See other 9/11 Articles
Title: Are 911 Truth Deniers Dumber Than A 5th Grader?
Source:
Rense
URL Source: http://www.rense.com/general76/truther.htm
Published: Apr 13, 2007
Author: Douglas Herman
Post Date: 2007-04-14 21:15:20 by robin
Ping List: *9-11* Subscribe to *9-11*
Keywords: None
Views: 1828
Comments: 157
Are 911 Truth Deniers Dumber The most subversive show on television is on the Fox TV network. Maybe you've seen it. Hosted by a guy named Jeff Foxworthy, the show is called "Are You Smarter Than A 5th Grader?" Hopefully, the show is broadcast to every nation of the world, including China, the Middle East and the English-speaking nations of the former British empire. Why? To show the rest of the world what they already suspect: that most Americans are a bunch of greedy nitwits, numbskulls and knuckleheads. Truly, most Americans are Not smarter than a fifth grader. Indeed, judging from the shows I've seen, quite a few American adults are dumber than a FIRST grader. The adults--and I use that word loosely--who participate on the show are college graduates with good jobs. Some of them graduated with honors--whatever that means in collegiate circles. Uniformly, they perform badly. If ignorance is bliss then most of the adults on the show are positively delirious. They win a few thousand dollars, sometimes a quarter million, but for the most part, look like greedy imbeciles. They ALL remind me of 911 truth deniers. First question: What is jet fuel? Don't know? Yes, you are dumber than a fifth grader. Could a kerosene fire (basically jet fuel) melt steel beams? No, but sometimes it does if the government says it can and the Twin Towers are involved. Sorry, wrong answer. You are dumber than any first grader possessing a basic understanding of a barbecue grill. I'm forever delighted by the faces of the wise children everywhere. They remind me of "Truthers," those citizens concerned with nothing so much as unraveling a great crime against America, convinced we can persuade even the dumbest Americans--and God knows there are millions of them---that steel building do not just fall down at the speed of gravity, no matter how many morons at MIT say they can. Okay: How many sides to a trapezoid? Every Truther, and fifth grader on the show that I happened to watch, knew the answer to that. Four, as in the shape of the WTC-7 foundation. Indeed, one of the World's Most Famous Smart Persons, a professor at MIT named Chomsky, said the perplexing anomalies of 911 didn't really matter to him. Huh? That would be like asking a group of fifth graders how did the Titanic sink? And then remarking to them to ignore the iceberg altogether and focus instead on the weight and volume of the water that filled the ship. All while manipulating computer models to show that a few open portholes caused the Titanic to sink. Because that was EXACTLY what the Kean Commission did to WTC-7. They ignored the collapse of a 600 foot World Trade Center building altogether. And that was EXACTLY what NIST has done also, for the past five years. They have ignored the obvious, ignoring the iceberg, focusing on the floodwater. Are Americans dumber than 5th graders? Yes, especially most of the top scientists working for the US government. For example, a videotape was shown---but not identified---to a top Dutch demolition expert. The videotape was of a 47 story government building collapsing in 6.5 seconds. The Dutch expert---unlike many of the top US experts---said unequivocally that the building had been blown down. A controlled demolition. Indeed, you could show that same videotape to those 5th graders and get the same answer. The chief difference? Neither the Dutch expert nor the 5th graders depend on the US government to pay their salaries, or fund their think tanks or universities. Thus they can answer honestly and without fear of retribution. Magna Cum Laude in Cowardice? Simply look around. Next Question: Who met with the (alleged but never proven) head hijacker's bagman, met him for breakfast on 9-11? If you answered a top Al Qaeda member, you would be WRONG. But if you answered several top US intelligence figures met with the man who provided Mohammed Atta with $100,000 you would be right. Another question. Why couldn't NORAD get even one plane aloft to encounter even one hijacked jet? Was it because our highly trained air force pilots are incompetent and dumber than a 5th grader? How do you feel about that? That the rest of the world thinks we are dumber than a newborn babe for believing that the top air defense in the world--NORAD--couldn't even get ONE fighter jet aloft in ninety minutes, 90 MINUTES? We really are a dumb race of people if we believe 9-11 was a case of incompetence. Dumber still if we accept the excuses from our government officials and haven't demanded the indictment of even ONE person that allowed close to 3,000 citizens be murdered. Debunkers would have you believe the official lie. And it is a masterful lie. They want to keep you dumb; that is their whole purpose. To keep you dumb. To keep you from asking too many questions. But mostly to keep you from demanding answers, and then demanding indictments and convictions. But debunkers are relatively few, and mostly shrewd, manipulative liars. 911 truth deniers, on the other hand---the millions of ordinary folks who adhere to the official story--would have us simply give the US government the benefit of the doubt. When you ask them why, when you point to the string of lies before and after 911, when you point to the murderous government policies post- 911, they stare dumbly, like contestants on that TV game show. On that TV show, however, the 5th graders can sometimes help those dumb adults. But only IF the adults want to be helped. Five years after 911, we Truthers are the fresh-faced students, trying to awaken our compatriots to the correct answers. And in this case, they have a whole lot more to win or lose than a few thousand dollars. Footnote: I would like once again to thank my compatriots at 911blogger.com who provided the illustration. As you can see, it doesn't take a rocket scientists to understand 911. Indeed, most American rocket scientists are probably too dumb. Simply put: Can an object fall through mass 5 times greater than itself, falling nearly as fast as it would fall through empty air, when the only force available is gravity? Sure it can, as long as the object is falling through a heavily-insured white elephant housing sensitive government offices. USAF veteran Douglas Herman writes for Rense regularly and clearly understood the scam of the NORAD standdown within a few months after 911. He wrote the recent Rense feature, Why No Norad On 911?
