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: 1660
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
Comments (1-74) not displayed.
.
.
.
#75. To: beachooser, Christine, nolu_chan, Robin, Minerva, Brian S, Honway, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#66)
Listen-up, BAC, you asshole - You're apparently in league with the super-extended temperatures; so what would cause them, besides something on the order of controlled demolition - call it sabotage? Thermite? Thermate? Micro-nukes? What's your take, BAC? Well ....? You're endorsing the controlled WTC demolition, whether you like it, or not. (Bad to use the 'cheerleader' image on Christine, by the way. Coupled with your persistent refusal to capitalize her name, you're losing a lot of points.
Glad to hear you think Bollyn is not credible. Red Jones and others will be disappointed. Now deal with the fact that I'm not claiming molten steel didn't exist at the WTC site. Which reduces the rest of your post to wasted effort. What you have to do is tell me what kept that steel molten for 6 weeks after the collapse. Is your theory that it was just well insulated and thus retained it's initial molten state?
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
There's the rub, BAC. The required temperature would disintigrate anything near it. What could be so hot that any form of 'normal' temperature loss would be so slow. That defies anyone's imagination. Especially with so many millions of gallons of water being poured onto the site. My temptation is to discount the reported temperatures, but I keep seeing evidence that the temperature reports are correct. I've used thermite - it (and the metal it cooks) cool within hours - not days or weeks. In any case, the issues totally destroy your assertions that anything expected could possibly do the damage to the WTC buildings. That takes us back to the Bush Cabal players and the Mossad. Well .....? Give us a clue, BAC - you're hooked-up.
And you don't pimp yourself out to pro-Israeli boiler-room operations either?
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
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.
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
You believe SKYDRIFTER, don't you nolu? ROTFLOL!
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
Did you have a part in killing this guy? Life is short, eternity isn't. ~ God
God is always good! How well aquainted are you with Achmed Chalabi?
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
Soft? Heck the video evidence is the best evidence out there that the government did 9/11. Citing people who don't believe the WTC towers were struck by planes doesn't help your credibility chooser. Oh, I'm sure you didn't have anything to do with knocking of 9/11 truthers, you are just a keyboard warrior.
God is always good! WHAT did they use... and WHY did it take so long. The fire burned as long as it burned. Please explain how the fire continued to burn as long as it did. If it was NOT a thermite reaction, WHY do you allege they used chemical agents to extinguish a thermite reaction? What chemical extinguishes a thermite reaction?
You believe SKYDRIFTER, don't you nolu? ROTFLOL! The thermite reaction will continue as long as it has fuel. WHO tested it on a mountain of steel? ROTFLOLPIMP!!!
Ah yes, Dr. Greening. BAC's hero of the moment. Dr. Greening says, When challenged by Dr. Jones about Tower #7, he retreats: If WTC-7 does not conform to the Greening theory, ignore it and enlist BAC to pimp the theory anyway. Dr. Greening made a proposal: Gee, look what happened when Dr. Jones put it to the test: http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/ExptAlMelt.doc Experiments with Molten Aluminum By Steven E. Jones with Wesley Lifferth, Jared Dodson, Jacob Stevenson and Shannon Walch In a treatise entitled “Aluminum and the World Trade Center Disaster,” Frank Greening raises an intriguing hypothesis: “Based on these findings it is proposed that the formation of molten aluminum in the Twin Towers just before their collapse, accounts for most of the startling and controversial observations that accompanied the spectacular destruction of these massive structures. It is suggested that molten aluminum initiated the global collapse of each Tower by burning through key structural supports in the impact zones. Molten aluminum-thermite reactions could explain the rapid intensification of the fires and the many detonations seen and heard moments before and during the collapse of each Tower. Molten aluminum-thermite explosions - reactions that are quite capable of shattering ceramic or metal molds during aluminum casting - would go a long way to explaining the much-debated pulverization of the WTC concrete.” [1] I noted to Greening that this explanation would not apply to the 9/11 collapse of WTC 7, since it was not hit by an airplane, and in he agreed: In reference to my further skepticism that melted aluminum could cause global failure and symmetrical collapse of the Towers, as well as the speed of the collapses, Greening replied: Accordingly, an experienced welder along with students and I conducted such tests on a small scale at BYU, on February 16, 2006. We performed two tests involving approximately 500 g of aluminum alloy 6061 in each test. This alloy is composed of 97.9% Al, 0.6% Si, 0.28% Cu, 1.0% Mg and 0.2% Cr [2] and has a melting point of about 600 C. The aluminum alloy was melted in a steel pan using an oxyacetylene torch. The pan reached red-hot temperatures (about 600 C) during the melting process. We noted that the aluminum retained its silvery appearance throughout the melting process and final heating. Temperatures were monitored with an infrared probe. TEST 1, Molten Aluminum on rusty steel In this test, we explored Greening’s hypothesis that molten aluminum alloy would initiate violent thermite reactions when poured onto rusty steel: Just in case Greening was right, the students and I stood well back from the heated and very rusty angle-iron as Wesley Lifferth poured molten aluminum onto the rusted steel surface (see photos). Lifferth has had considerable experience with aluminum and had never seen “violent thermite” reactions or explosions of any kind while working with molten aluminum, so he was willing to pour the molten aluminum without special precautions. [IMAGE] We observed that no obvious heat-releasing reactions occurred. There were no explosions whatsoever. No “globules of molten metal” were dispersed. No fires, and certainly no melting or warping of the steel member. We observed that the temperature of the molten aluminum in contact with the pre-heated rusty iron simply cooled at about 25 C per minute until the aluminum solidified, so that any thermite reactions between the aluminum and iron oxide must have been minimal and did not compete with radiative and conductive cooling. When we removed the solidified aluminum alloy from the rusty steel surface, we found that a small percentage of the rust did adhere to the aluminum and may have undergone a reaction, since the color of the adherent metal had changed from orange-red to black indicating reduction. However, no damage to the underlying steel was observed at all. There appears no justification for larger-scale tests on WTC models. This experiment lends zero support to the notion that molten aluminum in the WTC Towers could have destroyed the enormous steel columns in the core of the buildings. TEST 2, Molten Aluminum on concrete Greening also predicted that molten aluminum impinging on concrete would initiate violent reactions: So we poured molten aluminum onto a concrete cinder block to see whether “explosive reactions” would in fact ensue. They did not. In this case, we formed two “puddles” of molten aluminum, one directly onto the concrete, and the other onto concrete, acrylic plastic, and a piece of aluminum foil which held a fair amount of iron rust extracted from a very rusty iron ball. In both cases, the molten aluminum sat on the surfaces with no “explosive reactions” whatsoever. Instead, the aluminum cooled steadily, suggesting no exothermal chemical reactions were competing with radiative and conductive cooling. [IMAGE] Some water was present in the concrete, which clearly formed steam and then a distinct bubble under the aluminum melt. The rectangular piece of plastic also released gases which formed a separate bubble under the aluminum melt poured over the plastic. The rust was embedded in the aluminum melt (the aluminum foil melted) without showing any “explosive” reaction at all. When the aluminum was removed from the concrete surfaces, we observed a dark pattern on the surface (not deeply etched into the concrete) where the aluminum had been, so there may have been some surface reactions with the concrete. The rectangular piece of plastic left an image which shows where the aluminum did not contact the concrete (photo above). TEST 3, Molten Aluminum on crushed gypsum, concrete, plastic, on rusty iron Crushed gypsum (from drywall) mixed with crushed concrete and plastic pieces and placed on a very rusty steel channel thrown in to cover all the bases -- trying to reproduced conditions as might be found in the WTC. (Greening’s idea is that molten aluminum from a plane might hit these materials and lead to violent reactions, culminating in Tower Collapses.) The experiment showed no violent or even visible reactions. The molten aluminum flowed around the materials with no obvious reactions at all, and solidified. TEST 4, Molten Aluminum on water-slurry of crushed gypsum, concrete, plastic on rusty iron The mix described in test 3 was repeated, this time mixed as a slurry in water. Greening suggested that molten aluminum plus water might generate hydrogen, perhaps to get reactions started. And there could have been water in the WTC. Again, the experiment showed no violent or even visible reactions, except that some steam was generated. No flame or strongly exothermic reaction was detectable in any of these tests. Conclusions These experiments do not support the assertion of Greening that molten aluminum in the WTC Towers could have attacked the enormous steel columns (47 core columns and 240 perimeter columns) sufficiently to cause total collapse of these skyscrapers, even in the presence of crushed gypsum, concrete and plastic, with or without water. We also conclude that pre-planted thermate (sulfur added to iron oxide and aluminum powder) is much more likely to have cut through steel-core columns in the Towers and WTC 7 on 9/11 than aluminum melted from the planes and contacting the columns at random places, if at all. The cutting effect of thermite derivatives is well-substantiated and rather routinely used. [3] The use of thermate or thermite would explain the enormous pools of molten metal observed pouring down the rubble immediately following the collapses, and then forming in pools beneath the rubble piles of both Towers AND WTC 7 (where no aluminum-frame plane hit). The use of thermate would also account for the significant sulfidation attack structural members at WTC7 and the Towers. [4] These issues are all treated in a previous paper. [3] The collapse of WTC 7, the molten metal beneath the WTC 7 rubble pile, and the observed sulfidation of structural steel from WTC 7 and the Towers’ rubble piles are very important facts not treated or explained by Greening in his treatise [1]. Finally, the use of thermite or a derivative such as thermate is consistent with the observation of yellow-white hot molten metal observed falling in large “drops” from the northeast corner of WTC 2 (the South Tower), just prior to its collapse. (See http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Thermite2.htm.) We note that aluminum has many free electrons, so it reflects ambient light very well -- and it appears "silvery". Aluminum at about 1000 C will emit yellow light (incandescense) the same as iron, but in daylight (as on the morning of 9/11/2001), the molten aluminum would appear silvery due to high reflectivity combined with low emissivity, while molten iron would appear yellow (as seen in the video record.) Moreover, aluminum from a plane would melt at approximately 550-650 C, and would flow away from the heat source, and thus would be very unlikely to reach 1000 C at all. Thus, the observed molten metal flowing from WTC 2 on 9/11 cannot be aluminum but could be molten iron from the thermite reaction. (See http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html.) References 1. http://www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf 3. http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html 4. Barnett, J. R., Biederman, R.R. and R.D. Sisson, Jr., "An Initial Microstructural Analysis of A36 Steel from WTC Building 7, "Journal of the Minerals, Metals and Materials Society, 53/12:18 (2001), and FEMA WTC report, Appendix C. Draft 2.0
BAC has opened a can of worms. Now, he's splitting hairs; trying to evade the obvious fact that something is far too 'un-natural' to conform to the official lies, concerning 9-11. In the Army and National Guard, we got to play with ordnance on different occasions - including thermite grenades. In civilian life, I flew for the BLM in Alaska, doing aviation forest/tundra fire fighting operations. One of my assignments was to fly a Cessna 206 with military grenade dropping racks. (Probably originally intended to drop tear-gas grenades) These were used to drop thermite grenades, for the purpose of setting back-fires. I've spent a fair amount of time playing with thermite, whether BAC approves or not. {Drop dead, BAC!}
More DISHONEST BAC BULLCRAP Dr. Jones was NOT testing for colors in daylight. Dr. Jones was explicitly testing for the reaction when molten aluminum came in contact with rusty steel. Dr. Greening had opined about it starting a violent thermite reaction. It didn't. It would no more start a violent thermite reaction in sunlight than in the dark. Speaking of said image, Dr. Jones wrote: [IMAGE] We observed that no obvious heat-releasing reactions occurred. There were no explosions whatsoever. No “globules of molten metal” were dispersed. No fires, and certainly no melting or warping of the steel member. We observed that the temperature of the molten aluminum in contact with the pre-heated rusty iron simply cooled at about 25 C per minute until the aluminum solidified, so that any thermite reactions between the aluminum and iron oxide must have been minimal and did not compete with radiative and conductive cooling. When we removed the solidified aluminum alloy from the rusty steel surface, we found that a small percentage of the rust did adhere to the aluminum and may have undergone a reaction, since the color of the adherent metal had changed from orange-red to black indicating reduction. However, no damage to the underlying steel was observed at all. There appears no justification for larger-scale tests on WTC models. This experiment lends zero support to the notion that molten aluminum in the WTC Towers could have destroyed the enormous steel columns in the core of the buildings.
That's about 1020 degrees F. So, pour that melted alumimum over steel and you have a heat-sink, which will cool the aluminum very rapidly. There will be no 2,700 plus degrees, necessary to collapse the buildings at essentially free-fall rates. That requires explosives - evidenced by video and sound recordings; add the witnesses. {BAC, when you find yourself in a hole; quit digging!}
Another military use in in communications centers as an emergency measure to destroy sensitive equipment.
Thermite is some damned fine stuff, if you need to destroy. Cannon barrels, radios, engines, boat hulls, or burn through armor, from above. Good for clearing the oxygen out of caves & tunnels, also. I always hated the 'instant' ignition of the thermite grenades, however. You should have at least three seconds to get away.
Oh Lord, is BAC stupid or what??? Aluminum melts at a much lower temperature than 1500°C. If it melted high up in a WTC fire, it would not hang around to reach 1500°C, it would flow away. It would not reach 1500°C until put into the blast furnace of BAC's hot air. ... Unless, perhaps, it was very rapidly heated by a pure hydrogen bomb... (I did not say that happened.)
That theory appears to be a desperate grope to explain away the presence of sulphur and molten metal and an apparent thermite reaction. Regardless of how many times BAC attributes some theory to me, I have NOT stated why the towers collapsed. I HAVE stated I do not know why the towers collapsed. I do not find the government story compelling. I do not find the Warren Report compelling, but I do not know who killed JFK either. Magic BAC chemical agents may fertilize a magic BAC beanstalk, but I doubt they will extinguish a thermite reaction. The firemen discussing the tower collapse in the below mpg (about 30 sec) opine about a demolition job with timed charges chasing after them. http://algoxy.com/psych/images/discussion_in_firehouse.mpg A Finnish source provides an interesting speculation about the use of a small pure hydrogen bomb in addition to cutting charges.
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.
The "thermite reaction" requires a particular 'mixture' of materials, along with a high temperature ignition source. That's a long way from a "contact" reaction. The implication is that molten steel from a cutting torch would induce a "thermite reaction." (Rubbish!) Ordinarily, 'thermite' operates in concert with gravity. You might be able to lose a couple of floor panels, but you couldn't trigger the abrupt collapse of the 47 vertical core columns. I'm still puzzled at the high temperature thresholds; those are tough to account for. I'll have to take a look at the 'micro' device proposition. I was schooled (basics) on fission weapons, but not 'hydrogen' or fusion weapons. There could be something there. Ordinarily, one would think in terms of massive concussion and fallout, but, what if ..... There was definitely something exotic in the building. Ordinarily, I'd guess thermite and cutting charges. Those long-term and high temperatures don't jive with the 'ordinary.'
You do what they eventually did at the WTC site. Use chemical agents. * * * 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. http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2001/12/19/fire_wtc011219.html Last Updated: Thursday, December 20, 2001 | 7:41 AM ET CBC News The fires at the World Trade Center are finally out. More than three months since the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11 knocked down the twin towers, the fires have been extinguished. "We consider the fire to be out," said New York Fire Department spokesman Robert Calise. Small pockets might still be burning, he added. A firetruck is on standby at the site. The fires that have sent acrid clouds of smoke into the New York atmosphere were fueled by documents and office furniture. Workers clearing debris would often cause flare-ups as smouldering debris was exposed to the air. Firetrucks have sprayed a nearly constant jet of water at the site, and the fires have sometimes slowed down work at the site.
Actually, from the BAC source, the implication seems to be that molten aluminum from the kerosene fire hit steel and caused numerous violent contact thermite reactions. Dr. Greening said, “I therefore suggest an experimental resolution: The NIST fire tests, which were designed to simulate the conditions in WTC 1 & 2 after the aircraft impacts, should be repeated in a more realistic environment that includes shredded aluminum alloy 2024, crushed concrete and gypsum, water, rusted steel, aviation fuel, plastics, etc.... Then I want to see two thing [sic] happen: (i) The fires melt the aluminum, and (ii) The molten aluminum ignite violent, explosive reactions.” Still... Rubbish. In the experiment they melted aluminum and poured it onto steel with rust and various other materials. No thermite reaction occurred. I lack the basic knowledge to evaluate the possibility, or lack thereof, of some sort of small hydrogen fusion device. The idea of a device that could (possibly) generate an extreme blast of heat up the core is interesting. The linked site provides some interesting images.
Thermite is a mixture, by weight, consisting of 8 parts of iron oxide to 3 parts of aluminum. (That would be approximately half and half by volume.) How much thermite was available sort of depends on the supply of aluminum and rust, mixed in the right proportions, that was at the site of the WTC. For BAC: to mix them properly, they would sort of have to be in powder form. You cannot just throw your rusty brillo pad at a piece of aluminum. Well, being BAC, you might throw your rusty brillo pad at a piece of aluminum, but you would not produce much thermite that way. Then again, maybe that Finnish guy is on to something: Maybe Bush was right. When they attacked the USS Liberty, we didn't fight them there and they followed us here. BAC, thanks for showing us the light and the way!
[BAC] Figure 13(d): Aluminum at ~1000°C How do you KNOW that is aluminum in that picture? Did you TEST it? [BAC] Figure 13(e): Aluminum at ca. 1500°C Again. How do you KNOW that is aluminum in that picture? Did you TEST it? [BAC] Figure 13(f): 99.7% pure aluminum at approximately 1,000° C (Wood/Zebuhr). How do you KNOW that is aluminum or that it is 99.7% pure? Did you TEST it? [BAC] Figure 13(g): Aluminum and its tungsten boat.... How do you KNOW that is aluminum or tungsten? Did you TEST it? Was the aluminum at the WTC 99.7% pure? Did you TEST it? Did you certify that the aluminum and the tungsten came from the rubble of the WTC?
NIST had a total of 236 samples of steel. 136 were distinct samples, many from the fire zones. 160 were areas mapped and 170 areas examined. NIST called the samples adequate. NIST also used conventional microscopic fractographic metallographic studies of coarsening of carbide phases of thermal excursions. No spheoidization was observed. No steel sample saw temps higher than around 487F. Here is the bottom line with the NIST, tweeked computer models and trumped up workstation model burn tests, are nothing more than voodoo witchcraft.
Mark "I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer
I guess you weren't paying attention to the news back then. ********** http://pyrocooltech.com/home/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=19&Itemid=48 ... snip ... The level of destruction, which covers an area of approximately seventeen acres, cannot be accurately described; it must be seen to be fully comprehended. Each floor of the World Trade Center towers comprised an area of one acre. All two hundred and twenty floors are now compressed into an angulated mass of twisted and charred 30 ton I beams. It was beneath these enormous debris piles, and particularly in the sub levels beneath the towers, that the fires continued to burn. As debris removal continued, thermal-imaging scans taken by Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) helicopters revealed numerous super-heated areas below the debris piles. FDNY Incident Command grew increasingly concerned that several of these hot-spot areas were spreading and that they posed an imminent danger to several large Freon tanks that lay buried beneath hundreds of feet of smoldering debris. Hoping to extinguish, or at least to slow the spread of these super-heated areas, FDNY Incident Command turned to a multi purpose fire extinguishment and cooling foam, PYROCOOL FEF, which had been used successfully by, FDNY HAZMAT 1 to extinguish several difficult fires in New York City. PYROCOOL, which is mixed with water at 0.4%, drains rapidly and is extremely absorptive, characteristics that would be essential in extinguishing such deep-seated fires. On the morning of September 30, two thousand gallons of PYROCOOL FEF was delivered to the Liberty Sector Command Post at Liberty and West Streets, adjacent to the West side of what was the North Tower. Staging operations were coordinated by WTC Incident Command and FDNY Research and Development (R&D) that would apply PYROCOOL to two areas of immediate concern - the debris field on the West side of the North Tower and the backside of the debris field of the Federal Building (No. Seven). For the Building Seven operation, a 75-foot ladder tower (Truck Company 133-Brooklyn) was utilized, together with a 500 GPM Akron eductor. Foam was applied, at approximately 500 GPM, for two hours to the middle section of Building Seven, after which a portable infrared camera revealed that the area had been fully extinguished. In fact, no hot spots were found in the area where PYROCOOL had been applied. The North Tower fire operation proved to be logistically more complex, in as much as it had to be conducted so as not to hinder ongoing rescue efforts. An Akron Appolo 500 GPM multiversal was placed 150 feet up onto the debris field with the water stream directed into a void area nearby. Immediately, an enormous column of vapor began pouring from numerous areas throughout the debris field. This was a clear indication that PYROCOOL was draining deep into the debris pile and was reaching the seat of the fire. Lt. Mike Stein and Lt. Larry Monachelli of FDNY R&D coordinated the foam application with assistance from Mike Hagar, Chief of Fire Operations for Pyrocool Technologies, Inc. "It was obvious when we applied the PYROCOOL, that we achieved a rapid reduction in the temperature of the exposed steel, observed Lt. Stein. The application of PYROCOOL continued throughout the week at various locations, including the front section of the Federal Building and a lengthy attack on the debris pile at the South Tower which lasted over twenty-four hours. At the conclusion of the operation Deputy Chief Charles R. Blaich, Incident Command Chief of Logistics, noted, after viewing the latest thermal images, "where the PYROCOOL was applied the fires went out." The success of the PYROCOOL fire operation was due, in large measure, to the professionalism of FDNY WTC Incident Command and to FDNY personnel on site, who directed the operations with dignity and efficiency under the most demanding circumstances. Photographs from Ground Zero Robert E. Tinsley, Jr. *********** Because they had to dig their way through a mountain of rubble and until near the end all they used was water. I didn't say it wasn't a thermite TYPE reaction. In fact that's exactly what Dr Greening says it was. But the materials that made that reaction go didn't need to come from bombs because they were already present in large quantities in the rubble. You really should read Dr Greening's papers.
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
What do you mean by "fuel"? It is the thermite which burns. When it is gone, the reaction is over. So again, if thermite bombs brought down the WTC towers, what kept the molten steel in a molten state for more than 6 weeks?
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
Greening was only trying to explain why the towers collapsed. WTC 7 did not collapse for the same reason as the WTC towers. WTC 7 collapsed because debris from the collapsing towers damaged the building and started fires that burned without fire suppression for about 7 hours. But Jones didn't put it to the test. In the first two experiments all he did was drip molten aluminum onto a steel beam and concrete block. Here was Greening's response to Jones regarding those two tests: ************** From his http://www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf paper: "In spite of what I suggested in my January e-mail, namely simulations that reproduced conditions in the WTC fires and would thus be an acceptable test of my claims, Prof. Jones carries out two entirely different experiments: (i) Molten aluminum was poured onto a section of clean, dry, rusted steel. Because there were no violent reactions in these two tests, Prof. Jones concludes that my hypothesis is invalid! This conclusion is reached in spite of the fact that gypsum was not even tested, and none of the materials were pre-heated or crushed. Of all the parameters not duplicated in Prof. Jones' experiments I would argue that the crushing of the materials is one of the most important. Why? It is a well-known fact that solid-state reaction rates depend on the surface area of the reactants. A one kilogram block of concrete has a surface area of about 0.06 m^^2. The surface area of one kilogram of concrete crushed to 60 um particles has a surface area ... snip ... 67 m^^2. Crushed (pulverized) materials are much more reactive than solid blocks of material. **************** In the third test Jones claims to have crushed materials and dripped molten aluminum on them. But how finely did he crush them. He doesn't say. And he doesn't show you a photo of this test. And did he preheat the materials? He doesn't say. And I rather doubt it. In test four, Jones claims he dripped molten aluminum on a watery slurry of gypsum, concrete and plastic. Again, there are no details regarding how finely the material was crushed. There are not details to indicate how much water was actually used. And again there are no pictures of this test setup. Slurry can mean almost anything. Jones is not acting very "scientific". The reality is that he probably didn't recreate the environment well enough to do a valid test. Because he doesn't really understand what Dr Greening is talking about (after all, he's a sub-atomic particle physicist, not a chemist with metallurgical experience). And because he is a biased researcher hoping to create a test with a specific outcome. That's been his pattern all along since he first began concocting these tests. First of all, if you look at the video I provided earlier http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2991254740145858863&q=cameraplanet+9%2F11 you will see that Jones is incorrect in claiming that the material that fell from the towers was yellow or yellow white. It had more of an orange tint to it. And indeed, in other articles he has stated "In the videos of the molten metal falling from WTC2 just prior to its collapse, the falling liquid appears consistently orange, not just orange in spots and certainly not silvery.") Furthermore, numerous times in that video I provided one can see that the stream is in fact SILVER colored. This occurs from 12 seconds in the video to 33 seconds in the video. It is especially clear at about 32 seconds. You'll also see it from 57 seconds to a 67 seconds. And from 74 to 75 seconds, material can be seen pouring from the corner of the tower and that material is very clearly silver, not orange. And you know something else that Jones claims? In http://www.reopen911.org/BYU.htm he claims "We also recall that this molten metal, after falling approximately 150 meters (or yards) still retained a reddish orange color (see the last photograph, above). This is not the behavior of falling, molten aluminum." Again, that video I posted above proves he's a LIAR. That silver color shows up well within 150 meters of where it started falling. But at least he got the color correct. And why is the color difference between reddish orange and yellow-white important? Maybe this will give you a clue (and it probably is something Jones learned long after he'd made his initial claims that the color was orange. ******** http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/04/steven-jones-to-appear-on-view.html Thomas Eagar wrote: "Having said that, I think that the best way to refute the molten steel hypothesis is to inform people that molten metal is not the equal of molten steel. I have little doubt that some aluminum from the aircraft melted (about 1100 F for the alloys used and well within the capacity of the fires). As I noted in my article, some had suggested a thermite reaction and I indicated that the brilliant white light from burning Aluminum (about 4000 F) would have been unmistakable, but was not observed. The photos which I have seen by the conspiracy theorists which shows glowing metal, shows a red glow or a red orange glow. This is NOT molten steel. Anyone who has ever seen molten steel even in a small weld puddle knows that it it yellow white in color. As temperature increases we go from red (800-900 F) like a kitchen electric range heater (will not melt aluminum pots) to red orange (1100-1200 F- molten aluminum) to orange (1500-1800) to yellow (2000-2300) to yellow white (2500-2800- molten steel) to white (3000 F and above with increasing light intensity, like a tungsten incandescent light bulb.) If you put the temperatures into common sense colors that people know, then they can go back to Steven Jones' photos and anyone can conclude for themselves that the red or red orange glows that they say are molten steel is really just proof that they have never worked around molten metal. Welders, casters plumbers and many other professionals know the colors of molten metals and Prof Jones simply is an uninformed academic, who enjoys the attention that all of you are giving him. I do not care to bask in such "glory"." ***************** Jones is a LIAR whose story is changing over time. Furthermore, as Woods and Reynolds pointed out, the color is determined by the temperature, not the material. Just ignoring the data provided by Woods and Reynolds to support their assertion (which is what you did) is not a convincing response to it. And now I wonder if you will just ignore these additional examples of Jones' dishonesty. In his "Why Indeed Did the WTC Building Collapse?" paper he states "Moreover, there is recorded eyewitness testimony of the molten metal pools under both Towers and WTC 7; see: http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/12/why-was-there-molten-metal-under.html ." He is lying. Go to that source and you won't find one eyewitness claiming there were "pools" of molten metal. Not one. Here is another example that I found here: http://debunking911.com/jones.htm . This is a really good one so pay attention. Jones uses the following graphic in his presentations: He wants folks to think that is a hunk of solidified molten metal from one of those bogus "pools". But here's another photo of the same debris ... along with the caption that originally accompanied it: Jone is LIAR. That's not the slag from molten steel. And here's a closeup of the paper in that debris showing the paper with legible type: Jones LIED in claiming that object was slag from a molten pool of steel. And you are a fool if you take anything he claims at face value. And as http://debunking911.com/jones.htm concluded: "This is also an indictment against the other 77 scholars who continue to follow a leader who has shown such a lack of respect for truth. They also seem to have little use for proper research. They should have uncovered Jones' blatant errors in his work. I can excuse the average internet blogger but not people who make it a point to parade the word "scholar" around as if they know more than the rest. That's just shameful in my view."
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
Flow where? Perhaps structural elements had to deform (like floors sagging) before pools of aluminum could escape the confines of the structure. And by the way, I never claimed the aluminum was as 1500C.
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
someone wants to fight you. I say go for it!
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
The presence of sulphur at the WTC site is no mystery. Again, we need only listen to a REAL chemist rather than a sub-atomic particle physicist to see why. http://www.911myths.com/Sulfur.pdf Lame. We all know why you are defending Jones and the thermite bomb theory. When it comes to why the WTC structures collapsed and what did the damage at the Pentagon, it is not just "the government story". The fact is that almost without exception, structural engineers, material experts, demolition experts, experts in fire, seismologists and macro-world physicists around the world do not dispute the scenario laid out by NIST. That isn't to say there aren't good questions about other aspects of "the government story" regarding 9/11 but you will never get answers to those good questions if you persist in promoting the theories of KOOKS regarding the collapse of the WTC structures and the damage at the Pentagon. And how do you know that PYROCOOL FEF won't do that? And second, the reactions taking place in the structure and rubble, according to Dr Greening, were thermite-LIKE. So how do you know they would be as difficult to extinguish? Third, we don't know for a fact that the fires were due to thermite. It's only a theory. It's a well know fact that underground fires can get very hot and are very hard to put out. The bottom line is that you don't have a single expert in fire in your camp. NOT ONE. Wonder why ... ROTFLOL! Trying to muddy the waters even further?
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
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.
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
So tell us, Nolu, since you don't believe in Greening's thermite theory and the nuke theory is obvious nonsense, how do you explain molten steel (assuming that is what it was) 100 days after the collapse of the towers? If it wasn't just ordinary physics and fires that did it, what did? Because it certainly wasn't the thermite bombs which Jones insists brought down the WTC towers. Why are you ignoring this critical question? Because I ignored your USS Liberty red herring? ROTFLOL!
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
Let me see if I am reading all of this straight: 1. We now need some kind of "thermite" reaction in order to make the official version of the failures of the towers to work. 2. Any thermite reaction in the towers HAS to be the product of some kind of "accident" in order for the official version to work. 3. Arguing backword from the official version's conclusion, we make up the notion that thermite was accidentally produced by the INTRODUCTION OF THE AIRLINERS INTO THE TOWERS. The aluminum fuselages are now replacing the jet fuel as the missing ingredient to cause all of this to happen. The aluminum mixed with all the elements comprising the towers and: a. Produced a kind of accidental/homemade thermite. b. Produced enough of that accidental/homemade thermite to bring down BOTH towers. c. Introduction of the oft-used word "coincidence" is all that is missing for this fantastic challenge to laws of probability (BOTH towers got enough of the "magic" thermite?) to work. I don't know why we haven't read it yet. First, any SUGGESTION of thermite is a "kook" suggestion. Then, after Greening, or someone, discovers that there is something missing in order to preserve the official version, THERMITE, as long as it is an "accident," along with coincidence (BOTH towers and BOTH airliners had to produce enough of the "thermite," despite the South Tower losing a large percentage of the jet fuel) to collapse as they did. This surrender to the need for SOMETHING more to be added to the official version, especially thermite, in order to make the official version work, after the suggestion of thermite caused the defenders of the varied official versions over the years to "get the vapors." Now, thermite is the SAVIOR of the official version, as long as it is an "accident," or by-product of the original incident, the planes flying into the buildings. It is another hypothesis, but hypotheses are always enough if they buttress the official version. OTHER hypotheses are automatically false if they produce a contradictory conclusion.
But not from zones where the calculations show the temperatures were the highest. None of the samples they tested saw temperatures higher than that because they only tested samples that still had paint on them. This was necessary because the only robust test they found involved the condition of paint. And that test procedure could not be used on steel that saw temperatures of more than about 250 C. And note this. The samples they tested indicated peak temperatures that agreed with the temperatures calculated by their fire model in those locations of the towers. The tests actually validated the computer model results. In other locations, those same fire models indicated peak temperatures of more than 1800 F. What Mark can't fathom is that computer modeling is the STATE OF THE ART in determining peak temperatures in fires. And those codes have been validated against numerous actual cases during development.
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
Who is full of shit? You or NIST? One of you wants us to believe that without paint they would not be able to tell how the steel performed during the fire? The shit is so deep at the moment, that I need an extension ladder to see over the top of it.
Say, christine, do YOU have any clue what the continuing source of heat was that kept this molten steel you claim was at the WTC site in a molten state for weeks and weeks after the collapse of the towers? Or are you just playing cheerleader?
#76. To: nolu_chan, Red Jones, ALL (#71)
Of course, the fact that those I quoted do NOT rely on Christopher Bollyn, reduces your nonsense to the usual BAC poop.
#77. To: beachooser, nolu_chan, Robin, Minerva, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#76)
What you have to do is tell me what kept that steel molten for 6 weeks after the collapse. Is your theory that it was just well insulated and thus retained it's initial molten state?
#78. To: BeAChooser (#76)
Now deal with the fact that I'm not claiming molten steel didn't exist at the WTC site
#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
#80. To: nolu_chan, Red Jones, SKYDRIFTER, ALL (#77)
SKYDRIFTER - I've used thermite - it (and the metal it cooks) cool within hours - not days or weeks.
#81. To: BeAChooser (#79)
Zebuhr
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#82. To: BeAChooser (#80)
#83. To: BeAChooser (#79)
He relies on "soft" evidence like videos, eyewitnesses, planted evidence and unverified black boxes.
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#84. To: BeAChooser (#79)
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.
#85. To: BeAChooser (#80)
SKYDRIFTER - I've used thermite - it (and the metal it cooks) cool within hours - not days or weeks.
#86. To: BeAChooser (#79)
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.
It is suggested that molten aluminum initiated the global collapse of each Tower by burning through key structural supports in the impact zones. Molten aluminum-thermite reactions could explain the rapid intensification of the fires and the many detonations seen and heard moments before and during the collapse of each Tower. Molten aluminum-thermite explosions - reactions that are quite capable of shattering ceramic or metal molds during aluminum casting - would go a long way to explaining the much-debated pulverization of the WTC concrete.”
“Ah yes, the WTC 7 collapse! What can I say…… Since no aircraft hit WTC 7, I have no provable proposal for what brought that building down.”
“I therefore suggest an experimental resolution: The NIST fire tests, which were designed to simulate the conditions in WTC 1 & 2 after the aircraft impacts, should be repeated in a more realistic environment that includes shredded aluminum alloy 2024, crushed concrete and gypsum, water, rusted steel, aviation fuel, plastics, etc.... Then I want to see two thing [sic] happen: (i) The fires melt the aluminum, and (ii) The molten aluminum ignite violent, explosive reactions.”
“Modern airframes are invariably constructed from series 2000 aluminum alloys. Alloy 2024 is a typical example containing 93 % Al, 4.5 % Cu, 1.5 % Mg, and 0.5 % each of Mn and Fe. These metallic additions to aluminum lower the melting point of the alloy from a value of 660 ?C, for pure aluminum, to about 548 C for alloy 2024. This relatively low temperature indicates that the fires within the Twin Towers were quite capable of melting at least some of the Boeing 767 aluminum airframe structures remaining in the WTC before its collapse…
“Ah yes, the WTC 7 collapse! What can I say…… Since no aircraft hit WTC 7, I have no provable proposal for what brought that building down.”
“I therefore suggest an experimental resolution: The NIST fire tests, which were designed to simulate the conditions in WTC 1 & 2 after the aircraft impacts, should be repeated in a more realistic environment that includes shredded aluminum alloy 2024, crushed concrete and gypsum, water, rusted steel, aviation fuel, plastics, etc.... Then I want to see two thing [sic] happen: (i) The fires melt the aluminum, and (ii) The molten aluminum ignite violent, explosive reactions.”
“At 50 minutes, molten aluminum forms and starts to flow from the airframe in WTC 2. ?The molten aluminum re-ignites some of the smoldering fires and rapidly burns through other combustible materials that survived the initial conflagration. Molten aluminum also falls onto concrete, gypsum and rusted steel surfaces inducing violent thermite explosions, dispersing globules of molten metal and igniting new fires. The extreme heat generated by the molten aluminum rapidly weakens already damaged steel columns and trusses in the impact zone causing local slumping and partial collapse.” [1]
“As previously noted, the combination of water and metal oxide bonding in concrete makes this material very susceptible to explosive reactions in the molten aluminum.” [1]
#87. To: nolu_chan, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#84)
#88. To: BeAChooser (#79)
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?"
Just in case Greening was right, the students and I stood well back from the heated and very rusty angle-iron as Wesley Lifferth poured molten aluminum onto the rusted steel surface (see photos). Lifferth has had considerable experience with aluminum and had never seen “violent thermite” reactions or explosions of any kind while working with molten aluminum, so he was willing to pour the molten aluminum without special precautions.
#89. To: nolu_chan, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#86)
" ..... to about 548 C for alloy 2024. "
#90. To: SKYDRIFTER (#87)
In the Army and National Guard, we got to play with ordnance on different occasions - including thermite grenades.
#91. To: nolu_chan (#90)
#92. To: BeAChooser (#79)
There is no reason to eliminate aluminum as the liquid flowing from the south tower ....
#93. To: SKYDRIFTER (#89)
So, pour that melted alumimum over steel and you have a heat-sink, which will cool the aluminum very rapidly. There will be no 2,700 plus degrees, necessary to collapse the buildings at essentially free-fall rates.
#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.
#95. To: nolu_chan (#93)
#96. To: BeAChooser (#79)
So tell us, BeAChihuahua, how do you extinguish a thermite reaction in a mountain of steel?
More than three months later, fires extinguished at WTC
I suppose water is a chemical agent. However, after three months, pockets might have been still burning.
#97. To: SKYDRIFTER (#95)
The implication is that molten steel from a cutting torch would induce a "thermite reaction." (Rubbish!)
#98. To: BeAChooser, Red Jones (#79)
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.
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.
#99. To: BeAChooser (#79)
#100. To: nolu_chan (#99)
#101. To: nolu_chan, ALL (#84)
"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."
WHAT did they use... and WHY did it take so long.
President & CEO
PYROCOOL TECHNOLOGIES
MONROE, VIRGINIA U.S.A.
(434) 929-3352 The fire burned as long as it burned. Please explain how the fire continued to burn as long as it did.
If it was NOT a thermite reaction, WHY do you allege they used chemical agents to extinguish a thermite reaction?
#102. To: nolu_chan, ALL (#85)
The thermite reaction will continue as long as it has fuel.
#103. To: nolu_chan, ALL (#86)
When challenged by Dr. Jones about Tower #7, he retreats:
“Ah yes, the WTC 7 collapse! What can I say…… Since no aircraft hit WTC 7, I have no provable proposal for what brought that building down.”
Dr. Greening made a proposal:
“I therefore suggest an experimental resolution: The NIST fire tests, which were designed to simulate the conditions in WTC 1 & 2 after the aircraft impacts, should be repeated in a more realistic environment that includes shredded aluminum alloy 2024, crushed concrete and gypsum, water, rusted steel, aviation fuel, plastics, etc.... Then I want to see two thing [sic] happen: (i) The fires melt the aluminum, and (ii) The molten aluminum ignite violent, explosive reactions.”
Gee, look what happened when Dr. Jones put it to the test:
(ii) Molten aluminum was poured onto a clean, dry, concrete block. Finally, the use of thermite or a derivative such as thermate is consistent with the observation of yellow-white hot molten metal observed falling in large “drops” from the northeast corner of WTC 2 (the South Tower), just prior to its collapse. (See http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Thermite2.htm .) We note that aluminum has many free electrons, so it reflects ambient light very well -- and it appears "silvery". Aluminum at about 1000 C will emit yellow light (incandescense) the same as iron, but in daylight (as on the morning of 9/11/2001), the molten aluminum would appear silvery due to high reflectivity combined with low emissivity, while molten iron would appear yellow (as seen in the video record.) Moreover, aluminum from a plane would melt at approximately 550-650 C, and would flow away from the heat source, and thus would be very unlikely to reach 1000 C at all. Thus, the observed molten metal flowing from WTC 2 on 9/11 cannot be aluminum but could be molten iron from the thermite reaction.
"Large pieces of debris, likened to meteorites by preservationists, are actually several floors of the towers compressed together as the buildings collapsed. Furniture, twisted metal, pipes, cords and even papers with legible type are visible. The pieces are kept in a humidity-controlled tent in Hangar 17 of Kennedy International Airport.
(Photo by Lane Johnson)" 
#104. To: nolu_chan, ALL (#92)
Aluminum melts at a much lower temperature than 1500°C. If it melted high up in a WTC fire, it would not hang around to reach 1500°C, it would flow away.
#105. To: BeAChooser (#103)
#106. To: nolu_chan, ALL (#93)
the presence of sulphur
Regardless of how many times BAC attributes some theory to me, I have NOT stated why the towers collapsed. I HAVE stated I do not know why the towers collapsed.
I do not find the government story compelling.
Magic BAC chemical agents may fertilize a magic BAC beanstalk, but I doubt they will extinguish a thermite reaction.
A Finnish source provides an interesting speculation about the use of a small pure hydrogen bomb in addition to cutting charges.
#107. To: nolu_chan, ALL (#94)
Here is your answer. An Israeli fusion device would do it!
#108. To: nolu_chan, ALL (#98)
#109. To: nolu_chan (#98)
#110. To: Kamala, ALL (#100)
NIST had a total of 236 samples of steel. 136 were distinct samples, many from the fire zones.
No steel sample saw temps higher than around 487F.
Here is the bottom line with the NIST, tweeked computer models and trumped up workstation model burn tests, are nothing more than voodoo witchcraft.
#111. To: BeAChooser (#110)
None of the samples they tested saw temperatures higher than that because they only tested samples that still had paint on them. This was necessary because the only robust test they found involved the condition of paint. And that test procedure could not be used on steel that saw temperatures of more than about 250 C.
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#112. To: BeAChooser (#110)
Nothing there, except for a hole in the ground!
"You can not save the Constitution by destroying it."
#113. To: roughrider, nolu_chan, ALL (#109)
No, I didn't say that. I don't see any experts in fire, anywhere in the world, stressing about the high temperatures found in the WTC rubble. Perhaps they think that ordinary fire under those conditions could actually be very hot and hard to put out. Also, I don't see ANY of them suggesting that steel couldn't melt under those conditions. I'm all ears, if you know of any that do dispute that. I'm all ears if you can name any that have actually joined this so-called *truth* movement. But that doesn't rule out the possibility that a thermite like reaction occurred in the rubble or perhaps even in the towers. Dr Greening makes some very good points (and he's not the only chemist who has remarked about that possibility). And Ex-Professor Jones is a demonstrable, serial LIAR. He has NO background in any of this. He's a sub-atomic particle physicist and he should have remained one. No. It's Occam's Razor. IF there were a thermite reaction in the rubble (and we don't really know if there was), and IF the materials that produce thermite are readily available in the rubble (making Jones' claim that they prove the existance of bombs foolish), then the most likely explanation is Dr Greening's, rather than the silly assertion that thermite bombs were placed everywhere throughout the towers. Occam's Razor is not on the side that has to claim no one noticed the placement of all these charges and no one (among the hundreds or thousands who must know the truth) has yet blown the whistle. And I'm still waiting to hear their theory of what kept steel molten in the rubble for 6 weeks because it certainly wasn't thermite bombs that went off on 9/11. But it could be Dr Greening's theory or those ordinary fire physics that none of the fire experts seem to have challenged. Oh no. Are you going to start counting angels on the heads of pins again? Not at all. The NIST scenario does not need thermite to collapse the towers. The only issue is where the molten steel (if that's what it was) in the rubble came from. Was it produced during the collapse, afterwords or both? I don't think it was even necessary for Dr Greening to try and explain the collapse of the towers with his theory. NIST's explanation is fine. The material seen flowing out of ONE of the towers many minutes before it collapsed (say, roughrider ... did they set off those thermite bombs minutes before the collapse and it still took minutes for the towers to collapse?) may or may not be steel. A lot of REAL experts seem to think the material was aluminum. And that has a certain logic since the remains of the airplane's fuselage came to rest in the corner of the tower where the stream of molten material was seen and it was very hot in that corner (according to the fire code models that NIST developed). As to the molten materials in the rubble, they may or may not have been steel. I'm willing to believe some of it was. But so what? We know you can melt steel with wood under certain conditions. NONE of the experts in fire have come forward to say it was impossible that ordinary fires in the rubble (and there were plenty of combustibles and sources of air in the rubble) did that. But if they didn't, then there is still the possibility that a thermite-like reaction took place along the lines postulated by Dr Greening and others. So there is no inconsistency in this view.
1. We now need some kind of "thermite" reaction in order to make the official version of the failures of the towers to work.
2. Any thermite reaction in the towers HAS to be the product of some kind of "accident" in order for the official version to work.
3. Arguing backword from the official version's conclusion,
Now, thermite is the SAVIOR of the official version
---------------------------------------------------------
Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
#114. To: BeAChooser (#113)
There's that shill term again. Why do fairy tale believers always use that term?
No. It's Occam's Razor.
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#115. To: Critter, ALL (#111)
http://www.boulder.nist.gov/div853/highlight_WTC2004.htm "Task 5 — Analyze Steel to Estimate Temperature, Just as the nature of the deformation and failure of the recovered steel reveals information about the impact and collapse, the steel can also contain evidence of its exposure to the elevated temperatures in the fire. The situation is made more complex because much of the steel was also exposed to extended fires in the rubble before recovery. Several different methods, both conventional and novel, were examined for estimating high-temperature excursions seen by the steel. Only one method proved to be robust and easy to implement: paint on steels that reached temperatures over 250 °C cracked from the difference in thermal expansion between the paint and the steel." And you might also want to take a look at this: http://wtc.nist.gov/media/P3MechanicalandMetAnalysisofSteel.pdf
Who is full of shit? You or NIST?
One of you wants us to believe that without paint they would not be able to tell how the steel performed during the fire?
---------------------------------------------------------
Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
.
.
.
Comments (116 - 157) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest