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

[Horatius]

<Delete "upper block" argument that's been explained before, since new explanation won't be nderstood either>

Sidenote: And since, when was linking to documented evidence that you requested i.e. whistleblower - considered spam? How else can I present the evidence of a whistleblower without referring you to other resources?

Thanks.

It was called "spam" because none of the whistleblowers you posted have ever suggested that the government had an active role in 9/11, despite your valiant efforts are mis-reading them. They're all complaining about screw-ups and CYA stuff, not criminal actions.

The only "whistleblowers" who ever accuse the government of an active role in 9/11 are the ones who have no evidence for their accusations. There's a reason the only people who take them seriously are Alex Jones and his Merry Men.

 

[chillzero]

What video were YOU watching ?

aww... maybe he just blinks very ... very .... very ... sloooooowwwllly.

 

[JonnyFive]

aww... maybe he just blinks very ... very .... very ... sloooooowwwllly.

He's a sleepy kitten?

 

[Horatius]

Do you have that evidence of thermite being capable of cutting through a thick, vertical girder?

Don't post the link to the patent again, that didn't support your theory. Stop going from one topic to another like a drunken squirrel and provide evidence or revise your original claim.

ETA: All this talk of jello and pancakes is making me hungry.

Just found out today that Google has a new search page for US patents.

Here's another one that might actually work for cutting something vertical, but again, it's not explicitly clear that it can do that.

Some money quotes:

Referring now to FIGS. 1, 7 and 8, any conventional holding device (not shown) such as clamps, thermite welding magnets, suction devices, or counter thrust devices may be employed to maintain the housing 2 in substantial contact with the target material 11. The holding device is provided to engage a surface of the target material 11 and to maintain stability for the housing 2 including end plates 30,31 positioned on the target material 11.

Referring again to FIGS. 1 through 3, the housing 2 of the apparatus 1 for cutting material is preferably composed of a material selected from the group consisting of high density graphite and phenolic composites. The housing 2 may be composed of any suitable material adapted to withstand generation of a thermite-based cutting flame. It will be appreciated that the housing 2 has relatively high flexural and tensile strengths which are also consistent with relatively low thermal conductivity. A housing 2 composed of mineral phenolic is preferable given its performance characteristics in the practice of the present invention. Other suitable materials which may be used to construct the housing may include, for example, graphite, polymer composite materials, and glass-filled PEEK (polyetheretherketone). Graphite, for example, generally provides a preferable degree of erosion resistance and has relatively low flexural strength and relatively high thermal conductivity.

Seems king of small though:

The nozzle 46 preferably has a length L2 of 0.3 to 0.4 inches

Here's the real goods:

It will be appreciated by those skilled in the art that the cutting apparatus of the present invention may be oriented in any angle or configuration deemed most expedient for application of the cutting apparatus to a target material to be cut.

Unfortunately, he doesn't give any more explicit descriptions of it's use, and this sounds like standard patentee "Cover all my bases in case someone thinks of something clever I didn't" language.

On the size issue again:

Referring again to FIGS. 8 and 10, in another embodiment of the present invention, a ganged apparatus 51 for cutting target material 11 is also provided in the present invention. The ganging of individual housings 61-64 to each other may be accomplished by providing a plurality of holes 32 in each of the end plates 56-60 of the housings 61-64.
.....
The ganged together nozzles 52-55 provide an extended, linear cutting action by spreading the cutting flame between adjacent nozzles 52-55 thereby cutting substantially all of the target material 11 underneath the ganged apparatus 51. Slots 23 (as shown in FIG. 8) in each end plate 56-60 facilitate the spread of the cutting flame of each housing 61-64.

But, oh, sorry, notice he slips up and mentions material "underneath" the apparatus? So maybe it won't work vertically after all.

Then he says this:

The respective nozzle channels of the housings 102,112 are positioned to be substantially opposed in order to effect a cutting action on the same target material from two opposite directions.

So, maybe it will? Hmm.....

On the issue of size again:

It will be appreciated that the dimensions of the cutting apparatus may be modified within the scope of the present invention to cut various sizes and shapes of target materials. Preferably, the cutting apparatus of the present invention may be employed, for example, to cut steel bars of up to one inch in diameter. It is believed that the diameter of a bar which can be successfully cut by the present invention is proportional to the diameter of the thermite charge employed in the cutting apparatus of the present invention. The charge diameter may range from about 0.25 to 12 inches

So, if you want to cut a large target, you'd need a similarly sized apparatus, roughly speaking.

Here we have what is probably the best candidate for your hypothesised thermite devices. It even has the benefit of having been available before 9/11. Now, can you show any such apparatus (thousands of them) on ground zero? Can you find any record of these being manufactured in that size in the needed quantities? The patent lists the company that owns the patent, perhaps you could phone them and ask about it.

The deep dark secret of the patent world is, the vast majority of patents never actually get made into actual products, as the market forces deem most of them to be unacceptable for one reason or another. It's possible the company never actually made any of these in any significant quantity.


And, does anyone else find it amusing that a skeptic has done more to prove his case than he has? Perhaps my willingness to actually point out evidence that supports him will show we're not just mindless sheeple......Naw, who am I kidding?


PS Still not a cat

 

[28th Kingdom]

I proved scientifically...why nothing in the building was hot enough to produce molten metal this color.

http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/3550/thermiteic0.jpg

NIST even agrees the max temp was around 1000°C on the impact floors (because nothing in the building - including the jet fuel can burn hotter than that) Alumimum can melt at around 660°C - but as NIST even claims molten aluminum at this temperature has a silvery color to it, NOT a glowing yellow-orange color.

Source: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm - FAQ 11

Some say that Aluminum has a red glow even at this temp, but NIST doesn't say that and even if it did, these pools aren't red - they're yellow to orange. (the same color as molten metal produced by therma/ite)

NIST agrees that this is, in fact - molten metal, so if it's not the aluminum from the planes, than most likely it would be the steel from the towers. Molten steel will have the same color as these pools i.e. yellow-orange - however steel has a melting point of 1370°C - so again, nothing in the building could have burned hot enough to melt the steel from the towers.

The only other thing I can think of, would be something like therma/ite that produces it's own molten metal (because a therma/ite reaction gives off extreme heat) and this molten metal is the exact color as the molten metal seen at the site of the towers.

Even if you say, I can't prove this molten metal is therma/ite - what I did just prove is that something had to cause the extreme heat needed to produce such molten metal - so if it's not therma/ite, than there had to of been another chemical agent in the towers that could have either produced it's own molten metal - or produced the heat required to turn the steel from the towers into molten steel...that is - unless you buy NIST's theory...that it's molten aluminum mixed with ambers from other burning debris.

Thanks for reading.

 

[~enigma~]

You also have to allow for the F = ma part. The force that accellerates the smaller mass is the gravitational force you've shown, and when equated to "ma", the "m" term for the smaller mass drops out, so the acceleration due to gravity of the smaller mass becomes:

Fg = m2a = Gm1m2/r^2 ---> a = Gm1/r^2

The equation i posted is for spherical objects but the wtc wasn't spherical so let the woowoos use

We can integrate this equation over all the mass in the two bodies to determine the total gravitational force. Oh...the woowoos do not use science so we can't expect them to use calculus.

 

[28th Kingdom]

It was called "spam" because none of the whistleblowers you posted have ever suggested that the government had an active role in 9/11, despite your valiant efforts are mis-reading them. They're all complaining about screw-ups and CYA stuff, not criminal actions.

The only "whistleblowers" who ever accuse the government of an active role in 9/11 are the ones who have no evidence for their accusations. There's a reason the only people who take them seriously are Alex Jones and his Merry Men.

Actually, Sibel Edmonds is a whistleblower on many different events involving the government...not just that one FBI incompetence thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sibel_Edmonds

"On August 15, 2002, a separate suit, Burnett v. Al Baraka Investment & Dev. Corp., was filed by families of 600 victims of the September 11, 2001 (9/11) attacks against Saudi banks, charity organizations, and companies. Edmonds was to file a deposition in this case regarding her claim that FBI had foreknowledge of al-Qaeda's attacks against the World Trade Center."

She claims in many instances that the US government directly knew beforehand that al-Qaeda was going to attack the WTC before it happened. That denotes US complicity to the crimes of 9/11.

 

[~enigma~]

When doing astronomical calculations, yes. When dealing with objects on the surface of the earth, we can legitimately treat acceleration due to gravity as a constant.

No, when close to earth calculations can be simpified. Are you saying the gravitational law changes depending on location?

 

[~enigma~]

Are you absolutely positive?

I would bet on it so yes I am confident.

Because he is ignoring me.. which I take as another positive indicator that he's my ex.

All my ex's ignore me.

I'm not ignoring you but then again your not my ex. If my ex ever showed up here I wouldn't ignore her, I would run

 

[~enigma~]

When the heck did 28K turn into a LIHOper?? 28th - start making sense man!

A LIHOPer is an extremely noncommital woowoo. Seems that they are just "afraid" to fully disbelieve the entire "9/11 was an inside job" concept. At least they have come to understand that there was no CD and that a plane hit the pentagon and flight 93 wasn't shot down but they still want to understand other evidence from a conspiracy mindset. In my opinion they are just as bad as MIHOPers since they are reading their opinion (preconceived government guilt) into the evidence.

 

[babazaroni]

Actually, Sibel Edmonds is a whistleblower on many different events involving the government...not just that one FBI incompetence thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sibel_Edmonds

"On August 15, 2002, a separate suit, Burnett v. Al Baraka Investment & Dev. Corp., was filed by families of 600 victims of the September 11, 2001 (9/11) attacks against Saudi banks, charity organizations, and companies. Edmonds was to file a deposition in this case regarding her claim that FBI had foreknowledge of al-Qaeda's attacks against the World Trade Center."

She claims in many instances that the US government directly knew beforehand that al-Qaeda was going to attack the WTC before it happened. That denotes US complicity to the crimes of 9/11.

You can talk about U.S. negligence/complicity if you like, but that's not the thread you started.

If you want to talk about something else, start a new thread.

 

[stateofgrace]

Actually, Sibel Edmonds is a whistleblower on many different events involving the government...not just that one FBI incompetence thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sibel_Edmonds

"On August 15, 2002, a separate suit, Burnett v. Al Baraka Investment & Dev. Corp., was filed by families of 600 victims of the September 11, 2001 (9/11) attacks against Saudi banks, charity organizations, and companies. Edmonds was to file a deposition in this case regarding her claim that FBI had foreknowledge of al-Qaeda's attacks against the World Trade Center."

She claims in many instances that the US government directly knew beforehand that al-Qaeda was going to attack the WTC before it happened. That denotes US complicity to the crimes of 9/11.

Wait,are you now saying that Al Quada carried out this attack?

You claimed before this was impossible, remember the guy in the cave controlling the 19 other guys thingy? You claimed that the UBL tapes were faked, but you are now saying the US had prior warning of AL Quada attacks.

Everybody knows about there were warning, everybody knows they were not followed through, everybody knows the US screwed up and missed it all.

But you have now just admitted the attack was carried out by Al Quada; please make up your mind which conspiracy theory you support.

Now answer the thermite questions.

ETA

I agree with babazaroni, start a new thread about the prewarning and stop spamming this thread with you copy and paste quotes.

 

[babazaroni]

28th Kingdom,

Earlier you posted this far away video which you say shows the floors below the crash point being detonated.

NBC South Tower collapse

Well check out this video of the exact same spot, only much closer and sharper:

Trinity Church South Tower collapse

Notice the top of the building starts downward before any puffs appear. Also notice the inward bending outer columns just before the collapse, and how they buckle inward just as the collapse starts.

I've responded directly to the evidence your post. Now respond to mine.

 

[Horatius]

Edmonds was to file a deposition in this case regarding her claim that FBI had foreknowledge of al-Qaeda's attacks against the World Trade Center."

She claims in many instances that the US government directly knew beforehand that al-Qaeda was going to attack the WTC before it happened. That denotes US complicity to the crimes of 9/11.

Again, no one disputes that information was to be had, that in retrospect indicated the attacks were coming.

What you have to show, if you want us to believe that the US was complicit in the attacks, is how their handling of the information was any different than how they handled other, similar warnings. It's not like these were the only bits of information they had floating around.

You'd also have to show that the information was actually specific enough to act on, legally speaking. Vague warnings about unspecified threats to "significant targets" isn't enough.

Why would anyone, before 9/11, have thought that this plan was the One True Terrorist Plot? Answering this question will require you to have some significant knowledge of all the other threats that may have been around at the time. Please take more than five minutes to compile this information, please*.

And while we're at it, how does any of this indicate that they took an active role in placing thermite/mate or explosives?

ETA: * This sentence brought to you by the Department of Redundancy Department.

 

[CurtC]

what I did just prove is that something had to cause the extreme heat needed to produce such molten metal - so if it's not therma/ite, than there had to of been another chemical agent in the towers that could have either produced it's own molten metal - or produced the heat required to turn the steel from the towers into molten steel...that is - unless you buy NIST's theory...that it's molten aluminum mixed with ambers from other burning debris.

So your "scientific proof" that 9/11 was an inside job, is that this material coming out is either molten steel, maybe it was what NIST says and 9/11 wasn't an inside job at all.

Thanks for that, but I think we already knew all that. If it can be shown that this stuff was thermite or molten steel, that would be good evidence for an inside job. Good luck with it.

 

[apathoid]

Actually, Sibel Edmonds is a whistleblower on many different events involving the government...not just that one FBI incompetence thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sibel_Edmonds

"On August 15, 2002, a separate suit, Burnett v. Al Baraka Investment & Dev. Corp., was filed by families of 600 victims of the September 11, 2001 (9/11) attacks against Saudi banks, charity organizations, and companies. Edmonds was to file a deposition in this case regarding her claim that FBI had foreknowledge of al-Qaeda's attacks against the World Trade Center."

She claims in many instances that the US government directly knew beforehand that al-Qaeda was going to attack the WTC before it happened. That denotes US complicity to the crimes of 9/11.

So you are a LIHOPer then?? If not, have you ever heard the term "mutually exclusive"?

 

[se7ensnakes]

No Modern Building Has Every Collapse Entirely On Its Own Foot Print.

NO MODERN, UL APPROVED, ENGINEER APPROVED, CODE APPROVED BUILDING HAS EVER COLLAPSE ENTIRELY ON ITS OWN FOOT PRINT. NONE
Yes building 7 was left in a neat pile of rubble and it was hit with minimal debri. This has never happened before...........and to this day. No BUILDING DEPARTMENT IN THE NATION is looking to enhance strutures in light of those events. If there really was a threat from building collapsing like that from building 7 a lot of buildings will be condem. Today we are building high risers using the same technology that we did pre 9/11/01. Only the affects of hurricanes cause the building department to scramble for new codes and new measures to prevent fuure disasters. This is because y ou cannot secure a building from a controlled demolition.
I could go and order I beams from Steel Fabricators down the street and say: Hey you guys are you doing anything different to prevent the structure from collapsing like building 7 and they will look at you as a nut job. However, i could go and say....hey are you guys doing anything to prevent a collapse by hurricane type winds..........they may say.......no ........but you would not appear like a nut asking. You can do this very same thing with most structural engineers.
BUT THIS IS THE REALITY OF THE MATTER
NO STEEL BUILDING HAS EVER COLLAPSE LIKE BUILDING 7 UNLESS IT WAS A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION. Lots of damaged building ...............but no collapse quite like building 7

​

 

[Architect]

He's a fraud who shirks from technical challenges to the unsupported drivel he calls evidence.

 

[JimBenArm]

NO MODERN, UL APPROVED, ENGINEER APPROVED, CODE APPROVED BUILDING HAS EVER COLLAPSE ENTIRELY ON ITS OWN FOOT PRINT. NONE
Yes building 7 was left in a neat pile of rubble and it was hit with minimal debri. This has never happened before...........and to this day. No BUILDING DEPARTMENT IN THE NATION is looking to enhance strutures in light of those events. If there really was a threat from building collapsing like that from building 7 a lot of buildings will be condem. Today we are building high risers using the same technology that we did pre 9/11/01. Only the affects of hurricanes cause the building department to scramble for new codes and new measures to prevent fuure disasters. This is because y ou cannot secure a building from a controlled demolition.
I could go and order I beams from Steel Fabricators down the street and say: Hey you guys are you doing anything different to prevent the structure from collapsing like building 7 and they will look at you as a nut job. However, i could go and say....hey are you guys doing anything to prevent a collapse by hurricane type winds..........they may say.......no ........but you would not appear like a nut asking. You can do this very same thing with most structural engineers.
BUT THIS IS THE REALITY OF THE MATTER
NO STEEL BUILDING HAS EVER COLLAPSE LIKE BUILDING 7 UNLESS IT WAS A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION. Lots of damaged building ...............but no collapse quite like building 7

​

So does the smiley above indicate you take this as a joke? Because that's what that nonsense above is.

Same stuff, different day.

 

[JonnyFive]

Here's another one that might actually work for cutting something vertical, but again, it's not explicitly clear that it can do that.

Interesting. I would be interested to know if it could be viably used for automatic operation. Also, I'd love to know what thickness of steel it could cut through.

Seems king of small though:

Yes, it does.

Unfortunately, he doesn't give any more explicit descriptions of it's use, and this sounds like standard patentee "Cover all my bases in case someone thinks of something clever I didn't" language.

I agree, the claims on performance are rather non-specific.

But, oh, sorry, notice he slips up and mentions material "underneath" the apparatus? So maybe it won't work vertically after all.

I'm not sure, it's not 100% clear from the patent.

So, if you want to cut a large target, you'd need a similarly sized apparatus, roughly speaking.

That does seem to be a big problem.

Here we have what is probably the best candidate for your hypothesised thermite devices. It even has the benefit of having been available before 9/11. Now, can you show any such apparatus (thousands of them) on ground zero? Can you find any record of these being manufactured in that size in the needed quantities? The patent lists the company that owns the patent, perhaps you could phone them and ask about it.

Yes, this is the central problem. We've sort of solved the technical aspects (kind of), but still there are huge logistical problems. Care to comment, 28K? Got any evidence?

The deep dark secret of the patent world is, the vast majority of patents never actually get made into actual products, as the market forces deem most of them to be unacceptable for one reason or another. It's possible the company never actually made any of these in any significant quantity.

It's also possible it doesn't work as advertised, as this is not a requirement for a patent.

And, does anyone else find it amusing that a skeptic has done more to prove his case than he has?

I find this highly amusing as well. He is very lazy about looking for evidence.

PS Still not a cat

No kidding, that's the Hungarian Shadow Beast that haunts my nightmares.


ETA: I would love to actually see some proof that the thermite cutting can be done as 28K claims, and that it indeed looks like he claims as well.

But he seems to be moving the goalposts to a more LIHOP stance, so maybe he's backed off the thermite thing a bit. Comments, 28K?