, and the use of advanced DNA recovery techniques, there remains almost 1100 people completely unaccounted for.
-No discernible trace was found!

The fact is that many people were identified by test tube size pieces (from tens of thousands of body parts recovered) In the case of one family all they got the man's femur which had been located '2.5 blocks away'
200 of the DNA tests matched a single individual. 70 of 343 NYFD personnel located.
Gravity did that?


Yes. See here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1662808#post1662808). The amount of gravitational potential energy existent in each of the towers is 1.01 x 1012 Joules. Repeat: 1,010,000,000,000 joules. If you want a comparison to put that into perspective, a kiloton of TNT releases 4.184 × 1012 joules. Given this, and given that the collapse was chaotic with collisions between many interior components resulting in many of them being thrown for a distance away from the twin towers (examine the damage to neighboring buildings for examples of this), then it is entirely reasonable to expect body parts would also be flung some distance away. This all can be explained by nothing more than either pneumatic expulsion or being propelled away via interior components colliding. There's no mystery to this at all.

And no, the concrete was not "blown apart", not anywhere close to the degree that you're implying. See links above.


Demolitions experts have a technique to help them determine the power of any building blast; they look at the macroscopic pieces of concrete. There were virtually no macroscopic pieces of concrete in the debris field of the WTC despite the fact that there were 110 4" reinforced concrete floor slabs in each tower. We have to imagine, whatever so systematically pulveruized all that concrete will do much worse to people


This was already explained above. This paragraph is based on a false premise, namely that the concrete was blown to microscopic dust. This didn't happen. Again, see above.

[ElMondoHummus]

-The concrete of WTC 1&2 :
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_349174abc71aee676c.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17668)http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_349174abc7158489f6.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17667)

-WTC 7's textbook implosion

-The residual heat

The fires that would not go out despite a steady stream of water from numerous lines. So much water in fact, that the NYFD were 'creating a lake' in lower Manhattan and still it would not go out.
My understanding is that thermite burns rather quickly. What was it exactly that was burning at ground zero for 99 days?)


The answer is: Flammable towers contents. The University of California "Delta" group, in their environmental impact analysis (http://delta.ucdavis.edu/WTC%20aersols%20ACS%202003.ppt) (link is a PowerPoint presentation on their findings taken from here (http://delta.ucdavis.edu/WTC.htm)), determined that there were 4.3x1013 joules of flammable content. Given that a fire doesn't release all that at once, and given that there was enough present in terms of mundane office contents (paper, furniure, etc.) to compare it in terms of sheer magnitude (albeit not in terms of sheer "explosiveness") with an atomic bomb (the Hiroshima atomic bomb was estimated to have released 6.3x1013 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Boy) J), it's not unreasonable to conclude that the fire would burn for a long, long time indeed. There were tons upon tons of flammable contents to burn.


-May 2002 FEMA Reports Evaporated Construction Grade Steel (?huh?)
(through intense high heat corrosion) (?huh?)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_349174ab560a729cdf.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17611)
*images from FEMA BPAT (may 2002)
Appendix C: A limited Metallurgical Examination[/i]
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/WTC_apndxC.htm

Jim Hoffman wrote, "The results of the examination are striking. They reveal a phenomenon never before observed in building fires: eutectic reactions, which caused "intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese." The New York Times described this as "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation."


Yes, and that NY Times article was written in February of 2002. The author was quite obviously unaware of the work by Barnett, Biederman, and Sisson explaining the eutectic corrosion (http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Biederman/Biederman-0112.html). That erosion was not done by any thermate or any other material, but by simple exposure to the chemical stew in the part of the debris pile those steel components were recovered from.

To put things in perspective: Only an isolates few pieces were recovered. The eutectic corrosion phenomenon was quite obviously not consistent throughout the towers. But thermite and other incendiaries proposals are; had this erosion been due to thermite or other incendiary sources, it would have been noted on many, many pieces, not the few it was found on.

Also, let's recall what Ryan Mackey pointed out (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1907756&postcount=605): That the presence of the remains of a eutectic reaction contraindicates the present of incendiaries like thermite that would be hot enough to erase such remains.

This by itself is enough to refute the rest of what you wrote, but at risk of gilding the lily, we'll consider the following paragraphs on their own terms.

(to be continued)

[ElMondoHummus]

“A one-inch column has been reduced to Half-inch thickness. Its edges--which are curled like a paper scroll--have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes --some larger than a silver dollar--let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending--but not holes.” -WPI


Already dealt with above. This does not prove molten steel; on the contrary, a steel/iron oxide/iron sulfide eutectic would have been destroyed had the temperatures truly been high enough to melt steel.


-Witness testimony to molten metal:


Before going any further, I should point out that there was more than just steel at the World Trade Center. Ignoring the tons of aluminum present in the facade, and the tons of aircraft grade metals present in the jets that hit them, you have all sorts of internal items - wiring, enterprise-class battey backups, piping, furniture, other non-furniture internal components and fixtures, etc. - that also could have melted in the fires.

However, it is a tenant of 9/11 conspiracy fantasy that any sightings of molten metal automatically means that the metal is steel, given that the context of any of those citations are to buttress thermite claims. Those fail 20 ways from Sunday, but again, we'll deal with the following paragraphs on their own merits. Just recall that molten metal does not necessarily indicate molten steel when you consider such claims.

[BigAl]

These were massive spaces, the tallest buildings of their day, 'over-designed and highly redundant.'

The people that designed the building had a different opinion.

Henry Guthard, engineer and one of Yamasaki's original partners who also worked as the project manager at the [WTC] site, said, "To hit the building, to disappear, to have pieces come out the other side, it was amazing the building stood. To defend against 5,000 (sic) gallons of ignited fuel in a building of 1350 feet is just not possible.

http://snurl.com/j54gc (Report From Ground Zero page 188)


In Report From Ground Zero (pgs 310-311), FDNY structures expert Vincent Dunn describes how the WTC towers had effectively no fireproofing when compared to the older steel buildings, built to standards that required 2 inches of brick and masonry on all structural steel. Dunn also says that the WTC towers were unique in the minimal fireproofing.

Source: http://snurl.com/j54ud [Page 310, Report From Ground Zero]

Who is Vincent Dunn?
http://unjobs.org/authors/vincent-dunn

[ElMondoHummus]

Firefighter Philip Ruvolo, speaking of the Twin Towers, said: “You'd get down below and you'd see molten steel, molten steel, running down the channel rails, like you're in a foundry, like lava." [31]

Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction, which was involved in the clean-up operation, said that he saw pools of “literally molten steel.” [32]

Leslie Robertson, a member of the engineering firm that designed the Twin Towers. [34]

Dr. Ronald Burger of the National Center for Environmental Health. [35]

Dr. Alison Geyh of The Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, who headed up a scientific team that went to the site shortly after 9/11 at the request of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. [36]



http://www.google.com/search?q=molten+site%3A911myths.com&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/canofficefirescauselargesteelcolumnsandb
http://debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm

Finally, the fact that “molten steel was also found at WTC 7” was added by Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc., which was involved in the clean-up. [37] *references please see: DR Griffin's article posted at: http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article13528.html


We'll ignore the fact that DRG - a known and demonstrably inaccurate researcher (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/Mackey_drg_nist_review_2_1.doc) (don't try to call that ad hom without examining the paper at the link) - was quoting another demonstrably inaccurate researcher (Christopher Bollyn) (http://www.google.com/custom?q=bollyn&cof=S%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fforums.randi.org%3BAH%3Acente r%3BLH%3A75%3BL%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fforums.randi.org%2F images%2Fmisc%2Fsearchlogo.gif%3BLW%3A849%3BAWFID% 3A31746880203d5407%3B&domains=forums.randi.org&sitesearch=forums.randi.org), the fact remains that former forum poster Pomeroo (Ron Wieck) personally talked to Mark Loizeaux, and Loizeaux said something a fair amount different to Ron (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2806344#post2806344).

[ElMondoHummus]

NIST:

"Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues?" . . ."NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel."
-- NIST Responses to FAQs, August 2006

In follow-up to this response NIST spokesperson Michael Neuman was challenged by Hartford Advocate reporter Jennifer Abel on this glaring omission in the WTC report

ABEL: … what about that letter where NIST said it didn’t look for evidence of explosives?

NEUMAN: Right, because there was no evidence of that.

ABEL: But how can you know there’s no evidence if you don’t look for it first?

NEUMAN: If you’re looking for something that isn’t there, you’re wasting your time….and the taxpayers money."

This omission is at odds with the requirement of the national standard for fire investigation (NFPA 921), which calls for testing related to thermite and other pyrotechnics. It is also at odds with the video evidence of explosions, and the testimony of fire department personnel, more than 100 of whom officially reported hearing or seeing explosions. NIST also failed to explain the source of large quantities of molten metal in the WTC rubble, or the abundant amounts of iron microspheres in the dust.


I'll let others discuss this misuse of NFPA 921, but do a search in this forum for that term. In short, it's improper to cite it here.

And let's also remember that chemical testing for explosives has the strong potential to be inconclusive. How would there be any chance of distinguishing between explosives remains and naturally occuring organic materials combustoin residue from the fires themselves?

Furthermore, explosives are contradicted for other reasons. See links above, and search this forum for past threads.


NIST, as a matter of routine, should have tested the WTC dust for residue of explosives, such as nanothermite. The Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations put out by the National Fire Protection Association says that a search for evidence for explosives should be undertaken whenever there has been “high-order damage.” Leaving no doubt about the meaning of this term, the Guide says:

High-order damage is characterized by shattering of the structure, producing small, pulverized debris. Walls, roofs, and structural members are splintered or shattered, with the building completely demolished. [27]


Is it also characterized by extremely loud sounds that would have the effect of shattering glass for blocks around - recall, a common preparatory procedure for actual explosives demolitions is to board up or otherwise protect (or remove) glass in neighboring buildings. Look at pictures of the Winter Garden's building across the street from the WTC complex for proof that no explosions occurred; what windows were broken were from falling debris. Explosions strong enough to drop the towers would have shattered all that glass.

Furthermore, it is a practice to remove people from the area in order to prevent injury from flying debris as well as barotrauma. For the latter, I've not found any studies indicating any numbers of barotraumatic injuries consistent with an explosion of even the size of the Madrid bombings or Israeli bus bombings, let alone for something as large what would be required for collapsing the Twin Towers, or even just 7 World Trade.

On top of that, you need to study the failure modes for the recovered steel components in NCSTAR 1-3C. None of them are consistent with explosives or incendiaries use.


That description applied to the destruction of the Twin Towers and WTC 7. The next sentence – “Debris is thrown great distances, possibly hundreds of feet” – applied to the destruction of the Twin Towers, a fact that NIST had to admit in order to explain how fires were started in WTC 7. [28] So NIST should have looked for signs of explosives, such as nanothermite.

*last bit from, http://rockcreekfreepress.tumblr.com/post/98195547/scientists-find-explosives-in-world-trade-center-dust (http://rockcreekfreepress.tumblr.com/post/98195547/scientists-find-explosives-in-world-trade-center-dust)

just for a start.


If you study the legitimate research on nanothermite, you'll see that it's explosive properties are on the microscopic scale. For example, to force drugs past cell membranes. Or to achieve some result in the manufacture of microchips. Stating that nanothermite has high order explosive ability on the magnitude claimed here is unsupported.

On top of that, as pointed out earlier, all evidence contradicts the presence of explosives.

[AJM8125]

Any bets againt atavisms not reading all that info?

[TokenMac]

Everything atavisms has said for the pass couple of days can be sumed up as "When I look at the towers and WTC7 I think it looks like a CD, which is proof enough for me that it was". When ever he is asked for proof he will either post a link to some one else who thinks it "doesn't look right", or restate that all we have to do to see the evidence of CD is to "just look at the dust".

atavisms your "just look at it" debating tactic will never work here (many have tried), and it seems that nothing we say will ever convince you. What do you have to prove to us, why are you here? Can we skip this whole point less game and just agree to disaree?

[ElMondoHummus]

Much of what was said in the OP were merely restatements of myths which have made their appearance in this forum before. You need to resesarch the claims put forth by Jones (both Alex and Steven), DRG, and the others using proper i.e. non conspiracy peddling sources. Start with the ones others in this forum have complied at this link :
http://forums.randi.org/local_links.php?catid=18

Continue on with the standard sites we always refer back to:

http://debunking911.com
http://911myths.com
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com
In summary: Explosives and incendiaries are contradicted by all existing evidence. The evidence that is forwarded by conspiracy peddlers has been shown to be either misinterpretation, misrepresentation, cargo cult science, or outright mistruths. None of the material you have presented overcomes the weight of the evidence demonstrating that the towers were not felled by "controlled demolitions" (just as an aside, the industry term is "explosive demolitions") or unconventional methods (i.e. incendiaries like thermite).

[ElMondoHummus]

Any bets againt atavisms not reading all that info?

He might, he might not. Matters little to me. I post for those who care to be informed and want the facts refuting the proffered myths. If that includes atavisms, then great. If not, oh well. Regardless, the info might help somebody out there. Who it helps just depends on whether any readers choose to analyze things critically or not.

[AJM8125]

He might, he might not. Matters little to me. I post for those who care to be informed and want the facts refuting the proffered myths. If that includes atavisms, then great. If not, oh well. Regardless, the info might help somebody out there. Who it helps just depends on whether any readers choose to analyze things critically or not.

Well I, for one, appreciate your efforts. Well done (again) Mondo.

[beachnut]

Much of what was said in the OP were merely restatements of myths which have made their appearance in this forum before. You need to resesarch the claims put forth by Jones (both Alex and Steven), DRG, and the others using proper i.e. non conspiracy peddling sources. Start with the ones others in this forum have complied at this link :
http://forums.randi.org/local_links.php?catid=18


Continue on with the standard sites we always refer back to:

http://debunking911.com
http://911myths.com
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com
In summary: Explosives and incendiaries are contradicted by all existing evidence. The evidence that is forwarded by conspiracy peddlers has been shown to be either misinterpretation, misrepresentation, cargo cult science, or outright mistruths. None of the material you have presented overcomes the weight of the evidence demonstrating that the towers were not felled by "controlled demolitions" (just as an aside, the industry term is "explosive demolitions") or unconventional methods (i.e. incendiaries like thermite).

You gave out the answers. Will the poster of lies/myths insist on remaining deep in the pit of 911 ignorance?

[atavisms]

How about page one
Originally Posted by MikeW
Originally Posted by atavisms
Despite this intense and prolonged (2 years) search, and the use of advanced DNA recovery techniques, there remains almost 1100 people completely unaccounted for. -No discernible trace was found!

Misleading. The reality is that Shaler (the man behind the identification project) has access to many remains that he can't identify because of the condition they were in.

You know his name Im impressed,,(not)
Listen genius I should have written 'No discernible genetic trace was found!
would that make you happier? 10,000 so badly mangled pieces that dna analysis cannot even be done on them?
This sounds correct to you I guess? I mean considering the level of redundancy designed into them vs the gravitational potential of these 3 super highrise building? wtc towers were 1350' tall. All the cold hard steel in the towers beneath the crash points are just unzipping and blowing out 100s of feet from gravity.

There were 2600 people in 1&2 buildings (less the plane victims), upper floors have lots of structural damage, raging fires (in the case NTower impact was approx 15 fls from the roof) it's spread out over a number of floors.
(note: The greatest impact from the mass of commercial airliner would be seen in the fuel and in the engines in that order, so all along the wing.)
So it collapses from gravity and we end up with tens of thousands of body parts, femur's found blocks away? massive destruction of 1&2, 7's neat little pile. All at virtually freefall speed.
I cannot see natural events here, not even close.

Your Reply:"This is deceptive! bc 10k pieces are so badly mangled they cannot be tested" Way to take a point



Quote:
But in many cases DNA was also damaged or destroyed. In initial tests, researchers found that fire

"Fire" You see those towers roasting there? Towering infernos is it? It was 56 and 102 min, w/ fires on upper floors.
which were blown to hell and then burned underground for months,

Originally Posted by McHrozni
Originally Posted by atavisms
My understanding is that thermite burns rather quickly. What was it exactly that was burning at ground zero for 99 days?
Your understanding is correct, and shows, quite conclusively, it wasn't thermite.

Im sorry, the question was 'What was it exactly that was burning at ground zero for 99 days?'

Originally Posted by funk de fino
Originally Posted by atavisms
(*What Popular Mechanics tries unsuccessfully to use to 'debunk' the claim that the structural steel, in fact, had not been shipped directly from Ground Zero to overseas recyclers. (it was- check it out if you know how)
That is a lie


I only lived it and read about it daily in the newspaper when protests were going in here in ny, while they were still burying the hundreds of firefighters murdered that day. Families protesting, little kids standing with signs saying, "My Daddy Is Not Garbage" as authorities (looking to keep those job..oh yah) rushed to clear the sites. Lied about the air quality in lower Manhattan, etc.
The firefighters were not even done looking for their brothers, they practically rioted one day w/Bloomberg going 'You don't need the steel to study what happened. That is done in computers.'

That must be what you believe.. The sad miserable facts are otherwise. Only one wtc steel tells one story.. Unfortunately for the perpetrators there is also a mountain of highly damning evidence they left behind/ It shows their arrogance (and use of some kind of explosives)

A good exercise to try is, just within yourself, argue your opponents perspective. Once you have taken a 'side' you have lost your objectivity.
There are no sides in any quest for truth, like we see with science.


Check Brent Blanchards paper about the investigation of the steel from the WTC.


tx. Ill check it out

[Architect]

This sounds correct to you I guess? I mean considering the level of redundancy designed into them vs the gravitational potential of these 3 super highrise building?

If you're aluding to safety factors in structural design them I'm going to call you on it; evidence, calculations, and sources please.



wtc towers were 1350' tall. All the cold hard steel in the towers beneath the crash points are just unzipping and blowing out 100s of feet from gravity.


Argument from incredulity. Not relevant.
That must be what you believe.. The sad miserable facts are otherwise. Only one wtc steel tells one story.. Unfortunately for the perpetrators there is also a mountain of highly damning evidence they left behind/ It shows their arrogance (and use of some kind of explosives)

Really? Well, I've yet to see it.

[Sam.I.Am]

what could have been done to satisfy yours if they were your children?

If I thought that there was any slight hope no matter how small that they survived then I would want them to look for them first and worry about the crime scene later. Which is exactly what they did.

Let me flip that question around. If you're ever trapped in a collapsed building what would you want them to have primarily in their mind, preserving the evidence or locating and pulling your butt out of the rubble?

Lets game that out shall we?

Me: I think that atavisms is trapped down there. *points to a tangle of rubble*

Crime Scene Investigator (CSI): I'm sorry, but we can't disturb the crime scene until we've taken a bunch of pictures, sampled the dust and tagged the beams sitting on the access to him. Before we can do that we have to make a grid so we can recreate the area.

Me: No you idiots, atavisms needs help now or he's gonna die!

CSI: We have procedures sir, now please step back.

Me: Why is a crime scene more important that saving atavisms life?

CSI: Because atavisms would like it that way.

*atavisms dies*

CSI: We meant because atavisms would've like it that way. But hey, we know that he died from being trapped in a collapsed building, so we have that going for us...