- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Thermate in WTC
Thermate in WTCFollow
Claimed in the name of AABC
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
gbaji wrote:
Let me get this straight. Basically, this professor found traces of manganese on the steel, and so he concludes that there must have been thermite used as explosives to collapse the building?
Bit of a stretch, don't you think? And really crappy sceince. He needs to show that this is the most likely explanation for the material, not just that it's a possibility. We're talking about a *really* large pair of buildings. With a bunch of stuff in them. I'm pretty sure you'll find trace amounts of virtually every element under the sun on that steel.
Oh. And stop saying that building fell at free-fall speed. It didn't. The makers of the Loose Change video just said it and you (and other CTs just swallow it without spending a half second's brainpower). Watch the video. See the debris falling? Notice it's falling *faster* then the building is collapsing?
Even demolitioned buildings don't fall at free-fall speed. Can't. Ok. They can, but only if you perfectly time your demolitions to blow every single floor support out at the exact same time. No one does this, and the tiny number of flashes seen when the WTC buildings fell are nowhere near what you'd see if this happened. Watch actual footage of a demolition sometime. You don't see random flashes coming out of windows. You see neat ordered lines of flashes firing in a precise pattern and order. Because that's what has to happen for a demolition to work.
The flashes and debris expulsion is completely explained by overpressure. In fact every single thing seen or witnessed is consistent with a building that collapsed as a result of a large fully fueled 757 plowing into it.
Bit of a stretch, don't you think? And really crappy sceince. He needs to show that this is the most likely explanation for the material, not just that it's a possibility. We're talking about a *really* large pair of buildings. With a bunch of stuff in them. I'm pretty sure you'll find trace amounts of virtually every element under the sun on that steel.
Oh. And stop saying that building fell at free-fall speed. It didn't. The makers of the Loose Change video just said it and you (and other CTs just swallow it without spending a half second's brainpower). Watch the video. See the debris falling? Notice it's falling *faster* then the building is collapsing?
Even demolitioned buildings don't fall at free-fall speed. Can't. Ok. They can, but only if you perfectly time your demolitions to blow every single floor support out at the exact same time. No one does this, and the tiny number of flashes seen when the WTC buildings fell are nowhere near what you'd see if this happened. Watch actual footage of a demolition sometime. You don't see random flashes coming out of windows. You see neat ordered lines of flashes firing in a precise pattern and order. Because that's what has to happen for a demolition to work.
The flashes and debris expulsion is completely explained by overpressure. In fact every single thing seen or witnessed is consistent with a building that collapsed as a result of a large fully fueled 757 plowing into it.
Nobody said anything about trace amounts of manganese. I don't have any source material where he documents the proportions of the different elements. Apparently last I heard he's in the process of testing different samples in order to document a more accurate quantitative analysis. I concede that it's premature to use this evidence in debate before documents are available, but on the same note what he's done thus far is certainly crucially important and should be discussed.
You quoted me inaccurately that I said the buildings fell at free-fall speed. Actually I said "close to free fall speed". The fact that the debris fell slightly faster then the mass of the building doesn't detract from the fact that the building fell at a speed close to free fall.
As for your statement that "every single thing seen or witnessed is consistant with a building that collapsed as a result of a large fully fuiled 757 plowing into it", I'd like to see an example of a plane crashing into a skyscraper and causing it to fall that shows what would happen if a plane crashed into a steel framed skyscraper that was designed to withstand such collisions. The only thing I'm aware of that comes close is when a plane hit the empire state building, however the building didn't collapse. If you can't give a historical precident for such an event, perhaps you can explain what leads you to posit such a theory.
eske wrote:
Firstly, most of the quotes that you cited me for up there weren't my own. They were part of someone else's quote that I posted in full, but really for only a few selected lines. So I'll consider that for the most part a moot point.
I appologise, I didn't realise that you wheren't the oringal person who posted the message you quoted. However, I still think most of the points I brought up are pretinent since you promoted his material.
eske wrote:
If you support the idea that the Trade Centers were blown up by demolition charges, then me saying that you're advocating a massive government conspiracy really shouldn't be that out of line.
I am advocating a general theory that high ranking members within our government are complicit in the 9/11 attacks. There are however many sub-theories that many people advocate about 9/11 that I don't support and that's what I was reffering to when I said not to pigeon-hole me. (I was addressing points #2 and #3 mostly from the quote that you posted, not what you posted subsequently)
eske wrote:
But I can see by the way that you responded that this is going to go the way of the last time this was argued, where you feign back and start ignoring points made against you. I already mentioned a few inconsistencies which you didn't address. If the government wished to use 9/11 as a way to scapegoat Iraq for an invasion for oil, then why even bother citing Osama Bin Laden and attacking Afghanistan? Isn't that completely illogical?
I don't think that the Bush administration was simply concerned with taking over iraq to secure it's oil. I think that they're interested in dominating the middle east in order to retain our position as the world's greatest superpower. A war on terror is perfect for this reason because they can accuse anyone to be a terrorist or in league with terrorists and engage with them as they did with Iraq. This perpetual war serves many purposes in forming policy and creating a divide internally where people against the war on terror can be equated with terrorists and persecuted. I don't have an in depth understanding of the history of Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda so I can't comment on why I think they where scapegoated in particular other then the fact that they're illusive and decompartmentalized and can thus sustain a long protracted engagement with no immediate end in sight.
It's also very possible that we have vested interest in Afganistan. It's a documented fact that the CIA has been running drugs for some time. Al-Qaeda was halting the production of poppys for herione in afganistan and after they where drivin out the heroine production resumed. We also rewarded local drug lords there for them helping us to drive them out.
And who's to say that targeting Osama would hurt our vested interests in Iraq anyways. Bush and crew certainly did a good job linking the two together and causing hordes of americans to believe that Iraq supported Al Qaeda.
link
Quote:
I'll be a little more specific about what I mean by the faulty risk/reward of the supposed government conspiracy to blow up the towers. An operation like this has MASSIVE risk, because of its horrific, large-scale, and public nature. Thousands of people between the government, airlines, media, rescue workers, and general citizenry would have to be privy to it for it run smoothly. Only one of these people would need to come forward to implicate the conspirators.
I disagree that many people would have to privy to what's going on in order to make something like this happen. What makes you think this? As I mentioned erlier, through decompartmentalization this can be made possible, as well as through classification of documents and evidence in interests of "nationtal security, as well as through "regime change", posting insiders at strategic positions in order to control the different branches of government.
The fact that Norad had war games going on in which the *exact same thing* was happening in the war games as in real life in effect confusing reality with fiction is evidence of one way in which those on a lower rung on the chain of command where kept from interferring with what was happening. Not to mention the dynamics with Cheney and the officer identified in the Mineta testimony. And it's not that people within the government *aren't* speaking up. They are, and they're being punished for it.
Quote:
And what would all this risk be for? To invade Iraq? But the government's primary rationale for the war at the time of invasion was WMD's. Why would the government use this rationale if 9/11 was supposed to be their motivation? Wouldn't they have had a plan in place which tied 9/11 directly to Iraq in the first place? When the government finally did try to implicate Iraq in 9/11, they cited an indirect correlation about harboring terrorists, and ended up fumbling the ball when many people questioned it.
You expect me to believe that the government has enough confidence in its ability to control so many factors among so many people and groups that it enacted the most cunning conspiracy in our history, but then had the ham-handedness to not even utilize the supposed benefits to their advantage properly.
I mean, if the government is capable of what you think it is, then why would tens of thousands of "internet scholars" be able to debunk the conspiracy from the comfort of their living rooms? You alternate between thinking that the government is the greatest set of masterminds ever assembled, to a bunch of incompetents with itchy trigger fingers.
You expect me to believe that the government has enough confidence in its ability to control so many factors among so many people and groups that it enacted the most cunning conspiracy in our history, but then had the ham-handedness to not even utilize the supposed benefits to their advantage properly.
I mean, if the government is capable of what you think it is, then why would tens of thousands of "internet scholars" be able to debunk the conspiracy from the comfort of their living rooms? You alternate between thinking that the government is the greatest set of masterminds ever assembled, to a bunch of incompetents with itchy trigger fingers.
The fact that "internet scholars" are the only ones to confront much of the crucial evidence around this event exemplifies the degree to which things are being controlled. And have you been following the privitization of the internet? PNAC talks about the need to control outerspace as well as cyberspace. Don't think it can't happen, if we don't put up a fight as many of us are doing.
I think I address most of this point about the supposed incompetence involved in choosing to blame 9/11 on Al-Qaeda rather than Iraq when I talk about the global interests of PNAC which isn't localized to just Iraq (which is an important strategic military position for an extended war in the middle east). I haven't implied that these people are inept, and I think that they're choice to blame a vauge enemy called "terrorists" as the culpret of 9/11 rather than an enemy that, once defeated, would mark the end of the influence that such a false flag operation would hold is quite effective. Not to mention the fact that terrorism is a mold that can be filled by those of us in the US who disagree with the government's policies. (just look up domestic terrorism under the patriot act). As I've mentioned before, declassified documents show greenpeace and PITA as "ecoterrorists" and can be treated under the laws of the patriot act (extremely unconstitutionally I might add). It seems like a pretty comprehensive strategy to me.
The fact that they could distort such information as WMD's and Iraq/terrorist connections long enouph to succeed in carrying out thier objective in Iraq shows that they do have significant power to drive public opinion and despite the fact that there's such low support currently they seem to be undeterred in carrying out thier global policies. (and btw, I personally think the most cunning conspiracy thus far has been Hitler's Germany, but I don't think it's impossible for history to repeat itself)
Edited, Jul 15th 2006 at 2:49am EDT by Dronadesh
mrwookie wrote:
Is it that hard to accept that Bush, or one of his aides, realized that they could use the 9/11 tragedy to push their own agenda after the fact?
Or is it easier to believe that there was this massive government conspiracy that had to involve hundreds of people, thousands of pounds of explosives (plus the knowledge of how to perfectly place them), and coordination with terrorists who were going to hijack planes and fly them into buildings? Oh, and hope, pray, bribe, or kill these hundreds of people, who had to be involved in the conspiracy, to not tell anyone? (And no one legitimate has in the last 5 years).
And out of sheer curiousity, just what is your explanation of the other two jets? You know the one that crashed into the Pentagon (there is an easy place to plant all of those explosives) and the one that was going to hit the White House or Capital building? Were they part of the president's grand scheme too?
Look, we all know Bush is a potlicker, but give me a break if you seriously think he had 1.the intelligence to pull that off or 2.the ability to keep such an action quiet all these years.
Or is it easier to believe that there was this massive government conspiracy that had to involve hundreds of people, thousands of pounds of explosives (plus the knowledge of how to perfectly place them), and coordination with terrorists who were going to hijack planes and fly them into buildings? Oh, and hope, pray, bribe, or kill these hundreds of people, who had to be involved in the conspiracy, to not tell anyone? (And no one legitimate has in the last 5 years).
And out of sheer curiousity, just what is your explanation of the other two jets? You know the one that crashed into the Pentagon (there is an easy place to plant all of those explosives) and the one that was going to hit the White House or Capital building? Were they part of the president's grand scheme too?
Look, we all know Bush is a potlicker, but give me a break if you seriously think he had 1.the intelligence to pull that off or 2.the ability to keep such an action quiet all these years.
In showing how Bush & Co. benefited from 9/11 I wasn't trying use that as proof that they did it but rather as proof that they had a motive to do it.
As far as what I think happened to the other 2 planes, I think that the one in shanksville got shot down (as there was debris scattered for miles and locals reported seeing a fighter jet). As far as the pentagon, I haven't come to any conclusions. I deffinatly think there where some type of explosives, be it from a rocket or planted explosives, as military officials claimed smallling cordite (gun powder) as well as experiencing an shock wave as can be experienced with high powered explosives. The hole in the inner wall of the pentagon sugests some type of rocket, but I really haven't come to any conclusions. (particularly in whether a boing 757 could have fit through the small hole that existed before the collapse. I've seen a diagram that accomidated that possibility pretty nicely) And of course there's the problem of where the people in the planes would have gone if they didn't crash (granted however, it's not impossible for the government to put operatives on a flght and have thier identity erased, as outlined in Operation Northwoods which is a declassified false flag operation that was rejected by the president)
If you want some really good material on false flag operations and proof that the government is capable of such things, check this out.
Dronadesh, that the guy you are quoting came from BYU-- a university based on the teaching about a guy who supposedly found some golden plates in the Northeastern dirt which told him he had to marry a bajillion wives in a land populated by a bunch of Jewish Indians --not exactly a school that has set the academic and scientific bar very high.
Now as to the reason the steel beams succumbed to thermite is because they weren't wrapped in holy underwear which would have protected them from the fiery airplanes of the Devil. Everybody in southern Utah knows that.
Totem
Now as to the reason the steel beams succumbed to thermite is because they weren't wrapped in holy underwear which would have protected them from the fiery airplanes of the Devil. Everybody in southern Utah knows that.
Totem
kaolian wrote:
Occams razor. We know a plane hit the buildings, we know they collapsed shortly thereafter, we know that it would be absurdly difficult to get thermite charges in place, not to mention detonate them without running your onw control wires, or wirelessly which would have been picked up.
occams razor doesn't mean simplifying and consolitating the sources that you recieve information, it means finding the simplest interpretation that accomidates all the available evidence. The only explanation that you've given to me that accomidates the evidence presented by me rivals the single bullet theory in it's level of obfuscation and in no way applies the principles of occams razor.
/sigh
The only conspiracy theory worth pursuing is the one that has IGE executives rubbing their hands together in glee knowing that admins allow idiots to come out of the woodwork from the FFXI forums and post dumb **** like thermite being found on World Trade Center structures in the Asylum. No one can prove it, but we anecdotally see the results here on a daily basis.
Totem
The only conspiracy theory worth pursuing is the one that has IGE executives rubbing their hands together in glee knowing that admins allow idiots to come out of the woodwork from the FFXI forums and post dumb **** like thermite being found on World Trade Center structures in the Asylum. No one can prove it, but we anecdotally see the results here on a daily basis.
Totem
Isn't there a rule where you can't post more than one response in a row? Three in a row from the same person continually spouting the same innane nonsense is a bit much for me 
Dronadesh wrote:
The fact that "internet scholars" are the only ones to confront much of the crucial evidence around this event exemplifies the degree to which things are being controlled.
I mentioned before -- find me a couple more independent labs that can conclusively test and say there was thermate on the steel and you might have something more credible than a single loon going on about how the government blew up the WTC with controlled demolitions and "proving" it by dumping aluminum on a metal bar. It's that easy. Isn't that the basis for developing evidence to support a credible theory? Multiple and independent tests? Why hasn't it been done? Why am I reading paragraph after paragraph of regurgitated ramblings from a single guy? Why does is every single article about thermate on the WTC attached to Jones's name?
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Kao, drop some thermate on this post already.
Quote:
Kao, drop some thermate on this post already.
For the love of God yes.
Awww, I was waiting for the chemist guy to come back first though. can't i keep it up just a little longer?
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
No, no, no. Kao only kills my attempts to innocently claim pages - bloody killjoy - not anything USEFUL like you're asking. It won't happen.
Edited, Jul 15th 2006 at 1:26pm EDT by EvilGnomes
Edited, Jul 15th 2006 at 1:26pm EDT by EvilGnomes
Hmm... where to begin.
Lets start with Stephen Jones. As someone posted earlier, Jones claims that he issued his paper to peer review which included 'engineers'. Notice he doesn't say what 'type' of engineer. For all we know, he's just talking about the guy that conducts his train on Jone's commute home.
The foremost experts in the world on building collapses are structural engineers. Hundreds of stuctural engineers studied the wtc collapses. I've never come across even ONE that supports the rigged explosives theory. Here's a list to about 30 structural engineer explanations for the collapses, including the ONLY paper on the collapses to pass relevent peer review.
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/paper.htm
Being that structural engineers are the foremost experts on building collapses, shouldn't Prof. Jones be interested in what they have to say about the subject? If Jones' is really searching for 'truth' in regards to the WTC collapses, THEN WHY IS HE AVOIDING THE MOST RELEVENT EXPERTS ON THE SUBJECT? He's avoiding structural engineers like they're the bubonic plague. Seems strange doesn't it?
In fact, Jones' website "911 scholards for truth" DOESN'T INCLUDE EVEN A SINGLE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER. What's the most numerous profession on his webpage? You guessed it. PHILOSOPHERS!!!! It's all laughable, isn't it? Can you believe that people like Jones' have actually succeeded in fooling some people?
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/jones.htm
Also, I'd like to point out that Stephen Jones is a Physicist, not a CHEMIST. When it comes to the subject of chemistry, who would you trust more? A physicist, or a man with a PHD in CHEMISTRY?
Because, guess what? Here's a CHEMISTRY PROFESSOR who calls BUL#&@T on Stephen Jones Thermite lies.
http://www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf
Lets start with Stephen Jones. As someone posted earlier, Jones claims that he issued his paper to peer review which included 'engineers'. Notice he doesn't say what 'type' of engineer. For all we know, he's just talking about the guy that conducts his train on Jone's commute home.
The foremost experts in the world on building collapses are structural engineers. Hundreds of stuctural engineers studied the wtc collapses. I've never come across even ONE that supports the rigged explosives theory. Here's a list to about 30 structural engineer explanations for the collapses, including the ONLY paper on the collapses to pass relevent peer review.
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/paper.htm
Being that structural engineers are the foremost experts on building collapses, shouldn't Prof. Jones be interested in what they have to say about the subject? If Jones' is really searching for 'truth' in regards to the WTC collapses, THEN WHY IS HE AVOIDING THE MOST RELEVENT EXPERTS ON THE SUBJECT? He's avoiding structural engineers like they're the bubonic plague. Seems strange doesn't it?
In fact, Jones' website "911 scholards for truth" DOESN'T INCLUDE EVEN A SINGLE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER. What's the most numerous profession on his webpage? You guessed it. PHILOSOPHERS!!!! It's all laughable, isn't it? Can you believe that people like Jones' have actually succeeded in fooling some people?
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/jones.htm
Also, I'd like to point out that Stephen Jones is a Physicist, not a CHEMIST. When it comes to the subject of chemistry, who would you trust more? A physicist, or a man with a PHD in CHEMISTRY?
Because, guess what? Here's a CHEMISTRY PROFESSOR who calls BUL#&@T on Stephen Jones Thermite lies.
http://www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf
More importantly, just why, exactly, would the government actually destroy the World Trade Center? Yeah, yeah, I hear you freaks and weirdos who continue to believe any and all governments are inherently evil that the diabolical George W. Bush is Satan personified and thus would instinctively want to indiscriminately kill people. Ok, aside from that obviously stupid premise (and you know who you are who secretly believe that at the bottom of your goofy hearts), just why go through such machinations? There are any other number of equally (heheh) plausable (guffaw!) scenarios which would involve a whole lot more destruction and fewer people to employ.
Moreover, just how do you manage to keep all the people you have involved quiet? Lol, people being what they are, they can't keep any secret secret, period, much less one where literally thousands of people would have to be in on the hijinks.
Like every other wacky conspiracy theory (JFK's assasination, the space shuttle explosion, etc) the means by which to carry it off is simply impossible. This one is no different. And the fact that Dron believes that it has validity just goes to prove how gullible and childishly foolsih he is. Fortunately for scam artists everywhere, there are plenty of people like him who are perfectly willing to hand their life savings to these folks to purchase swamp land, bridges in Brooklyn, and other questionable investments.
Good job punching yourself in the balls, Dron!
Totem
Moreover, just how do you manage to keep all the people you have involved quiet? Lol, people being what they are, they can't keep any secret secret, period, much less one where literally thousands of people would have to be in on the hijinks.
Like every other wacky conspiracy theory (JFK's assasination, the space shuttle explosion, etc) the means by which to carry it off is simply impossible. This one is no different. And the fact that Dron believes that it has validity just goes to prove how gullible and childishly foolsih he is. Fortunately for scam artists everywhere, there are plenty of people like him who are perfectly willing to hand their life savings to these folks to purchase swamp land, bridges in Brooklyn, and other questionable investments.
Good job punching yourself in the balls, Dron!
Totem
Totem wrote:
More importantly, just why, exactly, would the government actually destroy the World Trade Center? Yeah, yeah, I hear you freaks and weirdos who continue to believe any and all governments are inherently evil that the diabolical George W. Bush is Satan personified and thus would instinctively want to indiscriminately kill people. Ok, aside from that obviously stupid premise (and you know who you are who secretly believe that at the bottom of your goofy hearts), just why go through such machinations? There are any other number of equally (heheh) plausable (guffaw!) scenarios which would involve a whole lot more destruction and fewer people to employ.
Moreover, just how do you manage to keep all the people you have involved quiet? Lol, people being what they are, they can't keep any secret secret, period, much less one where literally thousands of people would have to be in on the hijinks.
Like every other wacky conspiracy theory (JFK's assasination, the space shuttle explosion, etc) the means by which to carry it off is simply impossible. This one is no different. And the fact that Dron believes that it has validity just goes to prove how gullible and childishly foolsih he is. Fortunately for scam artists everywhere, there are plenty of people like him who are perfectly willing to hand their life savings to these folks to purchase swamp land, bridges in Brooklyn, and other questionable investments.
Good job punching yourself in the balls, Dron!
Totem
Moreover, just how do you manage to keep all the people you have involved quiet? Lol, people being what they are, they can't keep any secret secret, period, much less one where literally thousands of people would have to be in on the hijinks.
Like every other wacky conspiracy theory (JFK's assasination, the space shuttle explosion, etc) the means by which to carry it off is simply impossible. This one is no different. And the fact that Dron believes that it has validity just goes to prove how gullible and childishly foolsih he is. Fortunately for scam artists everywhere, there are plenty of people like him who are perfectly willing to hand their life savings to these folks to purchase swamp land, bridges in Brooklyn, and other questionable investments.
Good job punching yourself in the balls, Dron!
Totem
It might be because I am drunk but that was funny.
polio wrote:
Being that structural engineers are the foremost experts on building collapses, shouldn't Prof. Jones be interested in what they have to say about the subject? If Jones' is really searching for 'truth' in regards to the WTC collapses, THEN WHY IS HE AVOIDING THE MOST RELEVENT EXPERTS ON THE SUBJECT? He's avoiding structural engineers like they're the bubonic plague. Seems strange doesn't it?
In fact, Jones' website "911 scholards for truth" DOESN'T INCLUDE EVEN A SINGLE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER. What's the most numerous profession on his webpage? You guessed it. PHILOSOPHERS!!!! It's all laughable, isn't it? Can you believe that people like Jones' have actually succeeded in fooling some people?
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/jones.htm
In fact, Jones' website "911 scholards for truth" DOESN'T INCLUDE EVEN A SINGLE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER. What's the most numerous profession on his webpage? You guessed it. PHILOSOPHERS!!!! It's all laughable, isn't it? Can you believe that people like Jones' have actually succeeded in fooling some people?
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/jones.htm
It would appear that you have inaccurate information. There are in fact structural engineers in scholars for 9/11 truth as well as experts from other very relevant fields.
Ted Muga - Structural Engineer, Comercial Pilot, Naval Aviator
Michael Lovingier - Structural Engineer
Judy D. Wood - Civil Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Engineering Mechanics, and Materials Engineering Science
Ken Wrenu - Civil Engineer
David Griscom - Materials Science and Engineering
Jeffery Farer - Materials Science
Eric Hermanson - Egineering Physics
Brian Duncan - Fire Protection Engineer
Michael Gass - Airforce Explosives Ordanance, Disposal Specialist, Bomb Disposal Technician
Other members have degrees in relevant fields such as aeronotics, aeronotical engineering, architecture, chemistry, physics, chemical enginering, physics of optical materials, comparative and international politics, political science, political psychology, investigative and forensic psychology, forensic pathology, forensic ecomonics, criminal profiling, law, international law, statistical research, and other diverse fields of study.
Polio wrote:
Also, I'd like to point out that Stephen Jones is a Physicist, not a CHEMIST. When it comes to the subject of chemistry, who would you trust more? A physicist, or a man with a PHD in CHEMISTRY?
Because, guess what? Here's a CHEMISTRY PROFESSOR who calls BUL#&@T on Stephen Jones Thermite lies.
http://www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf
Because, guess what? Here's a CHEMISTRY PROFESSOR who calls BUL#&@T on Stephen Jones Thermite lies.
http://www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf
As I've noted before, Jones is also an expert in the field of archaeometry, part of which involves chemical analysis to ascertain the history of a particular place. And furthermore, to accept one person's opinion above another based on thier official qualifications can be an alternative to addressing the actual evidence they present.
On that note, perhaps you'd like to take a look at Jones' response to Frank Greening's material which you've linked to.
Jone's experiments with molten aluminum
polio wrote:
The foremost experts in the world on building collapses are structural engineers. Hundreds of stuctural engineers studied the wtc collapses. I've never come across even ONE that supports the rigged explosives theory. Here's a list to about 30 structural engineer explanations for the collapses, including the ONLY paper on the collapses to pass relevent peer review.
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/paper.htm
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/paper.htm
As far as the Bazant and Zhou paper that you linked to, in the paper they claim that "This paper presents a simplified approximate analysis of the overall collapse of the towers of World Trade Center in New York on September 11, 2001." Jones does respond to thier paper here stating that they in no way show how temperatures could have reached the 800 degrees celcius that they claimed melted the support beams. And concerning WTC 7 Jones had this to say:
As for WTC 7, Bazant & Zhou say little but mention in a separate “addendum†that burning natural gas might have been a source of the needed heat (Bazant and Zhou, March 2002, p. 370). The FEMA report (FEMA, 2002) addresses this issue:
Early news reports had indicated that a high pressure, 24-inch gas main was located in the vicinity of the building [WTC 7]; however, this proved not to be true." (FEMA, 2002, chapter 5; emphasis added)
------------------------------------------
Judy Wood, an expert in civil engineering, mechanical engineering, engineering mechanics, and materials engineering science wrote this paper to refute the official collapse theory.
-------------------------------------------
The muckracker report decided to sponsor a public debate between NIST and members of 9/11 truth such as Judy Wood. On June 25, 2006, NIST Director of Media Relations, Michael E. Newman responded:
"The members of the NIST WTC Investigation Team has [sic] respectfully declined your invitation to participate in the National 9/11 Debate. A change in venue or date will not alter that decision."
The Muckracker also brought up Steven Jones' work on analyzing the metalic residue found on WTC steel and they only comented that they don't support alternate theories. He also asked if they themselves had done any test of the WTC metals. They didn't say yes or no but only said they didn't find any evidence supporting a demolitions theory. (of course, they didn't look for such evidence because the fact is they never did analyze the steel and most of it was shipped out to be melted making it almost impossible to do so.
-------------------------------------------
Dave Heller, who has degrees in physics and architecture wrote this article:
Taking A Closer Look
--------------------------------------------
Arup, a company on the leading edge of structural fireproofing which performs many engineering services had this to say about NIST's report on the WTC:
"we believe that a considerable difference in downward displace between the [47] core and [240] perimeter columns, much greater than the 300 mm proposed, is required for the collapse theory to hold true… [Our] lower reliance on passive fire protection is in contrast to the NIST work where the amount of fire protection on the truss elements is believed to be a significant factor in defining the time to collapse… The [proposed effect] is swamped by thermal expansion … Thermal expansion and the response of the whole frame to this effect has NOT been described as yet [by NIST]. (Lane and Lamont, 2005.)"
---------------------------------------------
Bill Manning wrote an article for Fire Engineering magazine stating: "Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official investigation" blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure. Except for the marginal benefit obtained from a three-day, visual walk-through of evidence sites conducted by ASCE investigation committee members- described by one close source as a "tourist trip"-no one's checking the evidence for anything." In the article he was calling for a stop to the destruction of the evidence at the WTC (scrapping the steal beams) and calling for a real investigation. article
----------------------------------------------
Perhaps instead of getting caught up in superficial qualifications of the people questioning the official line, you can point out to me how pools of molten steel where found in the rubble of WTC 1 2 and 7 weeks after the 9/11 event or how WTC 7 came down without any plane ever hitting it despite the fact that no fire has ever caused a building to collapse in history, including the fire in Madrid which burned for more than 24 hours. And perhaps you can tell me why the planes wheren't intercepted despite the fact that they had over an hour's forknowledge of the highjackings before the planes hit thier targets. (there are many many instances of planes being intercepted immediately in much less extreme circumstances). Robert Bowman was an intercepter pilot who's now a member for scholars for 9/11 truth and he thinks that it's perposterous that these planes wheren't intercepted.
Edited, Jul 17th 2006 at 3:16am EDT by Dronadesh
Quote:
More importantly, just why, exactly, would the government actually destroy the World Trade Center? Yeah, yeah, I hear you freaks and weirdos who continue to believe any and all governments are inherently evil that the diabolical George W. Bush is Satan personified and thus would instinctively want to indiscriminately kill people. Ok, aside from that obviously stupid premise (and you know who you are who secretly believe that at the bottom of your goofy hearts), just why go through such machinations? There are any other number of equally (heheh) plausable (guffaw!) scenarios which would involve a whole lot more destruction and fewer people to employ.
Moreover, just how do you manage to keep all the people you have involved quiet? Lol, people being what they are, they can't keep any secret secret, period, much less one where literally thousands of people would have to be in on the hijinks.
Like every other wacky conspiracy theory (JFK's assasination, the space shuttle explosion, etc) the means by which to carry it off is simply impossible. This one is no different. And the fact that Dron believes that it has validity just goes to prove how gullible and childishly foolsih he is. Fortunately for scam artists everywhere, there are plenty of people like him who are perfectly willing to hand their life savings to these folks to purchase swamp land, bridges in Brooklyn, and other questionable investments.
Moreover, just how do you manage to keep all the people you have involved quiet? Lol, people being what they are, they can't keep any secret secret, period, much less one where literally thousands of people would have to be in on the hijinks.
Like every other wacky conspiracy theory (JFK's assasination, the space shuttle explosion, etc) the means by which to carry it off is simply impossible. This one is no different. And the fact that Dron believes that it has validity just goes to prove how gullible and childishly foolsih he is. Fortunately for scam artists everywhere, there are plenty of people like him who are perfectly willing to hand their life savings to these folks to purchase swamp land, bridges in Brooklyn, and other questionable investments.
I'm sure that Oswald was able to singlehandedly make the secret service that was protecting JFK stop following him despite thier protests, while diverting the parade route to a location blocked to the public by government officials and make the driver slow down and not speed back up, even after knowing the president had been shot, until the president got the final blow to the head. The driver was trained to speed up in any emergency situation and looked back at the president after he was shot but didn't speed up until the final shot. And I'm sure that Oswald was able to do miraculous things with his bullets that allowed, amoung other things, the presidents head to tilt back and to the left despite being shot from behind. I'm sure that it was a mere coincidence that the doctor who did Kennedy's autopsy had never done an autopsy concerning bullet wounds before and that the doctor completly left out the bullet hole in his neck initially and that his observations differed from every doctor who observed Kenedy's body.
After all, occams razor dictates that a conspiracy can never happen and that it would be simpler to bend the laws of physics then to suppose that the government could form a cohesive conspiracy even though documents of plans concerning similar conspiracies have been declassified.
Jophiel wrote:
Dronadesh wrote:
The fact that "internet scholars" are the only ones to confront much of the crucial evidence around this event exemplifies the degree to which things are being controlled.
What crucial evidence? A crapload of conjecture and misleading guesses?
I mentioned before -- find me a couple more independent labs that can conclusively test and say there was thermate on the steel and you might have something more credible than a single loon going on about how the government blew up the WTC with controlled demolitions and "proving" it by dumping aluminum on a metal bar. It's that easy. Isn't that the basis for developing evidence to support a credible theory? Multiple and independent tests? Why hasn't it been done? Why am I reading paragraph after paragraph of regurgitated ramblings from a single guy? Why does is every single article about thermate on the WTC attached to Jones's name?
You've answered your own question for me. Jones is the only one doing tests on the WTC steel even though such tests should have been carried out immediately as well as the reconstruction of the pieces of the aircraft as is done in all plane crashes.
The molten pools under the WTC rubble should be investigated, as well as many many eye witness acounts concerning the presence of bombs and other testimony that's been ignored. There's much video and photographic evidence that's been confiscated from both new york and washington dc that should be released and studied, as well as multiple failures within our government to carry out standard military procedure in such an event. Things like Mohamed Attas funding from Pakistan should be investigated. Information regarding the supression of information from able danger should be studied, as well as the mineta testimony and the lies which have been documented in the administration about not having forknowledge of possible attacks to the WTC. It should be investigated why Osama Bin Laden was deemed the culpret despite the fact that the FBI admits we have no evidence linking 9/11 to Osama Bin Laden. It should be investigated why no investigation was formed until a year after 9/11 after preasure from the 9/11 family steering commision, which is unprecidented in any such disaster. And there are many more points which have been pointed out by different individuals, both military and civilian, which need to be looked in to. I'm effing sick of people turning a blind eye to this crap.
I think this Stephen Jones fellow should just change his first name to Jim.
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
Puh-leeeeeeeese. Yer killin' me here, Dron. Oswald now? What, do you get your news from Oliver Stone or something? Pull your head out of your a$$ here, man!
Totem
Totem
Dronadesh wrote:
You've answered your own question for me. Jones is the only one doing tests on the WTC steel even though such tests should have been carried out immediately as well as the reconstruction of the pieces of the aircraft as is done in all plane crashes.
You're admitting that Jones's results have not been independently verified by any other testing? The rest of your post has nothing at all to do with testing results for thermate -- I don't care, for sake of this thread, if it was done by the government or terrorists or whoever. Find me independent verification of the results by other qualified labs who can replicate Jones's results. Don't give me limp excuses why no one else on the planet can possibly run the same tests.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Quote:
As I've noted before, Jones is also an expert in the field of archaeometry, part of which involves chemical analysis to ascertain the history of a particular place.
Please stop repeating this as though it were relevant. He's trained to analyze ancient stone structures - do carbon dating and what not, theorize as to whether people in those buildings cooked indoors and used pigment on the walls. It's a little different, to put it mildly.
I'm embarrassed for you.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Quote:
Ted Muga - Structural Engineer, Comercial Pilot, Naval Aviator
Michael Lovingier - Structural Engineer
Judy D. Wood - Civil Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Engineering Mechanics, and Materials Engineering Science
Ken Wrenu - Civil Engineer
David Griscom - Materials Science and Engineering
Jeffery Farer - Materials Science
Eric Hermanson - Egineering Physics
Brian Duncan - Fire Protection Engineer
Michael Gass - Airforce Explosives Ordanance, Disposal Specialist, Bomb Disposal Technician
Michael Lovingier - Structural Engineer
Judy D. Wood - Civil Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Engineering Mechanics, and Materials Engineering Science
Ken Wrenu - Civil Engineer
David Griscom - Materials Science and Engineering
Jeffery Farer - Materials Science
Eric Hermanson - Egineering Physics
Brian Duncan - Fire Protection Engineer
Michael Gass - Airforce Explosives Ordanance, Disposal Specialist, Bomb Disposal Technician
I've decided to look these people up. Scholars for truth is a cesspool for lies so I was pretty much 100% positive that either these people don't really exist, or they arn't REALLY structural engineers.
The scholars for truth wikipedia site says this: "They also point to the fact there are 0 Structural Engineers, and 0 Middle Eastern or Arabic language experts, and the few Engineers have little relevant work with the appropriate discipline, for example Judy Wood, who has focused her work on the stresses of dentistry."
Hear that? Zero structural engineers? I think Fetzer/Jones would demand that to be changed if it weren't true.
Being that Judy Wood was already mentioned, lets start with her. She is a mechanical engineer. She is NOT a structural engineer. That was (surprise surprise) a conspiracy lie. And, as it says above, her main area of expertise is in DENTISTRY!!!!
Next... Ted Muga? Who is this man? He's a commercial pilot, a naval aviator, AND a structural engineer? That's quite the resume. Too bad the man either doesn't exist or his credentials are greatly exagerated. I can't find anything on him. Other people were sharing my problem.
""This gentleman, who I searched as "T* Muga", "Theodore Muga", and "Ted Muga" in the FAA certificate database only to get 0 matches""" So he's not a licenced pilot. What else were they lying about?
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/06/they-are-losing-it.html
Ditto Michael Lovingier. I can't find anything on the man. I don't believe he is a structural engineer just because scholars for truth says so. The site has been proven to exagerate these 'scholars' credentials and I suspect this is another lie.
Ken Wrenu. I think you either spelled his name wrong or you just flat out made him up. Scholars for truth doesn't even list anyone with this name.
All the other experts on your list don't even claim to be structural engineers. So no point even bringing them up.
Jim Fetzer (co-chair of 9/11 schoalars for truth) has been asked why the explosives theory should be taken seriously being that there isn't a single structural engineer in the world that supports it.
In his response, Fetzer DID NOT say "but there are structural engineers that support it. Here they are." Nope. Instead he said:
"Have no fear! Even structural engineers cannot violate the laws of nature!...
It really doesn't matter if structural engineers are afraid to speak out because they think they will be ridiculed or otherwise punished by the loss of funding"
http://911conspiracysmasher.blogspot.com/2006/04/structural-engineers-are-they-all-in.html
Recent Visitors: 376
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (376)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Thermate in WTC
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC