Another Journal of 9/11 Studies Piece of Lies

[ref]

Once again, this paper passed their "peer-review". Makes you wonder, what kind of crap you have to write to NOT pass their peer review.

This paper is by Frank Legge.

http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/LeggeConspiracy&Myth7.pdf

Topics in this paper:

The belief that high serum cholesterol levels are harmful may also be a myth, supported by drug manufacturers conspiring with the FDA.
War games by the Air Force, including the simulated hijacking of aircraft, and flying them into buildings.

False blips inserted into the radar screens of civilian air traffic controllers.

Where is the wreckage of the planes?

Why was the steel sold overseas at less than local prices?

Where are the samples of steel and debris?

Where are the many tapes showing what hit the Pentagon?

How was it arranged that the investigations into insider trading on the stock exchange over 9/11 would be aborted?

Marvin Bush, brother of George W Bush, had been on the board of directors during 2000, of the company that was providing security, and his cousin Wirt Walker III was CEO on 11th Sept. This company, Securacom, also provided security at Dulles International Airport from which American Airlines Flight 77 departed.

WTC 7 was a controlled demolition.

Scores of firefighters described hearing, seeing or feeling explosions.

Common sense says it was an inside job.

Who benefits?

Steel temperatures

Why were over 1000 WTC victims not identified by DNA?

NIST is wrong. (You are right, he provides no calculations whatsoever).

Previous false flags.

Well, maybe he has used some reliable sources? Let's see what his sources are. They include such gems, as:

- Fromthewilderness.com
- Pilotsfor911truth.org
- Prisonplanet.com
- Previous Journal of 9/11 Studies papers
- Public-action.com (that's right, this is the site of Carol A. Valentine, the holocaust denier)
- Whatreallyhappened.com
- 911research.wtc7.net
- Georgewashington.blogspot.com
- Youtube
- Google video
- Stj911.org


Let me say it again. This paper passed their peer-review. This paper used those wonderfully unbiased sources. This is a great paper! For trash.

[MarkyX]

When Dictator Jones and Chairman Ryan are able to kick people out who disagree with them, stupid stuff like this gets "passed" while legitmate concerns are thrown out the window.

My irony meter is broken though, because we can't trust the "government contract" scientists since they toe the "government line", but we can trust a bunch of non-scientists who must toe the "9/11 was an inside job" mantra in order to participate in the journal.

Yeah, that makes sense.

[Firestone]

Come on, give Legge some slack. He ignores the flyover at the Pentagon, the missile at GZ, the parachuting Israelis. ;)

This weak "peer-reviewed"-paper is one more proof that this 9/11-CT is going nowhere.
Maybe time to turn off the lights.

[ref]

Come on, give Legge some slack. He ignores the flyover at the Pentagon, the missile at GZ, the parachuting Israelis. ;)

Maybe he just forgot those, given the fact that he even used PfT as a source :p

This weak "peer-reviewed"-paper is one more proof that this 9/11-CT is going nowhere.
Maybe time to turn off the lights.

Nice to see you around again :) Their papers (nor 9/11 CT's) are going nowhere, that's for sure. But let's not turn the lights off just yet. At least all of us..

[timhau]

Nutters reviewing papers by nutters. It doesn't get any more peer review-ish than that.

[Alferd_Packer]

Scroll down about halfway down this site for the only remaining on-line remnant of the Steven Jones epic paper: "Behold My Hands," Evidence For Christ's Visit to the Americas.

http://ftrsupplemental.blogspot.com/2005_11_24_archive.html

[ref]

Scroll down about halfway down this site for the only remaining on-line remnant of the Steven Jones epic paper: "Behold My Hands," Evidence For Christ's Visit to the Americas.

http://ftrsupplemental.blogspot.com/2005_11_24_archive.html

You can find the whole paper here:

http://web.archive.org/web/20051124053614/http://www.physics.byu.edu/faculty/jones/rel491/handstext+and+figures.htm

I have a link to it on my site in the "Truthers Exposed" section.

[Apollo20]

I have already e-mailed Dr. Legge pointing out some serious errors and omissions in his paper. We will see if he responds....

[The Almond]

I have already e-mailed Dr. Legge pointing out some serious errors and omissions in his paper. We will see if he responds....

Any chance you might post your letter?

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

I have already e-mailed Dr. Legge pointing out some serious errors and omissions in his paper. We will see if he responds....

Maybe you should apply for a position on their review board. So they can avoid "rubber stamping" too quickly.

[timhau]

What's their rejection percentage, by the way?

[T.A.M.]

Do I have to ask why the journal for 9/11 studies accepts a paper that contains some crap about high cholesterol and FDA conspiracy?

OMG JHC

TAM:confused:

[DavidJames]

Do I have to ask why the journal for 9/11 studies accepts a paper that contains some crap about high cholesterol and FDA conspiracy?

OMG JHC

TAM:confused:I highlighted the key word - it defines them (not all of them, but a healthy chunk.

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

Maybe they want to branch out when 9/11 troof isn't as profitable as they first thought.

[T.A.M.]

well they should change the journal name to "Conspiracy Studies" as the high cholesterol FDA has NO RELATION to 9/11.

Morons

TAM:)

[Cuddles]

For some reason I always read it as "Journal of 9/11 Stundies".

[Regnad Kcin]

...Let me say it again. This paper passed their peer-review. This paper used those wonderfully unbiased sources. This is a great paper! For trash.What, not to poop on?

[JamesB]

I have already e-mailed Dr. Legge pointing out some serious errors and omissions in his paper. We will see if he responds....

I wrote an entire paper last year on the serious errors in his paper. I never got a response.

[Apollo20]

The Almond:

Here's my e-mail:

Dear Dr. Legge.

I have read with great interest a number of your recent papers on the tragic events of 9/11. I note that you believe that the work of Gordon Ross and Kenneth Kuttler on the collapse of WTC 1 & 2 has not been refuted. I would challenge this assertion and would ask you to read the attached Word document which contains my paper on the pulverization of WTC concrete. I would like you to especially consider Section 6.0 where I describe a detailed energy balance calculation. While I do not specifically mention Kuttler's or Ross' work I believe my calculations show that there was plenty of energy to sustain a complete collapse of WTC 1 & 2, and to pulverize the concrete. You will note that I use energy terms throughout the calculation thereby avoiding the inappropriate mixing of momentum and energy terms that leads to a "double counting" error in Ross' work. The essential elements of my concrete pulverization research are also embodied in a joint paper with Professor Bazant which is available at his Northwestern University website.

In the interests of a fair representation of my research I would ask that you refer to my "Concrete Pulverization" paper in any future writings you publish on this topic; the paper in question is also available at 911myths.com.

Sincerely....

[GregoryUrich]

... While I do not specifically mention Kuttler's or Ross' work I believe my calculations show that there was plenty of energy to sustain a complete collapse of WTC 1 & 2, and to pulverize the concrete...

Are you still using a mass of 576,000 tons?

[Drudgewire]

For some reason I always read it as "Journal of 9/11 Stundies".
Oh, there's good reason. ;)

[1337m4n]

Well, maybe he has used some reliable sources? Let's see what his sources are. They include such gems, as:

- Fromthewilderness.com
- Pilotsfor911truth.org
- Prisonplanet.com
- Previous Journal of 9/11 Studies papers
- Public-action.com (that's right, this is the site of Carol A. Valentine, the holocaust denier)
- Whatreallyhappened.com
- 911research.wtc7.net
- Georgewashington.blogspot.com
- Youtube
- Google video
- Stj911.org





Rule 2:You will not post anything that is considered pornographic, obscene, or contains excessive reference to violence and/or explicit sexual acts. This includes representational artwork as well as photographic or video media and includes linking directly to such content from the Forum. This was an extremely serious breach of Rule 2. I have removed your links.

[NYCEMT86]

One of these days I'm going to write a pro-conspiracy paper, submit it to these guys citing things like and as sources, and see if they buy it.

........I hate you :mad: I had to just check on the first site to see what it was now I have been violated :boxedin:

[Civilized Worm]

I have already e-mailed Dr. Legge pointing out some serious errors and omissions in his paper. We will see if he responds....


Are you going to suggest he includes the aspartame conspiracy along with the cholesterol stuff?

[~enigma~]

Once again, this paper passed their "peer-review". Makes you wonder, what kind of crap you have to write to NOT pass their peer review.

This paper is by Frank Legge.

http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/LeggeConspiracy&Myth7.pdf

Topics in this paper:

The belief that high serum cholesterol levels are harmful may also be a myth, supported by drug manufacturers conspiring with the FDA.
War games by the Air Force, including the simulated hijacking of aircraft, and flying them into buildings.

False blips inserted into the radar screens of civilian air traffic controllers.

Where is the wreckage of the planes?

Why was the steel sold overseas at less than local prices?

Where are the samples of steel and debris?

Where are the many tapes showing what hit the Pentagon?

How was it arranged that the investigations into insider trading on the stock exchange over 9/11 would be aborted?

Marvin Bush, brother of George W Bush, had been on the board of directors during 2000, of the company that was providing security, and his cousin Wirt Walker III was CEO on 11th Sept. This company, Securacom, also provided security at Dulles International Airport from which American Airlines Flight 77 departed.

WTC 7 was a controlled demolition.

Scores of firefighters described hearing, seeing or feeling explosions.

Common sense says it was an inside job.

Who benefits?

Steel temperatures

Why were over 1000 WTC victims not identified by DNA?

NIST is wrong. (You are right, he provides no calculations whatsoever).

Previous false flags.

Well, maybe he has used some reliable sources? Let's see what his sources are. They include such gems, as:

- Fromthewilderness.com
- Pilotsfor911truth.org
- Prisonplanet.com
- Previous Journal of 9/11 Studies papers
- Public-action.com (that's right, this is the site of Carol A. Valentine, the holocaust denier)
- Whatreallyhappened.com
- 911research.wtc7.net
- Georgewashington.blogspot.com
- Youtube
- Google video
- Stj911.org


Let me say it again. This paper passed their peer-review. This paper used those wonderfully unbiased sources. This is a great paper! For trash.
What the...I suppose cholesterol has to do with 9/11 now? But as far as it being a myth I would really like to see him walk around with 4+ Lipimic blood due to TGL being somewhere in orbit then he can tell me it's a myth.

[Apollo20]

GregoryUrich:

I have tried a wide range of masses as you know.

[GregoryUrich]

GregoryUrich:

I have tried a wide range of masses as you know.

I mean in the paper you decribed above regarding pulverization of concrete. Is that a new one?

[ref]

Do I have to ask why the journal for 9/11 studies accepts a paper that contains some crap about high cholesterol and FDA conspiracy?

OMG JHC

TAM:confused:

I was amazed to see that one. The truth movement actually still managed to surprise me. All they needed was to add a cholesterol conspiracy in their 9/11 studies paper :eye-poppi

[Zlaya]

now, what specifically is so 'loony' about this article?

i just read it and it seems to be quite enlightening.

all i see above are ad hominem attacks and red herrings.

anything in the article, that is false?

[uk_dave]

now, what specifically is so 'loony' about this article?

i just read it and it seems to be quite enlightening.

all i see above are ad hominem attacks and red herrings.

anything in the article, that is false?

What did you believe to be true in the article? Any specifics?

[beachnut]

now, what specifically is so 'loony' about this article?

i just read it and it seems to be quite enlightening.

all i see above are ad hominem attacks and red herrings.

anything in the article, that is false?
The article has no scientific value and is pure political tripe. It takes knowledge and judegement to see the bs in this paper; and of course only one place to publish this junk, the journal of woo.

The entire paper is false. When you say thermite, you have said it all. Jones made up thermite in 2005, and uses columns cut during cleanup as proof of his made up thermite lies. So I know thermite is false, which makes your support of this paper suspect. I hope you are just teasing, because belief in this paper would be indicative of shallow research and no understanding of physics or math.

[Zlaya]

The article has no scientific value and is pure political tripe. It takes knowledge and judegement to see the bs in this paper; and of course only one place to publish this junk, the journal of woo.

The entire paper is false.

Again, such as?

Give me 1 example of a falsehood in that article. Just one, and lets debate it.

[beachnut]

Again, such as?

Give me 1 example of a falsehood in that article. Just one, and lets debate it.
You can't find a fact in the whole paper to support the dumb ideas of 9/11 truth. Why are truthers unable to list some facts to support the lies of 9/11 truth.

Okay, I go first, the thermite would not need sulfur to melt steel it burns very hot and the 1000 degree is junk. The substance falling is Al, it melts and the plane is made of it. Or junk metal from computers, or from UPS systems stored on that floor. But thermite to bring down the WTC was made up in 2005 by Jones, that is 4 years too late, you are supporting a nut case fringe group known as 9/11 truth.

From page 15 – The dolt says "Note the white dust streaming up from the hot spot."

OMG< did he think about all the oxygen generators on board the plane? See the video for white hot smoke from an oxygen feed fire where all the Oxygen generators were slammed into the corner, or even batteries from back up could be making things hot.

6i_l_ux3R-4

Do not forget, I told you Jones uses columns cut during cleanup after 9/11 to say thermite did it. That is funny and proves him wrong. Jones's stuff is all wrong, and clearly not evidence for anything about 9/11.

This covers two or three things specifically and in general. The journal the paper was published was started because Jones can not get anyone in a real journal to publish this bs and political tripe! He was fired and started his own journal with other truthers to the peer review process of woo.

[ref]

Again, such as?

Give me 1 example of a falsehood in that article. Just one, and lets debate it.

Ok. Let's start with this one.

"False blips inserted into the radar screens of civilian air traffic controllers."

Ok. Let's see what is the source of this claim in that article? This is the source:

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/011805_simplify_case.shtml

Article by Michael Kane. Ok. What is his source for this claim then? Oh, that's right, it is something called "Ibid, page 339". What is that then, you ask? Well, you would never know, since it is not explained nor linked anywhere in that page. Did the peer-reviewers know the source, when they accepted this paper? You can have two guesses.

We have a member called Cheap Shot. He is an FAA Air Traffic Controller. He was on duty on 9/11. Here is what he says about this.

"It would be nearly impossible for that to happen. You theoretically could load them from the training department into the DYSIM Lab, and if someone knew how to eliminate the tie-off between the DYSIM and the actual operational floor, that would probably be the only way. But it would have to be real time, and you would have to load a tape, guessing the location of where the hijackers were, don't see it happening on the FAA side."

Now. Who do I believe. An author, whose source is another author, whose source is unknown. Or a person who was on duty that day, doing the exact work mentioned in the article.

Have your say, Zlaya.

[quixotecoyote]

Ibid just means from the last named source. In this case it would be from the book: Crossing the Rubicon on page 339. Of course, he wrote the book himself so he might as well have left it uncited.

[ref]

Ibid just means from the last named source. In this case it would be from the book: Crossing the Rubicon on page 339. Of course, he wrote the book himself so he might as well have left it uncited.

Well, that is what I thought. I wonder what source he used in his book.

[beachnut]

Again, such as?

Give me 1 example of a falsehood in that article. Just one, and lets debate it.
Here he is trying to say since we had a plan, Operation Northwoods, we did 9/11 ourselves. I think that is the kind of logic reflected by his spelling of NorthWARDS? This guy has to be taking drugs or he is just very upset about something to make him ignore logic and facts.
In most cases it is deduced after the event, sometimes years after, that an action was false flag but the Operation Northwards document is distinctive in that it provides evidence of US intention to create a false flag action beforehand. The purpose was to prepare the public for the invasion of Cuba. This plan was not put into effect, presumably because it was rejected by President Kennedy. Perhaps that is why he was later assassinated.
OMG, they never did Operations Northwoods! Poor paper had a poor peer review as evidence by the misspelling. But which is it Northwards or Northwoods? Notice he packs his paper with extra made up bs all over. Now Kennedy was killed due to a plan being rejected! Junk ideas with Junk ideas inside of Junk ideas. Did you read this junk? This is real dumb stuff.

But the point is, since Operations Northwoods was turned down, it is proof that the government does not do dumb stuff all the times but shows 9/11 truth is full of junk ideas and false information to mislead idiots who believe what they read on the internet.

[ref]

Here he is trying to say since we had a plane, Operation Northwoods, we did 9/11 ourselves. I think that is the kind of logic reflected by his spelling of NorthWARDS? This guy has to be taking drugs or he is just very upset about something to make him ignore logic and facts.

OMG, they never did Operations Northwoods! Poor paper had a poor peer review as evidence by the misspelling. But which is it Northwards or Northwoods?

I hadn't noticed that one :lolsign:

[timhau]

Ibid just means from the last named source. In this case it would be from the book: Crossing the Rubicon on page 339. Of course, he wrote the book himself so he might as well have left it uncited.

I just went to Amazon to check whether that book has 339 pages. Turns out, Amazon doesn't have it. You have to order it from the publisher, FromTheWilderness.com (http://www.fromthewilderness.com/index.html) (and if you poke around their pages for a short while, you'll see that they're a) kooks and b) flat broke, going out of business and begging for money). They say (http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/011805_simplify_case.shtml) that the book has over 600 pages and over 1,000 footnotes. I personally know of no better guarantee of the scientificity of a book than its footnotes/page ratio.

[ref]

I just went to Amazon to check whether that book has 339 pages. Turns out, Amazon doesn't have it. You have to order it from the publisher, FromTheWilderness.com (http://www.fromthewilderness.com/index.html) (and if you poke around their pages for a short while, you'll see that they're a) kooks and b) flat broke, going out of business and begging for money). They say (http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/011805_simplify_case.shtml) that the book has over 600 pages and over 1,000 footnotes. I personally know of no better guarantee of the scientificity of a book than its footnotes/page ratio.

If you try to order the book from their site, you get the following message:

You have reached this page in error
To go to the new FTW store click here (http://www.ftwstore.com/).


If you click the next link, you get this:

This site is under construction.

You get nowhere. So there is no way to get the book.

[timhau]

Based on the sob stories behind the From Me to You -link (http://www.fromthewilderness.com/me_to_you.shtml) and the legal notice (http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/120206_mike_canada.shtml), this may be because the publisher can't afford the postage fee. Considering what a huge smash hit the Truth Movement is, it's amazing that you can go bankrupt publishing twoofer books.

[Dave Rogers]

Again, such as?

Give me 1 example of a falsehood in that article. Just one, and lets debate it.

"How did Osama bin Laden manage to influence the minds of authorities so that this terribly dangerous component of the war game was permitted?"

Contains the clearly implied claim that the official view of events is that false blips were inserted into FAA radar due to the mental influence of Osama bin Laden. This is an utterly insane claim that has never been part of the officially accepted view of events. It's a classic CT strawman argument of the "When did you stop beating your wife" variety, and is a clear and unarguable falsehood.

OK, there's a falsehood. What did you want to say about it?

Dave

[Dave Rogers]

Again, such as?

Give me 1 example of a falsehood in that article. Just one, and lets debate it.

Another falsehood included as an implication in a question:

"How was the National Transport Safety Board persuaded to give up its legislated role as investigator of aircraft crashes..."

It wasn't.

"Marvin Bush, brother of George W Bush, had been on the board of directors during 2000, of the company that was providing security, and his cousin Wirt Walker III was CEO on 11th Sept."

Stratesec wasn't providing security, and Walker isn't Bush's cousin.

"Al Qaeda, originally supportive of the US,"

:jaw-dropp

I've only got as far as page 5. Given that the title includes the word "skepticism", it's rather disappointing that the author is unwilling to do even a minimum of research to investigate his starting assumptions, and appears instead willing to rely on the unsupported assertions of David Ray Griffin like the rest of his movement.

Verdict: garbage in, garbage out.

Dave

[T.A.M.]

Incorrect assertion #1:

High cholesterol is not dangerous to people older than middle age....WRONG!!!

Incorrect assertion #2:

avoiding saturated fats will not help with heart disease....WRONG!!!

And this is just in his introduction...

TAM:)

[Firestone]

On page 339 of Crossing the Rubicon, Ruppert quotes a story dated December 9, 2001 from the Toronto Star:

Northern Vigilance, planned months in advance, involves deploying fighter jets to locations in Alaska and northern Canada. Part of the exercise is pure simulation, but part is real world. NORAD is keeping a close eye on the Russians, who have dispatched long-range bombers to their own high north on a similar exercise….
The Federal Aviation Administration has evidence of a hijacking and is asking for NORAD support. This is not part of the exercise.
In a flash, Operation Northern Vigilance is called off. Any simulated information, what’s known as an “inject” is purged from the screens…
“Lots of other reports were starting to come in,” [Major General Rick] Findley [Director of NORAD operations] recalls. “And now you’re not too sure. If they’re that clever to co-ordinate that kind of attack, what else is taking place across North America?”…

Ruppert then continues:

The reference to “injects” was chilling. No other mainstream press (especially in the US) had mentioned that false radar blips had been inserted onto radar screens on September 11th. But on whose screens? Where? A major anomaly in official 9/11 accounts had been officially ignored.


Source: Crossing the Rubicon, page 339.

[ref]

On page 339 of Crossing the Rubicon, Ruppert quotes a story dated December 9, 2001 from the Toronto Star:



Ruppert then continues:



Source: Crossing the Rubicon, page 339.

Thanks Firestone. So, as we all can read, there is no mention of false blips on FAA screens. They are talking about NORAD screens. And it says the exercise is called off and simulated information is purged from the screens.

So, where did Kane invent the story, that FAA has false blips on their screens during the hijackings?

But this didn't matter. Dr. Legge used this lie as a fact in his paper. And this paper passed the peer-review of the 9/11 Studies. This is how they review their papers. Real professionals.

[MikeW]

now, what specifically is so 'loony' about this article?

i just read it and it seems to be quite enlightening.

all i see above are ad hominem attacks and red herrings.

anything in the article, that is false?

Let's try this:

How about the complexity of ensuring that war games would be held on the right day by the Air Force and that they would include the simulated hijacking of aircraft, and flying them into buildings?
http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/LeggeConspiracy&Myth7.pdf

This is referenced from http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/011805
_simplify_case.shtml, which tells us:

We know multiple Air Force war games were running on the morning of 9/11, as documented extensively in the mainstream press. 16 What Crossing the Rubicon has documented conclusively is that there was a live-fly drill taking place on 9/11 titled Vigilant Warrior. Richard Clarke disclosed the name of this drill on page 4 of his book, but it was Major Don Arias of NORAD who confirmed the definition of the title "Warrior" to Mike Ruppert via email.

Warrior = JCS/HQ NORAD sponsored FTX, or field training exercise (live-fly). 17

That means that the Vigilant Warrior drill conducted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff involved at least one real commercial aircraft in the skies, intended to simulate exactly the kind of airliner hijack emergency presented on 9/11. Coincidence?

This was further supported by an April 18 2004 USA Today article titled, "NORAD had drills of jets as weapons." The report cited NORAD officials who confirmed live-fly drills were conducted using hijacked airliners originating from the continental United States used as weapons crashing into targets including the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The specific drill USA Today referred to was "planned in July [2001] and conducted later" - likely on 9/11 itself.
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/011805_simplify_case.shtml

First problem is this: "What Crossing the Rubicon has documented conclusively is that there was a live-fly drill taking place on 9/11 titled Vigilant Warrior". Overstated - he hasn't "conclusively" proved anything of the kind. What Ruppert does is take Richard Clarke's mention of "Vigilant Warrior" in his book (the only mention of this exercise anywhere) and assume it's accurate, but there's good reason to believe Clarke simply got the name wrong, as our very own gumboot explains:

Richard Clarke, who was counter-terrorism advisor on the National Security Council during the September 11 attacks, claims, in his book Against All Enemies, that an additional exercise named “Vigilant Warrior” was occurring on that day. However this claim from Clarke is based entirely on overhearing Richard Myers during a phone call.

According to NORAD regulations, “Warrior” is a JCS approved, Commander-in-Chief NORAD Sponsored Field Exercise – that is “Live Fly” or involving operational units.

However “Vigilant” is the name reserved for NORAD HQ CPXs, while “Amalgam” is the name used for NORAD HQ FIXs (Field Exercises). Hence such an exercise would be named “Amalgam Warrior”, not “Vigilant Warrior”. Amalgam Warrior is held every second year, with exercises occurring in 2000 and 2002.

“Vigilant Warrior” was in fact the name of an Operation that occurred in the Persian Gulf region in 1994, in response to a movement of Iraqi ground forces towards the Kuwait border. The following year Iraq again tested the UN by moving forces towards Kuwait, resulting in Operation Vigilant Warrior II.
Andrew Burfield on NORAD's response on 9/11
http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/fst/NORAD.pdf

But let's suppose you want to insist that Clarke's recollection is accurate. Where's the evidence that exercise involved flying aircraft into buildings? Ruppert simply says:

That means that the Vigilant Warrior drill conducted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff involved at least one real commercial aircraft in the skies, intended to simulate exactly the kind of airliner hijack emergency presented on 9/11. Coincidence?
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/011805_simplify_case.shtml

Note that he tells us what "that means" with precisely no evidence. Why does a live fly exercise have to involve a commercial aircraft? Who says it intended to simulate the same type of emergency? Ruppert is simply making hopeful assertions with no proof, and hoping the gullible won't notice.

He does then say this, though:

This was further supported by an April 18 2004 USA Today article titled, "NORAD had drills of jets as weapons." The report cited NORAD officials who confirmed live-fly drills were conducted using hijacked airliners originating from the continental United States used as weapons crashing into targets including the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The specific drill USA Today referred to was "planned in July [2001] and conducted later" - likely on 9/11 itself.
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/011805_simplify_case.shtml

Not "further supported", Mike - you've yet to provide any support at all. Note also, again, he asserts this specific drill was conducted "like on 9/11 itself" with precisely zero evidence.

But were they "exactly the same"? No, he got that wrong, too.

Ruppert tells us that these were "hijacked airliners originating from the continental United States". The article points out:

The exercises differed from the Sept. 11 attacks in one important respect: The planes in the simulation were coming from a foreign country.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-04-18-norad_x.htm

But he "forgot" to tell us that.

And what about this specific drill that was "planned in July [2001] and conducted later"?

Until Sept. 11, NORAD was expected to defend the United States and Canada from aircraft based elsewhere. After the attacks, that responsibility broadened to include flights that originated in the two countries.

But there were exceptions in the early drills, including one operation, planned in July 2001 and conducted later, that involved planes from airports in Utah and Washington state that were "hijacked." Those planes were escorted by U.S. and Canadian aircraft to airfields in British Columbia and Alaska.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-04-18-norad_x.htm

That was of planes that were conventional hijackings, not flown into buildings.

I wouldn't use the term "lies" to describe this, then, but that doesn't get them off the hook. It's still a bunch of distortions, deceptions, factual errors and unsupported assertions. These are by Ruppert rather than Dr Legge, of course, but if he's going to reference other people's work then it's his job to ensure that stands up.

[Zlaya]

[QUOTE=beachnut;2921099]

Okay, I go first, the thermite would not need sulfur to melt steel it burns very hot and the 1000 degree is junk.

Sulfur was found in much of the metal, during the cleanup. Thermite + Sulfur = Thermate. I'm not sure why you bring this up. It seems legit.

The substance falling is Al,
It is not. Molten alluminum, when poured, is silver in color. Your argument very incorrect (www(dot)youtube(dot)com/watch?v=hunjHmEq-Og) The stuff falling from the tower (www(dot)youtube(dot)com/watch?v=pAdczNrsNHc) is bright orange, indicating very hot temperature, and it's behavior closely resembles thermate reaction's side product - molten iron

So that also is not false, in the article.

The dolt says "Note the white dust streaming up from the hot spot."

Calling the author "the dolt" is a fallacy, not sure what that has to do with the article. i thought we were having a debate. Thermate/Thermite reaction side product is indeed Alluminum ash, which explains the 'white dust'

did he think about all the oxygen generators on board the plane? See the video for white hot smoke from an oxygen feed fire where all the Oxygen generators were slammed into the corner, or even batteries from back up could be making things hot.

Not sure what this has to do with the article = Falacy.

Do not forget, I told you Jones uses columns cut during cleanup after 9/11 to say thermite did it.

Falacy. He also used dust collected from inside of one of the neighbouring buildings. In this dust he found micro spheres of previously molten iron, and chemical analysis of the dust has very close traces of Thermate

I asked for 1 solid piece of evidence that the aforementioned article is 'loony'

You gave me none, in fact, your arguments can be considered loony, from 'bright orange glowing alluminum' to 'ad hominem' attacks.

Great debate!

[Apollo20]

Zlaya:

I have already noted that Dr. Legge believes that the work of Gordon Ross and Kenneth Kuttler on the collapse of WTC 1 & 2 has not been refuted. I would challenge this assertion and would ask you to read the paper on the pulverization of WTC concrete at 911myths.com.

After you have read it I trust you will see that there is plenty to debate!

[Dr Adequate]

The substance falling is Al,
It is not. Molten alluminum, when poured, is silver in color. Your argument very incorrect (www(dot)youtube(dot)com/watch?v=hunjHmEq-Og) The stuff falling from the tower (www(dot)youtube(dot)com/watch?v=pAdczNrsNHc) is bright orange, indicating very hot temperature, and it's behavior closely resembles thermate reaction's side product - molten iron

So that also is not false, in the article.

... You gave me none, in fact, your arguments can be considered loony, from 'bright orange glowing alluminum' to 'ad hominem' attacks.
Okay, let's look at the "lunacy" of "bright orange glowing aluminium".

A few seconds searching for images of molten aluminum turn up these:

http://www.metaullics.com/graphics/sams1.jpg

http://www.alliedmetalcompany.com/images/moltenal05.jpg

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/energy/lg_molten-lg.jpg

http://www.tenmat.com/images/pics/alum1.gif

Looks kind of orange and glowy, doesn't it?

Wow, it's almost as if aluminium obeys the laws of nature just like everything else.

Okay, I go first, the thermite would not need sulfur to melt steel it burns very hot and the 1000 degree is junk.

Sulfur was found in much of the metal, during the cleanup. Thermite + Sulfur = Thermate. I'm not sure why you bring this up. It seems legit.

The dolt says "Note the white dust streaming up from the hot spot."

Calling the author "the dolt" is a fallacy, not sure what that has to do with the article. i thought we were having a debate. Thermate/Thermite reaction side product is indeed Alluminum ash, which explains the 'white dust'

did he think about all the oxygen generators on board the plane? See the video for white hot smoke from an oxygen feed fire where all the Oxygen generators were slammed into the corner, or even batteries from back up could be making things hot.

Not sure what this has to do with the article = Falacy.

Do not forget, I told you Jones uses columns cut during cleanup after 9/11 to say thermite did it.

Falacy. He also used dust collected from inside of one of the neighbouring buildings. In this dust he found micro spheres of previously molten iron, and chemical analysis of the dust has very close traces of Thermate

I asked for 1 solid piece of evidence that the aforementioned article is 'loony'

You gave me none, in fact, your arguments can be considered loony, from 'bright orange glowing alluminum' to 'ad hominem' attacks.

Great debate! You might want to learn what "fallacy" means, and also how to spell it.

It is not a "fallacy" to say that "Jones uses columns cut during cleanup after 9/11 to say thermite did it", because, in fact, he does. A fact is not a fallacy. You asked to see mistakes. This is a mistake.

Nor is a statement, the relevance of which you cannot see, necessarily a fallacy, or a "falacy". Indeed, if you don't see the relevance, what could possibly lead you to conclude that it's a fallacy?

[Zlaya]

Looks kind of orange and glowy, doesn't it?



OOOOH, on your planet, pouring aluminum glows orange from fires huh? Cool, i'm glad my chemistry teachers were all proved 'tin hat wearing loonies' for explaining to me that molten Al is silvery in color.

Great, thanks for showing me that this forum is indeed a joke. I just wanted to make sure for myself. I figured this was indeed the case, but i didn't want to make assumptions without asking first.

Much appreciated!

[Alferd_Packer]

Sulfur was found in much of the metal, during the cleanup. Thermite + Sulfur = Thermate. I'm not sure why you bring this up. It seems legit.


Sulfur is also major component of drywall.

[Gravy]

Welcome, Zlaya.
In your post # 48 you got no claims correct. I hope you'll stick around. This is a great place to learn. These issues have been discussed ad nauseum here, though, so I advise you to use the forum search feature before reopening an old topic. Check the categorized links in my signature also. All the issues you raised are answered on those pages or on the other sites I link to, such as MikeW's 911myths.com.

[Gravy]

Looks kind of orange and glowy, doesn't it?



OOOOH, on your planet, pouring aluminum glows orange from fires huh? Cool, i'm glad my chemistry teachers were all proved 'tin hat wearing loonies' for explaining to me that molten Al is silvery in color.

Great, thanks for showing me that this forum is indeed a joke. I just wanted to make sure for myself. I figured this was indeed the case, but i didn't want to make assumptions without asking first.

Much appreciated!Why the harsh reaction? Dr. Adequate showed you several examples of molten aluminum that's orange. I can show you more. It's not orange at its melting point, but it turns orange when it continues to be heated. It's black body radiation temperature can also be altered by adulterating it with other substances, as surely was the case in the towers. If you're going to claim that the material flowing out of the NE corner of the ST was steel, you'll have to explain how all other metals, including aluminum from flight 175, wasn't melted.

Don't get your hackles up. Relax and learn. This is a great place for it.

[Gravy]

Sulfur is also major component of drywall.Yup. Around 11 million pounds of it in the towers. Plus sulfur in fuel below ground. Thermate is about 2% sulfur. No evidence of thermite, thermate, or any other incendiary was found at the WTC.

[Par]

Looks kind of orange and glowy, doesn't it?OOOH, on your planet, pouring aluminum glows orange from fires huh? Cool, i'm glad my chemistry teachers were all proved 'tin hat wearing loonies' for explaining to me that molten Al is silvery in color.


So, do you have any reason to think that molten aluminium cannot (or is unlikely to) glow orange?

[Zlaya]

So, do you have any reason to think that molten aluminium cannot (or is unlikely to) glow orange?

oh i dont know, reason, science, common sense, chemical properties of aluminum?

Here's a video of a NIST guy trying to show how aluminum behaves when mixed with organics

www(dot)youtube(dot)com/watch?v=SQdkyaO56OY

Throw me a bone, show me a video of alluminum, in any combination with 'organics' that looks exactly like molten iron.

Perhaps this sort of unscientific reasoning is whats fueling the 'tin hat wearing conspiracy nutcase troooofers'.

[DGM]

Hey, here's another metal that is silver/gray at melting point but this is much hotter. Can you guess the metal?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/170744697f55fcdef8.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7011)

[Dr Adequate]

Looks kind of orange and glowy, doesn't it?



OOOOH, on your planet, pouring aluminum glows orange from fires huh? Cool, i'm glad my chemistry teachers were all proved 'tin hat wearing loonies' for explaining to me that molten Al is silvery in color.

Great, thanks for showing me that this forum is indeed a joke. I just wanted to make sure for myself. I figured this was indeed the case, but i didn't want to make assumptions without asking first.

Much appreciated! Um ... but it you heat aluminum enough then it does glow orange.

I just showed you pictures of aluminum glowing orange.

Yes, "on my planet", if you heat aluminum enough then it glows orange. My planet is called the Earth. What's it like on your planet?

[Par]

oh i dont know, reason, science, common sense, chemical properties of aluminum?

Here's a video of a NIST guy trying to show how aluminum behaves when mixed with organics

www(dot)youtube(dot)com/watch?v=SQdkyaO56OY

Throw me a bone, show me a video of alluminum, in any combination with 'organics' that looks exactly like molten iron.

Perhaps this sort of unscientific reasoning is whats fueling the 'tin hat wearing conspiracy nutcase troooofers'.


You’ve shown that molten aluminium can indeed take the form of a silvery flowing liquid. So, do you have any reason to think that molten aluminium cannot (or is unlikely to) glow orange?

[Gravy]

Zlaya will also not show you photos of steel that is silver when it cools as it's falling, within seconds of it glowing orange. Nor will he show you photos of steel from the WTC that looks like the formerly molten aluminum that I've held, and that is on display at several exhibits. He's got a chance to learn, but his angrily defensive stance so far isn't encouraging.

[Dr Adequate]

oh i dont know, reason, science, common sense, chemical properties of aluminum? Reason does not say that aluminum does not glow orange at high temperatures, which is why you cannot present a reasonable line of argument proving that it doesn't.

Science does not say that aluminum does not glow orange at high temperatures, which is why you cannot present a scientific argument proving that it doesn't.

Common sense does not say that aluminum does not glow orange at high temperatures, which is why you can't present an argument based on common sense proving that it doesn't.

The chemical properties of aluminum do not say that aluminum does not glow orange at high temperatures, which is why you can't present an argument based on the chemical properties of aluminum proving that it doesn't.

By contrast, reality show that aluminum does glow orange at high temperatures, which is why there are photographs of it doing so, which I have shown you.

[Dr Adequate]

Cool, i'm glad my chemistry teachers were all proved 'tin hat wearing loonies' for explaining to me that molten Al is silvery in color. Your chemistry teachers told you that?

Surely they knew that the color depends on the temperature?

[beachnut]

[quote=beachnut;2921099]

Okay, I go first, the thermite would not need sulfur to melt steel it burns very hot and the 1000 degree is junk.

Sulfur was found in much of the metal, during the cleanup. Thermite + Sulfur = Thermate. I'm not sure why you bring this up. It seems legit.

The substance falling is Al,
It is not. Molten alluminum, when poured, is silver in color. Your argument very incorrect (www(dot)youtube(dot)com/watch?v=hunjHmEq-Og) The stuff falling from the tower (www(dot)youtube(dot)com/watch?v=pAdczNrsNHc) is bright orange, indicating very hot temperature, and it's behavior closely resembles thermate reaction's side product - molten iron

So that also is not false, in the article.

The dolt says "Note the white dust streaming up from the hot spot."

Calling the author "the dolt" is a fallacy, not sure what that has to do with the article. i thought we were having a debate. Thermate/Thermite reaction side product is indeed Alluminum ash, which explains the 'white dust'

did he think about all the oxygen generators on board the plane? See the video for white hot smoke from an oxygen feed fire where all the Oxygen generators were slammed into the corner, or even batteries from back up could be making things hot.

Not sure what this has to do with the article = Falacy.

Do not forget, I told you Jones uses columns cut during cleanup after 9/11 to say thermite did it.

Falacy. He also used dust collected from inside of one of the neighbouring buildings. In this dust he found micro spheres of previously molten iron, and chemical analysis of the dust has very close traces of Thermate

I asked for 1 solid piece of evidence that the aforementioned article is 'loony'

You gave me none, in fact, your arguments can be considered loony, from 'bright orange glowing alluminum' to 'ad hominem' attacks.

Great debate!
Yes anyone who says thermite was used in the WTC is a dolt without presenting real evidence. The white smoke was not from thermite. But the O2 generators do make the same exact smoke.

I like the political tripe best. What is the Northwoods stuff, is that proof of what? What a bunch of junk. It was published in the correct journal. The journal of woo.

So what was the flowing cinders, wood? I have seen wood do the same thing at Yosemite. What about the batteries in the building? Where did the lead go? Have you done experiments with lead and see what color it is when it is mixed with junk from the office. I have to admit, if you believe that paper, you are too far gone to listen to reason let alone my bs.

You know why sulfur would be used in thermite? (thought not)

http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm (http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm)

Thermite was made up by Jones, Jones got fired and started the woo Journal because no one would publish his fictional thermite theory. I have his very first paper, it is funny. Would you like to read it? The truth movement is a fringe group who mislead others and the followers are people unable to think rationally. What do you think?
The sulfur comes from the drywall, there was tons of sulfur in the WTC right next to the steel. Are you unable to find out simple facts?

[Newtons Bit]

Zlaya:

I have already noted that Dr. Legge believes that the work of Gordon Ross and Kenneth Kuttler on the collapse of WTC 1 & 2 has not been refuted. I would challenge this assertion and would ask you to read the paper on the pulverization of WTC concrete at 911myths.com.

After you have read it I trust you will see that there is plenty to debate!

I find that fact that they still believe Ross to be infallible to be very unfortunate. Ah well, I tried. I suppose it's a characteristic trait of the conspiracy fanatics to hide information that would disprove a well-loved belief.

[Civilized Worm]

http://images.google.com/images?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=SUNA,SUNA:2006-39,SUNA:en&q=molten+aluminum&um=1&sa=N&tab=wi

Was that really so difficult?


Edit: Notice that some are silver yet others are orange!

[Jonnyclueless]

Any more questions?

[Dr Adequate]

Edit: Notice that some are silver yet others are orange! Note that when it's silver it's in backyard hobby furnaces at about 500 C.

The color of hot bodies depends on temperature. Black body radiation, and all that.

[Zlaya]

Was that really so difficult?


Edit: Notice that some are silver yet others are orange!


Aha, that sure makes sense (i know sarcasm doesn't transmit via 'the internets' so well). So, what heated up the airplane remains to over 1000 degrees Fahrenheit, causing it's aluminum to be bright orange, even while dropping through air? I asked someone to show me a video of bright orange Al pouring from high distance, and matching this video

Honestly, anyone with half a brain can see that the aluminum argument is very very weak. Next thing you're going to say is that the First Responders never melted many pairs of boots, walking on the super hot rubble for months. I guess that's alls a lie.

Again, i ask someone here to please show me some footage of bright orange aluminum, of aluminum that is not red because of the container that it's in.

Show me some pouring aluminum that looks similar to the molten iron looking stuff pouring from the tower right before the collapse (www(dot)youtube(dot)com/watch?v=pAdczNrsNHc)

It's an easy experiment. Heat up some Al, and pour it from a high spot, Show me how it can look like www(dot)youtube(dot)com/watch?v=pAdczNrsNHc

Not in a million years.

Most of the pictures there show silver molten Al. Is this the pinnacle of JREF forum research? 2 second Google image search, and bunch of links to "debunkin911.com" and "911myths.com", sites which have 0 credibility, and are anonimous? You're guys are insulting your own intelligence, and i hope you can one day understand i mean.

Really, debunking 9/11 truth with "911myths.com" as your main weapon is like smoking crystal meth for years. It eats your brain, and you just loose any critical thinking capabilities you may have.

[LashL]

[cue Lynyrd Skynyrd]

Ooooh, that smell
Can't you smell that smell...

[/Lynyrd Skynyrd]

[Gravy]

Honestly, anyone with half a brain can see that the aluminum argument is very very weak. Too true, too true.

[Gravy]

Again, i ask someone here to please show me some footage of bright orange aluminum, of aluminum that is not red because of the container that it's in.

Show me some pouring aluminum that looks similar to the molten iron looking stuff pouring from the tower right before the collapse

It's an easy experiment. Heat up some Al, and pour it from a high spot, Show me how it can look like

Show me some pouring aluminum that looks similar to the molten iron looking stuff pouring from the tower right before the collapse (www(dot)youtube(dot)com/watch?v=pAdczNrsNHc)


It's so sad when a 9/11 denier can't even play "shift the burden of proof."

http://www.metalwebnews.com/howto/furnace2/furnace-2.jpg (http://www.metalwebnews.com/howto/furnace2/melting.html)

Oh, look: orange when hot, silvery when cooling. Ain't reality cool? (pictures from the same recycling furnace)
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/dailypix/2006/Feb/18/FPI602180326AR_b.jpg (http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2006/Feb/18/bz/FP602180326.html)


http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/dailypix/2006/Feb/18/FPI602180326V1_b.jpg


Some high school students are inadvertently exposed to reality. Don't let this happen to you! (different schools)
http://www.granton.k12.wi.us/highSchool/teched/images/foundry.jpg (http://www.granton.k12.wi.us/highSchool/teched/index.htm)
http://www.uhigh.ilstu.edu/tech/Gall1.jpg (http://www.uhigh.ilstu.edu/tech/tech%20gallery.htm)

[Zlaya]

It's so sad when a 9/11 denier can't even play "shift the burden of proof."

Great thanks for those vids, that surely cleans all this up.

Sorry, didn't mean to bring this stuff up, it seems to be a sore subject.

[Gravy]

I have no idea why you're so defensive and angry. Don't you enjoy learning about the world around you?

[leftysergeant]

Further, Jones, being the lazy-minded trwit that he is, does not bother to tell us how molten steell could have travelled all the distance to the outside on a mostly opened-up wall from as deep inside the building as it must have.

I say that it must have come from deep inside, if it was thermite, because nowhere in any photo do we see the first sign of the blinding bright light that thermite generates. So it would have to be somewhere deep inside the building.

And burning out WHAT?

[Zlaya]

I have no idea why you're so defensive and angry. Don't you enjoy learning about the world around you?

No but your arguments are starting to convince me that the 'tin hat wearing troofers' are 100% correct.

i'm not defensive, i'm just looking for information.

thanks

[Gravy]

Color, schmolor. We all know that aircraft aluminum alloys don't just melt in fires. The next thing you're going to tell me is that I shouldn't be careless with a cigarette when I'm parked by the trailhead with Suzy, or the wheels might melt off my car!

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879046da5782395a5.jpg

[Gravy]

No but your arguments are starting to convince me that the 'tin hat wearing troofers' are 100% correct.How so? Be specific.

i'm not defensive, i'm just looking for information.

thanksNo, you're howling your ignorance and you're practically blind with impotent rage. Relax. Learning about the interesting phenomena around us is very rewarding.

[Zlaya]

How so? Be specific.

Simple, i don't understand how a wtc fire was hot enough to cook aluminum to over 1000 degrees to cause the so called 'aluminum' to stay bright red, while pouring and splashing off of the face of the building.

somehow aluminum = silvery always stuck with me since middle school, and now, for 9/11 we ought to change a couple of basic laws of science.

just seems odd, you know, that WTC 1 just happened to collapse straight down, and the WTC 2 just happened to collapse in an identical fashion, and then WTC 7 just happened to collapse few hours later, and a plane just happened to hit the most defended place on planet earth.

No, you're howling your ignorance and you're practically blind with impotent rage. Relax. Learning about the interesting phenomena around us is very rewarding.

you can get all this from a few posts on some forum? wow, very impressive, you're reading me like an open book.

go ahead, take a walk.

[tuc0]

aha
So "aluminum = silvery" is a "basic law of science" and the Pentagon is "the most defended place on planet earth". I'm glad I learned something. Thank you.

[uk_dave]

Simple, i don't understand how a wtc fire was hot enough to cook aluminum to over 1000 degrees to cause the so called 'aluminum' to stay bright red, while pouring and splashing off of the face of the building.

Just because you don't understand something, does not make it incorrect. Or do you believe you have such total understanding of every physical aspect of the world that you're actually telling us that aluminium glowing red at the wtc towers is physically impossible?

Perhaps you should investigate the temperatures which are reached during normal domestic and commercial building fires. Just in case your understanding is....... faulty.



just seems odd, you know, that WTC 1 just happened to collapse straight down, and the WTC 2 just happened to collapse in an identical fashion....

Identical buildings with similar damage inflicted upon them.

...... and then WTC 7 just happened to collapse few hours later....

After being hit by debris from the tower collapse and suffering uncontrolled fires


....and a plane just happened to hit the most defended place on planet earth.

Most defended? Please point to the evidence of defences at the Pentagon.

[MikeW]

No but your arguments are starting to convince me that the 'tin hat wearing troofers' are 100% correct.

i'm not defensive, i'm just looking for information.
"Starting"? :D

[T.A.M.]

I could care less what Legge has to say about 9/11, because he lost me at High Cholesterol being harmful is a myth.

Just like Zlaya has lost me with Aluminum=Silvery is a basic law of science.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

forget it....

TAM:)

[Gravy]

Simple, i don't understand how a wtc fire was hot enough to cook aluminum to over 1000 degrees to cause the so called 'aluminum' to stay bright red, while pouring and splashing off of the face of the building.How do you propose to fill in the gaps in your knowledge if you refuse to listen? Is that a mature, rational way to behave? Why not "simply" ask for an explanation of this phenomenon and be willing to absorb the information you're given by well-meaning, experienced, intelligent people? Why all the unnecessary hostility?

Note the times on the captions.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879046a2ae65651c5.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879046a56ad2692dc.jpg

To view the progression of fire in WTC 2 in photographs, see NIST NCSTAR 1-5, Chapter 9. That's hardly necessary in this case, though, since fire raged in the northeast corner of WTC 2 since the moment flight 175 hit, and a great deal of fuel was visibly plowed into that corner.

Read NIST NCSTAR 1-5F, to see the case C and D computer fire simulations for floors 81 and 82. Note the predicted upper level temperatures of over 1000c. This shouldn't be a surprise. The south tower fire, being more concentrated along walls which had their windows blown out, was fed by more oxygen than the fires in the north tower. The two main aluminum alloys used in the 767 have melting points of 510-532 C. Let's round it up to 600 C. The melting point of steel is approximately 1,500 C.

So, we have:

1) Fires that are more than hot enough to melt aluminum (and glass, and lead, etc.) and make it glow orange, and not known or predicted to be hot enough to melt steel.

2) If the fires were somehow hot enough to melt steel, they would also melt all the aluminum in the area.

3) There was an abundance of thin aluminum in that area.

4) From the northeast corner there was a flow of orange material that turns silver as it cools. Aluminum, being an excellent conductor, cools very quickly. Steel is nearly white when molten and does not turn silver when it cools. Steel, being a fairly poor conductor, cools slowly.

5) There was a considerable amount of formerly molten aluminum found at the site and no known formerly molten steel.

Therefore, there is absolutely no evidence pointing to the material pouring from the south tower being molten steel. The observed material compares favorably with molten aluminum.



somehow aluminum = silvery always stuck with me since middle school, and now, for 9/11 we ought to change a couple of basic laws of science.Please do not spew ignorance.

just seems odd, you know, that WTC 1 just happened to collapse straight down, Why should it have done otherwise? Cite the science and show your work.

and the WTC 2 just happened to collapse in an identical fashion,False. The collapses displayed substantial differences and resulted in different debris distribution. See close-up, slow-motion video of the inward bowing and collapse initiation of the east wall of the south tower here. (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2083421624495848233&hl=en)

and then WTC 7 just happened to collapse few hours laterIt had been burning for 7 hours. Its collapse was predicted by the experts on the scene.

and a plane just happened to hit the most defended place on planet earth.A plane crashed in North Korea on 9/11? (psst: the Pentagon didn't have antiaircraft missiles on 9/11.)

you can get all this from a few posts on some forum? wow, very impressive, you're reading me like an open book.You are an open book. Your kind is a dime a dozen in the "truth" movement.

go ahead, take a walk.If only you knew how funny that is.

Go right ahead and learn. Take the knowledge. It's free.

[T.A.M.]

Zlaya:

Here is a video, as per your request...about 20-25 seconds in....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VE9moGyrzgs

TAM:)

[Dr Adequate]

Simple, i don't understand how a wtc fire was hot enough to cook aluminum to over 1000 degrees to cause the so called 'aluminum' to stay bright red, while pouring and splashing off of the face of the building. So you're claiming what, exactly? That it was hot enough to melt steel, but not hot enough to melt aluminum?

That's a funny fire you've got there.

somehow aluminum = silvery always stuck with me since middle school, Whereas the fact that things glow when heated is apparently amongst the things you've forgotten.

Strangely, showing you photographs of this phenomenon has not jogged your memory.

and now, for 9/11 we ought to change a couple of basic laws of science. You certainly seem to be doing your level best.

just seems odd, you know, that WTC 1 just happened to collapse straight down, and the WTC 2 just happened to collapse in an identical fashion, and then WTC 7 just happened to collapse few hours later, and a plane just happened to hit the most defended place on planet earth. The buildings did not "just happen" to fall down. They were weakened by fire and structural damage. The planes did not "just happen" to hit their targets, they were piloted into them.

[Civilized Worm]

Zlaya:

Here is a video, as per your request...about 20-25 seconds in....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VE9moGyrzgs

TAM:)


It's a sad sign when a twoofer can't even do their own youtubing.

[Mashuna]

somehow aluminum = silvery always stuck with me since middle school,



There's your problem then. If you manage to get a science education beyond that of middle school, you'll be able to see where your misunderstandings of chemistry and physics come from.

[cmcaulif]

I find that fact that they still believe Ross to be infallible to be very unfortunate. Ah well, I tried. I suppose it's a characteristic trait of the conspiracy fanatics to hide information that would disprove a well-loved belief.

What happened to your second reply? Will they publish it or is another coy response from Ross going to be part of the 'peer review'?

[Comsat Angel]

Bumped due to absence of Zlaya, who seems to have vanished*.

"Again, i ask someone here to please show me some footage of bright orange aluminum, of aluminum that is not red because of the container that it's in."

No, actually you asked people here to prove one thing wrong about DRG's screed. They proved that with the molten aluminium. You proceeded to ignore the photographs posted. They posted more photographs. Suddenly you started getting abusive and aggressive. They posted more photographs. Sudden absence of Zlaya on the forum.

Well done!
Any fence-sitters here have been educated in impeccable style how the Truth Movement's devotees operate.

* okay, okay, and a bit of malicious gloating.

NEXT!

[Drudgewire]

* okay, okay, and a bit of malicious gloating.

NEXT!
We shouldn't be gloating. After all, when he came in here he was open to anything and we managed to convince him the twoofers were "100% right."















:dl: