This is the thread that may very well change the way you look at 9/11 FOREVER!

[einsteen]

You've been here long enough to have seen the math on this. The energy available through gravity alone is simply huge. To get a similarly huge effect from explosives, you'd need a lot of it. No paradox.

I mean that energy is there already, what do you need to add, not much of course then... btw I disagree with the energy picture, the collapse is mass independent as I will show in my paper soon.

 

[Architect]

I'll make life easy for you, 28th:

http://fire-research.group.shef.ac.uk/Downloads/SC_Baltimore.pdf


And I tell you what, here's ANOTHER one which actually has criticism of some of NIST findings and says the fire would have been enough on it's own. By one of the best universities in the UK and everything!!!! Tell me where you think they made the mistake:

http://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/dspace/bitstream/1842/1216/1/WTCpaper.pdf

 

[Porkpie Hat]

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

"Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace." NIST FAQ

Hey, while we're at it...why don't we just claim that unicorns are likely to have collapsed floors 28-45 due to excessive gallivanting. Anyway, let's just assume for a second that since NIST even admits molten aluminum is silvery and NOT red or yellow-orangish/red, that the molten metal isn't the aluminum from the plane...well, by process of elimination it surely has to be the steel from the WTC structure, right? Well, not according to the NIST report. So...what else could it possibly be? We know the molten metal exists, because NIST even admits it - so once again...if it's not the aluminum from the plane and it's not the steel from the WTC 2, than what else is there? This is where thermite comes into play. We've all heard about thermite, yes - but do most of us even know what it is? Have we all seen it in action, and/or tried to mentally conceive of it's appearance and/or properties? Well, here is a video of a thermite reaction:

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

Does this look very familiar? See, the thing is (are you ready?) that once ignited (via spark, fuse or flame) thermite actually...get this...thermite actually turns INTO MOLTEN METAL! Yes, you read that right. Thermite is a chemical compound containing metal elements...and the really cool thing, is that once it's ignited by a simple flame...a chemical reaction goes off, and it can actually burn up to 2500°C - so you see - since the reaction gives off such extreme heat...the metal contained in this compound instantly turns into molten metal. This is why it's used to cut steel, because at these high tempatures i.e. 2500°C - thermite can slice through just about anything. And, just so there is no confusion here...the product of a thermite reaction (COMPLETELY isolated and independent from any other metal or steel) is actually molten metal. Now playback this video again:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=545886459853896774

And you will clearly see, that this pouring molten metal is NOT aluminum from the plane...it's NOT steel from the WTC structure...but rather - WELL placed THERMITE burning from the fire that was set off from the impact. And, this is all the more evident by the way this flowing liquid metal is giving off sparks which is a CLEAR VISIBLE INDICATION THAT THIS FLOWING MATERIAL IS BURNING! (Sparks are also a classic characterstic of a thermite reaction - as visible in the above linked video) And this is all backed with pure scientific evidence....NOT some harebrained assumption or guess. There is nothing in those buildings - including the jet fuel - that could have burned hot enough to turn steel and/or aluminum into an yellow-orangish/red liquid. But, a simple fire igniting some well placed thermite could easily turn into yellow-orangish/red molten metal. I think most people were envisioning...thermite as some kind of liquid or powder, that turned other metal into a liquid...they didn't know that...thermite by itself - PRODUCES MOLTEN METAL once ignited!

So going back to my opening statement...what do plane impacts, thermal insulation dislodging and potential energy generated by falling building masses all have in common? THEY DON'T EVEN EXIST!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A


Open your eyes.

I’ll take a shot at this 28th.

I’d like to start by pointing out that, again, you have dismissed relevant information in a quest to prove your theory. Making statements like “…why don’t we just claim that unicorns…” will fool some people, but not all. NIST does have an explanation; you just choose not to accept it. Can you explain why molten aluminum mixed with impurities would not glow a reddish orange? Could the sparks be an indication of impurities in the molten aluminum? (I can attest to this as I have welded aluminum before, it does spark when impurities are present.)

Furthermore NIST goes on to explain that the reddish colour is also due to slag formation (from the danged impurities no doubt). This is another thing I can attest to as I have welded aluminum using covered electrodes; while welding the molten pool looks white (actually green due to the welding lens), similar to welding carbon steel using the GTAW process, after completing the weld while the molten metal cools a reddish glow can be easily observed. This is due to the cooling of the slag (non-gaseous flux components in the consumable). I suggest you go into a welding shop and have them demonstrate if you don’t believe me (and I know you won’t).