Than A 5th Grader?
By Douglas Herman
Exclusive to Rense.com
4-13-7
Most 911 debunkers love to quote the number of top US scientists, engineers and architects who deny 911 was an inside job. Luckily, we Truthers can demonstrate that many of these top experts are just plain dumb. How? We need only point to a show like "Smarter Than A 5th Grader," a show that readily indicates how dumb so-called educated American people can be. Even ones with advanced degrees and Cum Laude after their names.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 107.
#12. To: robin, RickyJ, ALL (#0)
Except that is not what the government says. What this article is doing is putting forth a strawman. A logical fallacy. All the jet fuel did is start a very large fire that then burned very hot due to the type of material available to burn. Melting steel is not what caused the collapse of the towers. But strength reductions of the steel and sagging of the steel due to high temperatures is the cause. This is another strawman. The WTC towers did NOT fall at the speed of gravity. The speed of gravity would imply a collapse time of about 9-10 seconds. But videos and still photos taken on 9/11 show quite clearly that the towers took about 15 to collapse. They show the first exterior panels ejected from the tower took about 9-10 seconds to reach the ground. And the photos show those panels were way ahead of the collapsing level of the towers. And I've pointed this out to you over and over. Are the members of the *Truth* movement incapable of learning? Are logical fallacies all they have to offer? And this is just downright false. WTC7 has not been ignored. Now tell readers the rest of the story. That Dutch expert (Jowenko) was not told the structure had been hit by debris from the collapsing towers. He was not told that the structure had been burning for almost 7 hours without much in the way of fire suppression. He was not told that firemen on the scene observed the building starting to lean long before the collapse. He was not told that fireman at the scene believed the building was going to collapse long before the collapse. He was not shown all the videos and photos available showing damage to the building and the extent of the fires. And one more thing, this same expert also said that the collapse of the two towers were definitely NOT controlled demolitions. This is also downright false. The Indian paper which initially made that claim retracted the story and ended up saying an entirely different person actually provided the money. The problem with CT'ers is that they latch onto the first incriminating thing they hear and then never listen to another fact regarding that event or claim.
Whether molten steel caused the collapse or not, what caused molten steel? Molten Metal Workers Reported Molten Metal in Ground Zero Rubble Reports of molten metal in the foundations of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers are frequently noted in literature of proponents of theories that the buildings were destroyed through controlled demolition. The most widely publicized report is one by American Free Press reporter Christopher Bollyn citing principals of two of the companies contracted to clean up Ground Zero. The president of Tully Construction of Flushing, NY, said he saw pools of "literally molten steel" at Ground Zero. Bollyn also cites Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition Inc. (CDI) of Phoenix, MD, as having seen molten steel in the bottoms of elevator shafts "three, four, and five weeks" after the attack. Although reports of molten steel are consistent with the persistent heat at Ground Zero in the months following the attack, we find the American Free Press report suspect for two reasons. First, Tully Construction was one of four companies awarded contracts by New York City's Department of Design and Construction to dispose of the rubble at Ground Zero, and CDI was subcontracted by Tully and was instrumental in devising a plan to recycle the steel. The involvement of Steve Tully and Mark Loizeaux in the destruction of the evidence of the unprecedented collapses would seem to disqualify them as objective reporters of evidence. Interestingly, CDI was also hired to bury the rubble of the Murrah Building in the wake of the Oklahoma City Bombing. That Loizeaux stood trial on charges of illegal campaign contributions casts further doubt on his credibility. [1] A second reason to doubt this molten steel report is the fact that it has been used by Bollyn and others to support the dubious theory that the collapses were caused by bombs in the Towers' basements. Corroborating Reports There are reports of molten steel beyond those cited by American Free Press. Most of these have come to light as a result of a research paper by Professor Steven E Jones, which has stimulated interest in the subject of molten steel at Ground Zero. * A report by Waste Age describes New York Sanitation Department workers moving "everything from molten steel beams to human remains." [2] A report on the Government Computer News website quotes Greg Fuchek, vice president of sales for LinksPoint Inc. as stating: A Messenger-Inquirer report recounts the experiences of Bronx firefighter "Toolie" O'Toole, who stated that some of the beams lifted from deep within the catacombs of Ground Zero by cranes were "dripping from the molten steel." [4] A transcription of an audio interview of Ground Zero chaplain Herb Trimpe contains the following passage: It took me a long time to realize it and I found myself actually one day wanting to get back. Why? Because I felt more comfortable. I realized it was actually warmer on site. The fires burned, up to 2,000 degrees, underground for quite a while before they actually got down to those areas and they cooled off. I talked to many contractors and they said they actually saw molten metal trapped, beams had just totally had been melted because of the heat. So this was the kind of heat that was going on when those airplanes hit the upper floors. It was just demolishing heat. [5] A report in the Johns Hopkins Public Health Magazine about recovery work in late October quotes Alison Geyh, Ph.D., as stating: A publication by the National Environmental Health Association quotes Ron Burger, a public health advisor at the National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, who arrived at Ground Zero on the evening of September 12th. Burger stated: An article in The Newsletter of the Structural Engineers Association of Utah describing an speaking appearance by Leslie Robertson (structural engineer responsible for the design of the World Trade Center) contains this passage: A member of the New York Air National Guard's 109th Air Wing was at Ground Zero from September 22 to October 6. He kept a journal on which an article containing the following passage is based. The book American Ground, which contains detailed descriptions of conditions at Ground Zero, contains this passage: A review of of the documentary Collateral Damage in the New York Post describes firemen at Ground Zero recalling "heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel." [11] [image] This construction photograph shows the foundation of South Tower in the foreground, with the foundation of the North Tower in the left background. The foundations were seven stories deep. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- References 1. Fire Power: It Took Three Lawyers to Stop the Destruction of CDI Inc., The Daily Record, 10/7/00
Was it steel? According to the above, the workers reported molten METAL. Were any actual tests done to determine what the molten material was? To confirm it was steel? ROTFLOL! Christopher Bollyn is a hack journalist who completely misrepresented the seismic data and seismologist statements in the same article where he made the above claim about molten steel. The link I provided proves that Loizeaux never said he saw molten steel. And how did Tully determine it was steel that was seen, ASSUMING that Bollyn is accurately quoting him to begin with (and I have doubts about that)? Notice that Bollyn didn't put the word "pools" in quotes. Did Tully actually say what Bollyn claims? Or is he exaggerating? No other witness of 9/11 has used the word "pools" to describe what was seen. Just how much of Bollyn's account can be believed? Red Jones championed Bollyn's report at LP. And then added his own twist to the claim. He claimed there were "60+ POOLS" of molten steel in the basements of the towers. When asked to back that up, he couldn't. Why is that? And here's another question. Loizeaux is on record saying that "molten steel was encountered primarily during excavation of debris around the South Tower when large hydraulic excavators were digging trenches 2 to 4 meters deep into the compacted/burning debris pile." How do you square this ... that the molten material was found primarily around one tower and relatively shallow in the debris with Bollyn claiming it was in the basements and with the notion of thermate being used to bring down BOTH towers? But let's go ahead and assume it was molten steel for the moment. What kept it molten for 5 weeks after the collapse, if it was indeed created by whatever brought down the towers? And, by the way, have you ever heard of Dr Greening and his theory about this?
[BAC #42] Was it steel? According to the above, the workers reported molten METAL. According to #38 and #40, posters reported you are a Treasonous FELLOW. Are you a FELLOW? Regarding the USS Liberty, I asked BAC if, "you support the 'right' of Israel to deliberately attack a U.S. Navy ship and kill 34 U.S. Navy men and wound 171 more, and shoot at lifeboats...." BAC responded that he had "No Opinion." Have you been able to nut up yet and form an opinion? Or do you still passionately cling to "No Opinion?" According to BAC, in my #33 "the workers reported molten METAL" and not steel. I will quote from it to see what it actually says. Perhaps 12 posts a day are more than BAC can handle. There are reports of molten steel beyond those cited by American Free Press. Most of these have come to light as a result of a research paper by Professor Steven E Jones, which has stimulated interest in the subject of molten steel at Ground Zero. * A report by Waste Age describes New York Sanitation Department workers moving "everything from beams to human remains." [2] A report on the Government Computer News website quotes Greg Fuchek, vice president of sales for LinksPoint Inc. as stating: A Messenger-Inquirer report recounts the experiences of Bronx firefighter "Toolie" O'Toole, who stated that some of the beams lifted from deep within the catacombs of Ground Zero by cranes were "dripping from the ." [4] A transcription of an audio interview of Ground Zero chaplain Herb Trimpe contains the following passage: It took me a long time to realize it and I found myself actually one day wanting to get back. Why? Because I felt more comfortable. I realized it was actually warmer on site. The fires burned, up to 2,000 degrees, underground for quite a while before they actually got down to those areas and they cooled off. I talked to many contractors and they said they actually saw molten metal trapped, beams had just totally had been melted because of the heat. So this was the kind of heat that was going on when those airplanes hit the upper floors. It was just demolishing heat. [5] A report in the Johns Hopkins Public Health Magazine about recovery work in late October quotes Alison Geyh, Ph.D., as stating: A publication by the National Environmental Health Association quotes Ron Burger, a public health advisor at the National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, who arrived at Ground Zero on the evening of September 12th. Burger stated: An article in The Newsletter of the Structural Engineers Association of Utah describing an speaking appearance by Leslie Robertson (structural engineer responsible for the design of the World Trade Center) contains this passage: A member of the New York Air National Guard's 109th Air Wing was at Ground Zero from September 22 to October 6. He kept a journal on which an article containing the following passage is based. The book American Ground, which contains detailed descriptions of conditions at Ground Zero, contains this passage: A review of of the documentary Collateral Damage in the New York Post describes firemen at Ground Zero recalling "heat so intense they encountered rivers of ." [11]
I've already addressed Christopher Bollyn's claims and shown that much of what he claims simply isn't established fact. The fact is that several individuals he quotes in his out of context fashion, have made statements in technical reports and other venues that directly contradict what Bollyn claims they said. You wish to ignore what I posted about that, fine. Ignore it but I'm sure any visitor to 4um who chances upon this thread will grasp the significance of you ignoring the criticisms I leveled about that claim. I'm curious, what is a molten steel BEAM? Didn't 4um's very own Summa Cum Laude just get done telling us that if something is molten it is a liquid? And how did Greg Fuchek learn this? Was he told this? Did he see the steel beams himself? Has he the training to know if it was steel? And perhaps it was. SO WHAT? You apparently haven't grasped that I'm not arguing that there wasn't molten steel at the WTC site. I'm almost sure there was based on the number of reports of it ... but as far as I can tell none of them actually involved a test to make sure it was steel. Second, if you can't tell me what kept that steel molten for weeks and weeks after the collapse, your theory about thermite bombs collapsing the towers falls apart. Something else had to be producing that heat, and whatever that something else was eliminates the need for thermite bombs as an explanation of molten steel. So tell us, nolu_chan, what was that continuing source of heat?
Second, if you can't tell me what kept that steel molten for weeks and weeks after the collapse, your theory about thermite bombs collapsing the towers falls apart. Something else had to be producing that heat, and whatever that something else was eliminates the need for thermite bombs as an explanation of molten steel. So tell us, nolu_chan, what was that continuing source of heat? While you are ever creative, I did not proffer any theory of what collapsed the towers. I have proffered the immutable truth that BAC is full of crap. Perhaps the molten steel at the WTC was not steel at all. Perhaps the building was secretly constructed of kryptonite and it was really molten kryptonite. What we can readily discount is the BAC bullcrap that it could have been aluminum, perhaps from a jetliner. The molten metal flowing from the building was the wrong color and burning at the wrong temperature for it to have been aluminum. It could have been iron or steel. Thermite contains its own supply of oxygen and does not require any external source of air. Consequently, it cannot be smothered and may ignite in any environment, given sufficient initial heat. It will burn well while wet and cannot be extinguished with water. Small amounts of water will boil before reaching the reaction. If thermite is ignited underwater, the molten iron produced will extract oxygen from water and generate hydrogen gas in a single-replacement reaction. This gas may, in turn, burn by combining with oxygen in the air. As long as you remain unable to explain how you would extinguish a thermite reaction in a mountain of steel, your theory about forces unknown to any man other than Fox Mulder will only ignite a dim bulb such as yourself.
wikipedia? ROTFLOL! Don't you find it odd that not one REAL expert in metals or chemistry or fire or structures or demolition has come forward to echo that claim ... which Ex-Professor Jones (sub-atomic particle physicist) makes? So let's examine that claim by quoting some former members of the 9/11 truth movement. ********** http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=trouble_with_jones Jones claims that the pictured flow cannot be aluminum because, "Molten aluminum in daylight conditions (like 9-11 WTC) is silvery-straw-gray at all temperatures" [pdf (7/19/06) p. 50]. Laboratory experiments in late February 2006 by Wood and Zebuhr (1980-2006) cast serious doubt on Jones’ contention. Jones’ table on[pdf (7/19/06) p. 63]." even documents the various colors of aluminum as temperatures increase. All metals, including aluminum, glow as temperatures rise. The exact appearance depends on the mix of impurities like oil and oxidation in the metal yet Jones argues, "…the approximate temperature of a hot metal is given by its color, quite independent of the composition of the metal. (A notable exception is falling liquid aluminum, which due to low emissivity and high reflectivity appears silvery-gray in daylight conditions, after falling through air one to two meters, regardless of the temperature at which the poured-out aluminum left the vessel. Aluminum does incandesce like other metals, but faintly so that the conditions in the previous sentence falling [sic] liquid aluminum will appear silvery-gray according to experiments at BYU [Jones references himself])." We have no explanation for why Jones would insist, contrary to evidence outside BYU, that flowing aluminum does not glow at high temperatures in daylight conditions. This color chart shows that all pure metals are the same color at each temperature. At 600°C Al has a minimal glow as all metals do. An electric stove burner, for example, barely glows at that temperature and you may have to turn off the lights to see it. Professor Jones uses the copyright photo below to support his claim that Al has no glow under daylight conditions. Yet this picture is not proof because there is no confirmation of what is being poured and at what temperature. Aluminum begins to melt at 660°C and has low emissivity, as iron does, and this picture just shows something being poured. The bucket or mold may be iron or steel, but they not glowing. If they are cold, the lack of visible reaction in the form of steam or sizzle must be explained. If the anomaly observed in the pictures of the south tower is even a real phenomenon and if it is iron, Jones’ favored interpretation, it must be above 1538°C. To rule out molten aluminum in these south tower pictures,aluminum would have to be heated above 1538°C for a valid comparison. Here is an analogy: who would conclude that a liquid at 25°C (room temperature) cannot possibly be water because we all know H2O is a solid at -5°C? No one. Or, is Steven Jones going to rule out "water" as the liquid because "water" is a solid at -5°C? Figure 13: (a) Speedskaters stand on solid water and (b) a glass of a clear liquid at 25°C (room temperature) Compare apples to apples, oranges to oranges, one metal to another under the same conditions. In the case of an aluminum alloy, it only takes about 600°C to become liquid. We can see that the aluminum pictured at BYU is nowhere near 1538°C because it is solid, it is not flowing, the container and its handle do not glow and flimsy gloves offer plenty of protection. Notice the steam coming off the pot that we do not see in Figure 12(a). Aluminum does not remain "silvery" at elevated temperatures. Note that the emissivity of Aluminum increases with temperature. **************** And how about this? Ex-Professor Jones claims that "In the videos of the molten metal falling from WTC2 just prior to its collapse, it appears consistently orange, not just orange in spots and certainly not silvery." But that isn't true. If you watch this video, http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2991254740145858863&q=cameraplanet+9%2F11 you will see silver color in the stream of material once it gets away from window. Clear as day. This occurs from 12 seconds in the video to 33 seconds into the video. It is especially clear at about 32 seconds into the video. Another sequence of streaming material begins around 55 seconds into the video. From 0.57 to 1:07, there is clearly a silver look to the material pouring from the tower. And at 1:14 - 1:15 the material pouring from the corner of the tower is very clearly silver ... NOT ORANGE. So Steven Jones is lying. Maybe Reynolds and Woods are finally right about something. ROTFLOL! But it does get consumed. So unless you are postulating (like Red Jones) a form of thermite that burns for a long time (weeks), you have a problem. You do what they eventually did at the WTC site. Use chemical agents. And again, you don't seem to grasp that I'm not arguing against a thermite reaction in the rubble pile. After all, I'm the one posting Dr Greening's work and he says that thermite type reactions played a role in what happened on 9/11. He just shows that the source of the chemicals needed for that reaction is a lot more mundane than the thermite bombs you postulate. But I am able to explain how you extinguish a thermite reaction. You use chemical agents ... just like they eventually did at the WTC site. Now it's your turn. Tell us what the source of thermite that kept the reaction going for SIX WEEKS or longer was? I surely wasn't leftover bombs.
Here is your answer. An Israeli fusion device would do it! BAC, are you the one who carried it across the bridge from Brooklyn? ... 12. Elevated Tritium values measured in the WTC area but not elsewhere in New York. Official studies stated that 8 EXIT signs from two commercial Boeing jets were responsible. The tritium in those EXIT signs is insufficient to explain the measurements (very little tritium is available for measuring after evaporation into air as hydrogen and as tritiated water vapour. This can provide conclusive proof of fusion devices and therefore US/Israeli military involvement. http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/military.htm A Finnish source provides an interesting speculation about the use of a small pure hydrogen bomb in addition to cutting charges. For BAC: I said it was interesting. I did not say it was a new book of the bible. http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/evidence.htm Evidence of advanced fusion devices at the WTC: 1. Pulverization of 99% of concrete into ultra fine dust as recorded by official studies. Concrete dust was created instantly throughout the towers when the fusion device million degree heat rapidly expanded water vapour 1000-fold in the concrete floors. 2. Superheated steels ablating (vaporizing continuously as they fall) as seen in video clips of the towers collapsing. This requires uniform temperatures roughly twice that of thermite. Conventional demolition or explosive charges (thermate, rdx, hdx etc.) cannot transfer heath so rapidly that the steel goes above it's boiling temperature. 3. 22 ton outer wall steel sections ejected 200 meters into the winter garden. Cutting charges cannot eject heavy steels and throwing charges cannot provide the energy required without heavy, solid surface mounts. 4. 330 ton section of outer wall columns ripping off side of tower. Cutting charges cannot eject heavy steels linked together and throwing charges cannot provide the energy required without very heavy, solid surfaces to mount those charges. 5. Molten ponds of steel at the bottom of elevator shafts (WTC1, WTC2, WTC7). Massive heath loads have been present at the lower parts of these high-rise buildings. As one of the witnesses after seeing the flow of metals declared: "no one will be found alive". 6. The spire behaviour (stands for 20-30 seconds, evaporates and goes down, steel dust remains in the air where the spire was). The spire did not stand because it lost its durability when the joints vaporized. 7. Sharp spikes in seismograph readings (Richter 2.1 and 2.3) occurred at the beginning of collapse for both towers. Short duration and high power indicate an explosive event. 8. A press weighting 50 tons disappeared from a basement floor of Twin Towers and was never recovered from debris. Not possible with collapses or controlled demolitions. The press was vaporized or melted totally. 9. Bone dust cloud around the WTC. This was found not until spring 2006 from the Deutsche Bank building. (In excess of 700 human remains found on the roof and from air vents). See http://www.911citizenswatch.org/print.php?sid=906 10. Fires took 100 days to extinguish despite continuous spraying of water. Thermate would burn out totally and then cool down much faster, just in a few days. This long cooling time means the total heath load being absorbed into the steels of the WTC was massive, far in excess anything found in collapses or typical controlled demolitions. 11. Brown shades of color in the air due nuclear radiation forming NO2, NO3 and nitric acid. TV and documentary footage changed the color balance to blue to disguise this fact indicating complicity in the coverup. 12. Elevated Tritium values measured in the WTC area but not elsewhere in New York. Official studies stated that 8 EXIT signs from two commercial Boeing jets were responsible. The tritium in those EXIT signs is insufficient to explain the measurements (very little tritium is available for measuring after evaporation into air as hydrogen and as tritiated water vapour. This can provide conclusive proof of fusion devices and therefore US/Israeli military involvement. 13. Pyroclastic flow observed in the concrete-based clouds. Only found with volcanic eruptions and nuclear detonations. The explosion squibs cool down just a few milliseconds after the explosion or after having reached some 10 meters in the air. Pyroclastic flow will not mix with other clouds meaning very serious heath in those clouds not possible with the conventional demolition or explosive charges. The pyroclastic clouds were cooling down at the WTC but this process took some 30 seconds. See http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1381525012075538113 14. Huge expanding dust clouds 5 times the volume of the building indicating extreme levels of heat generated far in excess of traditional demolition explosives. 15. Rubble height was some 10% of the original instead of 33% expected in a traditional demolition. Fusion device removal of underground central steel framework allowed upper framework to fall into this empty space and reduce the rubble height. 16. No survivors found, except some firefighters in one corner pocket in the rubble who looked up to see blue sky above them instead of being crushed by collapsing debris. Upward fusion flashlight-like beam of destruction missed this pocket but removed debris above those lucky firemen. 17. 14 rescue dogs and some rescue workers died far too soon afterward to be attributed to asbestos or dust toxins (respiratory problems due to alpha and tritium particles created by fusion are far more toxic) 18. Record concentrations of near-atomic size metal particles found in dust studies due to ablated steel. Only possible with vaporized (boiling) steels. 19. Decontamination procedure used at Ground Zero (hi-pressure water spraying) for all steel removed from site. Water spraying contains fusion radioactivity. 20. No bodies, furniture or computers found in the rubble, but intact sheets of paper covered the streets with fine dust. Items with significant mass absorbed fusion energy (neutrons, x-rays) and were vaporized while paper did not. Paper and powder theory. 21. 200 000 gallon sprinkler water tanks on the roofs of WTC1 and WTC2, but no water in the ruins. Heat of fusion devices vaporized large reservoirs of water. 22. Reports of cars exploding around the WTC and many burned out wrecks could be seen that had not been hit by debris. Fusion energy (heath radiation and the neutrons) caused cars to ignite and burn far from WTC site. 23. Wide area electrical outage, repairs took over 3 months. Fusion devices cause EM pulse with Compton scattering. See German engineers help the USA plate 5. http://home.debitel.net/user/andreas.bunkahle/defaulte.htm 24. EM pulse was recorded by broadcast cameras with high quality electronic circuitry. This occurred at the same time as the seismic peaks recorded by Lamont Doherty during the beginning of the collapse. This is due to the Compton Effect and resulted in a large area power outage at the WTC.
Yes, it would appear you are trying to muddy the water. You will only discredit efforts to find the answers to the legitimate questions surrounding 9/11. What a shame.
There are no replies to Comment # 107. End Trace Mode for Comment # 107.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Could a kerosene fire (basically jet fuel) melt steel beams? No, but sometimes it does if the government says it can and the Twin Towers are involved.
-that steel building do not just fall down at the speed of gravity, no matter how many morons at MIT say they can.
Because that was EXACTLY what the Kean Commission did to WTC-7. They ignored the collapse of a 600 foot World Trade Center building altogether. And that was EXACTLY what NIST has done also, for the past five years.
For example, a videotape was shown---but not identified---to a top Dutch demolition expert. The videotape was of a 47 story government building collapsing in 6.5 seconds. The Dutch expert---unlike many of the top US experts---said unequivocally that the building had been blown down. A controlled demolition.
Next Question: Who met with the (alleged but never proven) head hijacker's bagman, met him for breakfast on 9-11? If you answered a top Al Qaeda member, you would be WRONG. But if you answered several top US intelligence figures met with the man who provided Mohammed Atta with $100,000 you would be right.
#33. To: BeAChooser, robin, RickyJ (#12)
All the jet fuel did is start a very large fire that then burned very hot due to the type of material available to burn. Melting steel is not what caused the collapse of the towers.
http://www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/moltensteel.html
In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel [3]
When I was there, of course, the remnants of the towers were still standing. It looked like an enormous junkyard. A scrap metal yard, very similar to that. Except this was still burning. There was still fire. On the cold days, even in January, there was a noticeable difference between the temperature in the middle of the site than there was when you walked two blocks over on Broadway. You could actually feel the heat.
Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel. [6]
Feeling the heat, seeing the molten steel, the layers upon layers of ash, like lava, it reminded me of Mt. St. Helen’s and the thousands who fled that disaster. [7]
As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running. [8]
Smoke constantly poured from the peaks. One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers' remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots. [9]
... or, in the early days, the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole. [10]
* Most of the press reports compiled here were gathered by other researchers, including Matthew Everett, the author of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and 9/11: A Scandal Beyond What Has Been Seen Before; David Ray Griffin; and the author of posts such as this on georgewashington.blogspot.com.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. D-Day: NY Sanitation Workers' Challenge of a Lifetime, WasteAge.com, 4/1/02 [cached]
3. Handheld app eased recovery tasks, GCN.com, 9/11/02 [cached]
4. Recovery worker reflects on months spent at Ground Zero, Messenger-Inquirer.com, 6/29/02 [cached]
5. The Chaplain's Tale, RecordOnline.com , [cached]
6. Mobilizing Public Health, Johns Hopkins Public Health Magazine , [cached]
7. The scene at Ground Zero, NEHA.org , [cached]
8. WTC a Structural Success, SEAU News, , page 3
9. Ground Zero, 12/01 [cached]
10. American Ground, , page 32
11. Unflinching Look Among the Ruins, NYPost.com, 3/3/04
#42. To: nolu_chan, Red Jones, ALL (#33)
Whether molten steel caused the collapse or not, what caused molten steel?
http://www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/moltensteel.html
Molten Metal
Workers Reported Molten Metal in Ground Zero Rubble
The most widely publicized report is one by American Free Press reporter Christopher Bollyn citing principals of two of the companies contracted to clean up Ground Zero. The president of Tully Construction of Flushing, NY, said he saw pools of "literally molten steel" at Ground Zero. Bollyn also cites Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition Inc. (CDI) of Phoenix, MD, as having seen molten steel in the bottoms of elevator shafts "three, four, and five weeks" after the attack.
#53. To: BeAChooser, Red Jones, SKYDRIFTER, Trace21231, ..., christine (#42)
Corroborating Reports
In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping [3]
When I was there, of course, the remnants of the towers were still standing. It looked like an enormous junkyard. A scrap metal yard, very similar to that. Except this was still burning. There was still fire. On the cold days, even in January, there was a noticeable difference between the temperature in the middle of the site than there was when you walked two blocks over on Broadway. You could actually feel the heat.
Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding . [6]
Feeling the heat, seeing the , the layers upon layers of ash, like lava, it reminded me of Mt. St. Helen’s and the thousands who fled that disaster. [7]
As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and was still running. [8]
Smoke constantly poured from the peaks. One fireman told us that there was still at the heart of the towers' remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots. [9]
... or, in the early days, the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole. [10]
#65. To: nolu_chan, ALL (#53)
According to BAC, in my #33 "the workers reported molten METAL" and not steel. I will quote from it to see what it actually says
There are reports of molten steel beyond those cited by American Free Press.
A report by Waste Age describes New York Sanitation Department workers moving "everything from molten steel beams to human remains."
A report on the Government Computer News website quotes Greg Fuchek, vice president of sales for LinksPoint Inc. as stating: In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel
#73. To: BeAChooser (#65)
You apparently haven't grasped that I'm not arguing that there wasn't molten steel at the WTC site. I'm almost sure there was based on the number of reports of it ... but as far as I can tell none of them actually involved a test to make sure it was steel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite
So tell us, BeAChihuahua, how do you extinguish a thermite reaction in a mountain of steel?
#79. To: nolu_chan, Red Jones, ALL (#73)
The molten metal flowing from the building was the wrong color and burning at the wrong temperature for it to have been aluminum. It could have been iron or steel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite 
Figure 10(b): Jones’ edited version of the photo ignores the NIST alert that "the intensity levels have been adjusted." He has also used spliced videotapes without identifying they were tampered with. 
Figure 10(c): The alleged flow appears in a different window. 
Figure 11(a): Jones' Temperature Chart 
Figure 11(b): Temperature Chart 
Figure 12(a): Jones uses this picture. 
Figure 12(b): Apples and oranges compared, as text below explains. [pdf (8/15/06) p. 69] 
Figure 12(c): This picture appears to have been taken indoors, in a dark room. If that is "daylight" outside the window, it clearly is not shining in through the window as there are no shadows. In addition, the pot in this picture is more out of focus than anything else in the picture, which would imply a slow shutter speed. It appears that the technician is shaking the pot in an effort to get the aluminum out of it. Fast shutter speeds are used in bright daylight. If the motion of the pot is captured on camera, can this really be considered to be "in daylight conditions?" 
(a) Water at -10 to 0°C 
Some liquid at 25°C 
Figure 13(c): Aluminum alloy at 580-650°C 
Figure 13(d): Aluminum at ~1000°C 
Figure 13(e): Aluminum at ca. 1500°C 
Figure 13(f): 99.7% pure aluminum at approximately 1,000° C (Wood/Zebuhr). 
Figure 13(g): Aluminum and its tungsten boat glow approximately the same, illustrating that the two metals possess similar emissivity (Wood/Zebuhr). Tungsten glows in daylight conditions (turn on your porchlight at noon) and is used in light bulbs because of its high emissivity. Al converges on tungsten’s emissivity at high temperatures. There is no reason to eliminate aluminum as the liquid flowing from the south tower based on alleged differences in emissivity among Al, W, Fe at temperatures of 1500°C and higher. Thermite contains its own supply of oxygen and does not require any external source of air.
So tell us, BeAChihuahua, how do you extinguish a thermite reaction in a mountain of steel?
As long as you remain unable to explain how you would extinguish a thermite reaction in a mountain of steel
#94. To: BeAChooser (#79)
Tell us what the source of thermite that kept the reaction going for SIX WEEKS or longer was? I surely wasn't leftover bombs.
10. Fires took 100 days to extinguish despite continuous spraying of water. Thermate would burn out totally and then cool down much faster, just in a few days. This long cooling time means the total heath load being absorbed into the steels of the WTC was massive, far in excess anything found in collapses or typical controlled demolitions.
#107. To: nolu_chan, ALL (#94)
Here is your answer. An Israeli fusion device would do it!
Replies to Comment # 107.