I also would like to point out is if you watch the video posted above there is a point where the molten aluminum is cooling to the point of solidification (this occurs at about 15 sec into the video. There is a better shot of this I had seen somewhere before, but can’t find if at the moment. Can anybody help with this?. What colour do you see? Do you see the molten material solidifying into black blobs indicating carbon steel or silvery coloured blobs indicating aluminum?

Another question I would like to ask you is why would they place thermite at the point of impact? How would this contribute to the collapse of the structure? And how would they be able to hit the building precisely enough to guarantee that the supposed thermite reactions would go unnoticed. Why? Why? Why? And How?

So your explanation is that if the molten metal isn’t aluminum then thermite must have been used. How is this not a logical fallacy? I have a little advice for you; get off the couch, one cheek at a time if necessary and find a conspiracy that doesn’t entail the level of knowledge required to understand what caused the collapse of the WTC structures.

Here’s two to get you started: 1) non-drip coffee pots (ya right!)
2) winter windshield wiper blades (ya right again)

Let me know what you find out.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Well, as I have so clearly illustrated...and even had confirmed by a few here...the NIST is completely based on and founded in hypothesis....which is by definition, an educated GUESS.

*Please, don't quote this...and highlight the word educated. Thank you for your cooperation.

In scientific/professional/official contexts, a hypothesis is not just "an educated GUESS".

Hypothesis -- A testable statement accounting for a set of observations.

http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/jarrett/talks/LiU/sci_method_2.html

synonyms [SIZE=-1]HYPOTHESIS[/SIZE], [SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1]THEORY[/SIZE], [SIZE=-1]LAW[/SIZE][/SIZE] mean a formula derived by inference from scientific data that explains a principle operating in nature. [SIZE=-1]HYPOTHESIS[/SIZE] implies insufficient evidence to provide more than a tentative explanation <a hypothesis explaining the extinction of the dinosaurs>. [SIZE=-1]THEORY[/SIZE] implies a greater range of evidence and greater likelihood of truth <the theory of evolution>. [SIZE=-1]LAW[/SIZE] implies a statement of order and relation in nature that has been found to be invariable under the same conditions <the law of gravitation>.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/hypothesis

Evaluating hypotheses
The hypothetico-deductive method demands falsifiable hypotheses, framed in such a manner that the scientific community can prove them false (usually by observation). (Note that, if confirmed, the hypothesis is not necessarily proven, but remains provisional.)
As an example: someone who enters a new country and observes only white sheep might form the hypothesis that all sheep in that country are white. It can be considered a hypothesis, as it is falsifiable. Anyone could falsify the hypothesis by observing a single black sheep. Provided that the experimental uncertainties are small (for example, provided that one can fairly reliably distinguish the observed black sheep from (say) a goat), and provided that the experimenter has correctly interpreted the statement of the hypothesis (for example, does the meaning of "sheep" include rams?), finding a black sheep falsifies the "white sheep only" hypothesis. This sort of example provides the easiest way to understand the term "hypothesis".
According to Schick and Vaughn (2002), researchers weighing up alternative hypotheses may take into consideration:

• Testibility (compare falsifiability as discussed above)
• Simplicity (as in the application of "Occam's Razor", discouraging the postulation of excessive numbers of entities)
• Scope - the apparent application of the hypothesis to multiple cases of phenomena
• Fruitfulness - the prospect that a hypothesis may explain further phenomena in the future
• Conservatism - the degree of "fit" with existing recognised knowledge-systems

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis

 

[Timble]

"The composition of the flowing material can only be the subject of speculation, but its behavior suggests it could have been molten aluminum." NISTNCSTAR 1-5A Chapter 9 Appendix C p.p. 375-376 (pdf p.p. 79-89)

That is a complete and utter LIE! The BEHAVIOR of the molten metal pouring from WTC 2 is not only PERFECTLY consistent with a thermite reaction...IT'S THE EXACT SAME COLOR - No Fairy Dust REQUIRED. Compare them for yourselves...it's UNDENIABLE. Even if you still want to say that it's NOT thermite pouring from WTC 2....you have to admit, that this molten metals BEHAVIOR is identical to a thermite reaction:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=545886459853896774

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

This is probably the most important video analysis you will EVER do on the 9/11 collapse...so I implore everyone to watch these carefully, and PLEASE BE OBJECTIVE!

Thank you.

B*gger the videos, have you ever seen a thermite reaction for real?

No?

Do you understand the chemistry of the reaction?

No?

How long do thermite reactions continue for?

Don't know?

How much thermite was there? Could it have produced the volume of fiery fluid that came out of the side of the building?

Don't know?

Then you aren't in any position to judge whether what you're seeing is a thermite reaction

 

[28th Kingdom]

I always was a contrarian.

And this does highlight the fundamental problem with your entire approach to trying to convert us: "Engage me in a reasoned debate, but please don't point out the huge flaws in my arguments while you do it, thnxs!"

If you want to convince us, you'll have to do it by talking our language, using our rules, because, as has been shown over and over again, your language and rules are completely inadequate.

It's completely enervating trying to address everyone's drivel. I said not to highlight "educated," because I assumed someone would try to make a silly joke like:

educated guess

Yea, keyword...educated. They are professional experts, are you?

"Engage me in a reasoned debate, but please don't point out the huge flaws in my arguments while you do it, thnxs!"

So what I'm saying, sir - is that I wasn't trying to cover my huge flaws...BECAUSE THERE WEREN'T ANY IN THAT POST. Thank you.

 

[Bell]

"The composition of the flowing material can only be the subject of speculation, but its behavior suggests it could have been molten aluminum." NISTNCSTAR 1-5A Chapter 9 Appendix C p.p. 375-376 (pdf p.p. 79-89)

Right.

That is a complete and utter LIE! The BEHAVIOR of the molten metal pouring from WTC 2 is not only PERFECTLY consistent with a thermite reaction...IT'S THE EXACT SAME COLOR - No Fairy Dust REQUIRED. Compare them for yourselves...it's UNDENIABLE. Even if you still want to say that it's NOT thermite pouring from WTC 2....you have to admit, that this molten metals BEHAVIOR is identical to a thermite reaction:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=545886459853896774

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

This is probably the most important video analysis you will EVER do on the 9/11 collapse...so I implore everyone to watch these carefully, and PLEASE BE OBJECTIVE!

Wrong.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

 

[chacal]

<snip> consistent with a thermite reaction...IT'S THE EXACT SAME COLOR

Yeah, it has the color of molten metal like aluminum. Here's an example.

http://www.jamesyawn.com/castal/how2/index.html

On what basis is the molten material in the WTC clip a result of a thermite reaction?

 

[28th Kingdom]

B*gger the videos, have you ever seen a thermite reaction for real?

No?

Do you understand the chemistry of the reaction?

No?

How long do thermite reactions continue for?

Don't know?

How much thermite was there? Could it have produced the volume of fiery fluid that came out of the side of the building?

Don't know?

Then you aren't in any position to judge whether what you're seeing is a thermite reaction

Look back through some of my earlier posts...and you will see my use of the term - OVER ANALYZE - as a pejorative. This is exactly what I'm referring to. I DON'T need to know how an engine works...to know when I HAVE SEEN A CAR. I can USE a cell phone without having any idea of how all the inner workings function. I CAN eat a bowl of cereal....with complete ignorance as to how it was made and/or packaged. You kind of get the point?

 

[Horatius]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=545886459853896774[/url]

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

This is probably the most important video analysis you will EVER do on the 9/11 collapse...so I implore everyone to watch these carefully, and PLEASE BE OBJECTIVE!

Thank you.

Okay, let's be objective. You've posted a video that shows something you allege to be a thermite reaction, occuring about 1 minute prior to the collapse. It appears in only one very localized spot.

We know from the plane impacts that severing a few of the outer columns is not sufficient to collapse the towers. So, for thermite to have been used to bring down the towers, you would need to place it on a large number of the columns. So, why do we only see the effect in one spot? At that point, there would have to have been several thermite reactions going on at multiple locations. Why don't we see any evidence of these reactions?

And that one spot is one spot on one tower. Why don't we see any similar reactions in the other tower?

That one spot is also in close proximity to a really big fire. Why did the thermite remain unignited for so long after the plane impacts, and the original fires? Why were none of the thermite containers you propose damaged by the impacts, causing premature ignition of the thermite?

You'd need a heck of a lot of anything, thermite/mate, explosives, unicorns, whatever, to have brought down the towers. Why is the only evidence you have one small dribble in one spot?

 

[28th Kingdom]

Yeah, it has the color of molten metal like aluminum. Here's an example.

http://www.jamesyawn.com/castal/how2/foundry6.gif
http://www.jamesyawn.com/castal/how2/index.html

On what basis is the molten material in the WTC clip a result of a thermite reaction?

You must have glanced over some of my post, because I showed, why scientifically, it's impossible for any fire burning in the WTC 2 to have heated aluminum to a point where it had a red glow. Read the NIST part of my post, where NIST even admits...that typical molten aluminum is a silvery color....just like the pic and vid included in my post.

Thanks.

 

[Timble]

Look back through some of my earlier posts...and you will see my use of the term - OVER ANALYZE - as a pejorative. This is exactly what I'm referring to. I DON'T need to know how an engine works...to know when I HAVE SEEN A CAR. I can USE a cell phone without having any idea of how all the inner workings function. I CAN eat a bowl of cereal....with complete ignorance as to how it was made and/or packaged. You kind of get the point?

No, if you've saying something is thermite on the basis that it's a burning liquid, you need to be able to able to explain why it isn't some other burning liquid and why you know better than NIST.

 

[Architect]

I'll make life easy for you, 28th:

http://fire-research.group.shef.ac.uk/Downloads/SC_Baltimore.pdf


And I tell you what, here's ANOTHER one which actually has criticism of some of NIST findings and says the fire would have been enough on it's own. By one of the best universities in the UK and everything!!!! Tell me where you think they made the mistake:

http://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/dspace/bitstream/1842/1216/1/WTCpaper.pdf

Everyone, 28th is avoiding this because he's a FRAUD and DOESN'T UNDERSTAND the complex technical issues involved.

28th, I'm going to dog all your posts until you answer. I'm off work with a quadricep tendon rupture and have PLENTY of time.

 

[DavidJames]

Look back through some of my earlier posts...and you will see my use of the term - OVER ANALYZE - as a pejorative. This is exactly what I'm referring to. I DON'T need to know how an engine works...to know when I HAVE SEEN A CAR. I can USE a cell phone without having any idea of how all the inner workings function. I CAN eat a bowl of cereal....with complete ignorance as to how it was made and/or packaged. You kind of get the point?

No - by stating you know why the towers fell, you are claiming to know how the cell phone works and how the cereal was made and packaged.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Look back through some of my earlier posts...and you will see my use of the term - OVER ANALYZE - as a pejorative. This is exactly what I'm referring to. I DON'T need to know how an engine works...to know when I HAVE SEEN A CAR. I can USE a cell phone without having any idea of how all the inner workings function. I CAN eat a bowl of cereal....with complete ignorance as to how it was made and/or packaged. You kind of get the point?

Stop trying to justify your argument from ignorance. It's a logical fallacy. It is wrong. It is not scientifically consistent. It is not acceptable in a court of law. It is not accepted here.

 

[FramerDave]

28th, since you're around and posting, would you be kind enough to show me some of the devices you mentioned earlier? You know, the ones that shape the charge of the thermite, or channel it, or however it was that it works?

I'm really curious to see them; they sound really nifty.

You're a doll, thanks.

 

[Horatius]

"Engage me in a reasoned debate, but please don't point out the huge flaws in my arguments while you do it, thnxs!"

So what I'm saying, sir - is that I wasn't trying to cover my huge flaws...BECAUSE THERE WEREN'T ANY IN THAT POST. Thank you.

Well, yes there was, but aside from that, I was referring to you entire debate style. Remember your original post?

Hello all,

I KNOW there has been a tremendous debate over the subject of 9/11, and from the few threads I have read it looks like most believe the, "Official Story." Well, here's what I can assure you. If you engage me in this debate, than you will NOT leave this thread without KNOWING that 9/11 was an inside job and brought down by controlled demolitions.

Of course, WTC 7 is and will forever be the smoking gun. I am, of course, referring to 47 story steel-structured building, that dissolved to the ground in mere seconds. I say - DISSOLVED into nothingness, in a mere few seconds. Whether it was 6 or 7 or 8 9 10 seconds...that's not at debate. We've all seen the video, and the fact remains...this 47 story steel-structured building literally DISSOLVED in just the blink of an eye....apparently due to a couple fires that were so LARGE they were virtually invisible from the outside. Remember...there is no official report on the cause of WTC 7's collapse. The 911 commission didn't even address it, and if you know anything about a pancake collapse...WTC 7 was NOT a pancake collapse. All 47 stories simply turned into jello all at once. And magically at that. No wait...I mean because of those small fires that melted the entire infrastructure all at once. Yea, that's what I meant to say.

Now, I think one of the main problems people encounter when analyzing an event like this is that they OVER analyze it. Especially since politics are often brought (kicking and screaming) into this discussion...it's easy for one to loose track of the real issues by dismissing another as a, "Liberal! or NeoCON!" Please, don't be blinded by political bias. In fact, let's just check that at the door. This debate has NOTHING to do with what political party you like to associate yourself with.

In conjunction: We're NOT debating WHO is responsible for 9/11 in this thread. So, regardless if you do decide to open your mind up to THE truth...it doesn't mean that you're saying or agreeing to who is actually responsible for the demolition of the WTC. The only fact about this event that we shall discuss, is whether or not FIRE was the chief cause of the collapse of WTC 1, 2, 7 or if a controlled demolition is to blame.

See, I think the main problem with the, 'Debunkers.' is that they never actually debunk this main issue i.e. the buildings came down via a demolition. And the reason they probably haven't presented any actual hard evidence (I'm not talking about an "expert's" commentary or analysis) I'm talking about actual evidence you could present in a court of law that PROVES unequivocally, that demolitions we're NOT used on the WTC buildings. And, really this is the only point worth discussing. Sorry, but calling someone a, "Nutjob!" isn't gonna work. I'm only looking for something that could be presented as evidence in a court of law. Let's get REAL left-brained and linear about this...oki doki! You know like Skeptics are SUPPOSE to be!

There is really no point in getting distracted with the small side issues and theories...because it only serves to dilute the whole point of this investigation...and that is to irrefutably prove what caused the buildings to collapse.

So if we could...I would like to pose a series of simple questions...and all I want for everyone to do is simply respond to the question at hand. If everyone can follow these simple guidelines, than it shouldn't take too long before you will have to accept the fact that the buildings collapsed because of explosives and NOT a fire that melted steel wherein initiating an improbable pancake collapse.

Question 1: Is it possible to prove whether or not (irrefutably) that in the history of the world...a steel-structured building has collapsed as a direct result of a fire? I know we've all heard that this has never happened before 9/11, but is it possible to prove that statement true or false - without a shadow of doubt? And if we can prove whether or not that statement is true, than please give your answer - yay or nay, and present your evidence.

Your whole plan to debate us fell apart because of your insisting that we simply accept your flawed assertions without comment, and debate on your terms alone. It's symtomatic of your entire style. I'm not going to go through all of your posts to highlight every case, but there's more that one example, I assure you.

 

[28th Kingdom]

Wow guys...I just had a pretty weird thing happen. I was just thinking...and I realized, that although there were supposedly 4 plane crashes (involving HUGE commercial airliners) and we have video footage of all four crash sites. WE HAVE NOT seen a SINGLE piece of plane wreckage. Wow, that is beyond bizarre. I never even thought about it...but I remember seeing a documentary where they have footage of the Flight 93 site...and the reporter on the scene says it's just a big hole...he doesn't see any wreckage...and then of course, the well documented Pentagon tapes...where there is NO plane wreckage...and then the two towers...where we probably have the best view...and I MEAN we don't see a LICK of plane wreckage anywhere...That IS BEYOND strange.

Please, don't get sidetracked with this topic...I just wanted to share.

 

[Architect]

Wow guys...I just had a pretty weird thing happen. I was just thinking...and I realized, that although there were supposedly 4 plane crashes (involving HUGE commercial airliners) and we have video footage of all four crash sites. WE HAVE NOT seen a SINGLE piece of plane wreckage. Wow, that is beyond bizarre. I never even thought about it...but I remember seeing a documentary where they have footage of the Flight 93 site...and the reporter on the scene says it's just a big hole...he doesn't see any wreckage...and then of course, the well documented Pentagon tapes...where there is NO plane wreckage...and then the two towers...where we probably have the best view...and I MEAN we don't see a LICK of plane wreckage anywhere...That IS BEYOND strange.

Please, don't get sidetracked with this topic...I just wanted to share.

That's a LIE

 

[FramerDave]

Wow guys...I just had a pretty weird thing happen. I was just thinking...and I realized, that although there were supposedly 4 plane crashes (involving HUGE commercial airliners) and we have video footage of all four crash sites. WE HAVE NOT seen a SINGLE piece of plane wreckage. Wow, that is beyond bizarre. I never even thought about it...but I remember seeing a documentary where they have footage of the Flight 93 site...and the reporter on the scene says it's just a big hole...he doesn't see any wreckage...and then of course, the well documented Pentagon tapes...where there is NO plane wreckage...and then the two towers...where we probably have the best view...and I MEAN we don't see a LICK of plane wreckage anywhere...That IS BEYOND strange.

Please, don't get sidetracked with this topic...I just wanted to share.

Thanks for sharing darling, but about those shaped thermite charges you mentioned?

Sorry to be a bother.