All 9/11 ideas welcomed here

[defaultdotxbe]

ok default, help us all out please...be specific

After thermite or thermate reacts what does it produce? Are any of those chemicals distinct to it alone and not to anything else in the WTC? If not, drop the subject. That's simple right? What created the tremendous heat beneath the towers and wtc7 for so long after 911 then?

sulphur dioxide: gas, might have been found in the EPA tests, but its a product of many combustion reaction, such as diesel fuel burning

elemental iron: again, not unique to thermite since the WTC was made of steel and im sure lots of cast iron machinery was in there as well

barium nitrate: not actually sure what would happen to this, but given the temperatures of a thermite reaction ic an pretty much guarantee it wont remain in this chemical state

alumunium oxide: as i have said many many times before THIS is what jones should be looking for, it would be produced in very large quanities by a thermite reaction and i cant imagine large amounts of it coming from anything else


oh, BTW, thermite burns very rapidly and theres no way to slow the reaction down, the fact that heat remained long after 9/11 is evidence it came from something other than thermite (such a slow burning fire)

 

[israelside]

sulphur dioxide: gas, might have been found in the EPA tests, but its a product of many combustion reaction, such as diesel fuel burning

elemental iron: again, not unique to thermite since the WTC was made of steel and im sure lots of cast iron machinery was in there as well

barium nitrate: not actually sure what would happen to this, but given the temperatures of a thermite reaction ic an pretty much guarantee it wont remain in this chemical state

alumunium oxide: as i have said many many times before THIS is what jones should be looking for, it would be produced in very large quanities by a thermite reaction and i cant imagine large amounts of it coming from anything else


oh, BTW, thermite burns very rapidly and theres no way to slow the reaction down, the fact that heat remained long after 9/11 is evidence it came from something other than thermite (such a slow burning fire)

fire doesnt exist without oxygen, millions of tons of steel on top of anything would absorb alot of friction but anything that would glow so hot after weeks would be some sort of chemical reaction makes sense.....if some explosion was in the basement maybe that made the hot spots.

Aluminum is what the debunkers said shooted out that one window caused by the siding of the building melting....if thermate produces aluminum oxide then that is plausible right? granted it should still be there...but remember in order to take out the supporting columns i dont guess much thermate had to be used...

 

[Gravy]

....if some explosion was in the basement maybe that made the hot spots.

I'll bet you can't explain how that's possible. Don't feel bad: neither can anyone else. Also, there was no explosion in the basement that could cause any hot spots for any length of time. There was, however, many millions of pounds of fuel available to the subterranean fires, and many places where oxygen could enter naturally, as well as being introduced during cleanup.

Aluminum is what the debunkers said shooted out that one window caused by the siding of the building melting....

The NIST scientists, who are not debunkers, say the majority of the molten material was most likely aluminum from the aircraft.

if thermate produces aluminum oxide then that is plausible right?

An intensely hot fire was burning in that corner from the moment the aircraft plowed into it. What's that got to do with thermate?

granted it should still be there...but remember in order to take out the supporting columns i dont guess much thermate had to be used...

You guessed wrong. From the NIST WTC FAQ:

12. Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."

NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.
The responses to questions number 2, 4, 5 and 11 demonstrate why NIST concluded that there were no explosives or controlled demolition involved in the collapses of the WTC towers.

Furthermore, a very large quantity of thermite (a mixture of powdered or granular aluminum metal and powdered iron oxide that burns at extremely high temperatures when ignited) or another incendiary compound would have had to be placed on at least the number of columns damaged by the aircraft impact and weakened by the subsequent fires to bring down a tower. Thermite burns slowly relative to explosive materials and can require several minutes in contact with a massive steel section to heat it to a temperature that would result in substantial weakening. Separate from the WTC towers investigation, NIST researchers estimated that at least 0.13 pounds of thermite would be required to heat each pound of a steel section to approximately 700 degrees Celsius (the temperature at which steel weakens substantially). Therefore, while a thermite reaction can cut through large steel columns, many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been placed inconspicuously ahead of time, remotely ignited, and somehow held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building. This makes it an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled demolition.

Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC towers, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard that was prevalent in the interior partitions.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

fire doesnt exist without oxygen, millions of tons of steel on top of anything would absorb alot of friction but anything that would glow so hot after weeks would be some sort of chemical reaction makes sense.....if some explosion was in the basement maybe that made the hot spots.

no, it doesnt make sense, thermite burns out and begins to cool, there is no possible way for it to stay that hot for that long unless you had literally tons of thermite to sustain the reaction

as for a fire, it will draw oxygen through any hole, crack, opening, subway tunnel, hallway, whatever it can find, look up centralia pa, or burning mountain australia, centralia is a coal fire that has been burning underground for 45 years, burning mountain is a coal fire thats estimated to be over 6000 years old, neither seems to have any trobl egetting oxygen

Aluminum is what the debunkers said shooted out that one window caused by the siding of the building melting....if thermate produces aluminum oxide then that is plausible right? granted it should still be there...but remember in order to take out the supporting columns i dont guess much thermate had to be used...

aluminum and aluminum oxide are not the same thing, they dont look the same, they dont react the same to heat, they dont have any physical properties in common other than that they are solid at room temperature

here is what aluminum oxide looks like after a thermite reaction, its a yellowish/whitish powder (depending on the purity)

 

[israelside]

well think about this, if you placed thermate on every supporting column on just 1 floor, say the 40th floor...if you ignited it then the entire top would fall down on the lower part and crush it and the building would topple over...thats logical right? so if you do that to 20 floors you got a nice collapse like it happend...just a thought

 

[Gravy]

well think about this, if you placed thermate on every supporting column on just 1 floor, say the 40th floor...if you ignited it then the entire top would fall down on the lower part and crush it and the building would topple over...thats logical right? so if you do that to 20 floors you got a nice collapse like it happend...just a thought

Your illogical fantasies have gotten the best of you. Your ideas aren't clever, or interesting, or related to reality. They are nonsense. Please try to get a grip on yourself. NOTHING LIKE WHAT YOU ARE PROPOSING HAPPENED. NOTHING.

Your continued fantasizing will never change that. Buck up.

 

[israelside]

Your illogical fantasies have gotten the best of you. Your ideas aren't clever, or interesting, or related to reality. They are nonsense. Please try to get a grip on yourself. NOTHING LIKE WHAT YOU ARE PROPOSING HAPPENED. NOTHING.

Your continued fantasizing will never change that. Buck up.

my comment was about something that could have happend right? if if you dont think a bunch of floors had thermate or even any, if 1 did like i said wouldn't it topple the whole building? answer that butterfly man

 

[defaultdotxbe]

well think about this, if you placed thermate on every supporting column on just 1 floor, say the 40th floor...if you ignited it then the entire top would fall down on the lower part and crush it and the building would topple over...thats logical right? so if you do that to 20 floors you got a nice collapse like it happend...just a thought

if you did that it would burn through whatever casing its in, fall on the floor and burn down through the concrete floor, it wouldnt hurt the columns

also, the building wouldnt topple, the structure would break apart long before it could tilt that far over, skycrapers are designed to stand upright, the farther away from vertical you get the weaker the structure becomes

 

[Gravy]

my comment was about something that could have happend right? if if you dont think a bunch of floors had thermate or even any, if 1 did like i said wouldn't it topple the whole building? answer that butterfly man

Your illogical fantasies have gotten the best of you. Your ideas aren't clever, or interesting, or related to reality. They are nonsense. Please try to get a grip on yourself. NOTHING LIKE WHAT YOU ARE PROPOSING HAPPENED. NOTHING.

Your continued fantasizing will never change that. Buck up.

 

[israelside]

if you did that it would burn through whatever casing its in, fall on the floor and burn down through the concrete floor, it wouldnt hurt the columns

also, the building wouldnt topple, the structure would break apart long before it could tilt that far over, skycrapers are designed to stand upright, the farther away from vertical you get the weaker the structure becomes

so you're saying its impossible to glue thermate to a column and melt it enough to weaken it? if not completely melt it? if you can then thats what i mean by my statement!

 

[israelside]

Your illogical fantasies have gotten the best of you. Your ideas aren't clever, or interesting, or related to reality. They are nonsense. Please try to get a grip on yourself. NOTHING LIKE WHAT YOU ARE PROPOSING HAPPENED. NOTHING.

Your continued fantasizing will never change that. Buck up.

ignoring my questions...what else from a man who puts his face in a butterfly.

I am 10 times more interesting than you dude, why is this forum only filled with hardend people like yourself? I'v been on here for a few months now and no one has agreed with my hardly at all...funny

 

[Gravy]

ignoring my questions...what else from a man who puts his face in a butterfly.

I am 10 times more interesting than you dude, why is this forum only filled with hardend people like yourself? I'v been on here for a few months now and no one has agreed with my hardly at all...funny

If a bunch of smart, informed, logical, critical thinkers didn't agree with me over a several month period, I'd think about tuning in to the reality channel.

 

[beachnut]

so you're saying its impossible to glue thermate to a column and melt it enough to weaken it? if not completely melt it? if you can then thats what i mean by my statement!

Glue? lol is there a ceramic glue? Have you seen thermite? Even if you had the column cutting device to place thermite in, I think it was invented after 9/11. But the device would have to be on the Steel, not 3 inches away behind the wall board or fire insulation.

You need to research Jones and you ideas and then use your head. Jones has nothing. If you need his first paper he wrote I have a copy. He keeps making up stuff as he goes. His first paper is funny. His current work is sad.

 

[Swing Dangler]

The CIA do not have a close relationship with the ISI okay? They had a brief alliance of convenience during the Soviet-Afghan War because they both had an interest in the Soviets being beaten. That's it. You're assuming that association was official. When I say "the connections between Al Qaeda and the ISI were well known" I mean it was well known that individual members of the ISI were friendly to and supported Al Qaeda. Not that the organisation officially did. If you think either the ISI or CIA has any control over the former Afghan Mujhideen (let alone Al Qaeda) you are sadly mistaken.
-Gumboot

From the Journal Of Homeland Security and Management-
Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001
After the embassy bombings of 1998:

Although a credible adversary was present, Tenet could
only pull so much money away from the other bureaus of the CIA for the
campaign against Al Qaeda. The amount of money needed to effectively fight
terrorism and to fund the Counterterrorism Center remained a pipe dream, and the CIA continued to rely on Pakistan’s ISI and other intelligence agencies to do the bulk of the work inside Afghanistan.

The New York Times, October 29, 2001
Pakistani Intelligence Had Links to Al Qaeda, U.S. Officials Say

The intelligence service of Pakistan, a crucial American ally in the war on terrorism, has had an indirect but longstanding relationship with Al Qaeda, turning a blind eye for years to the growing ties between Osama bin Laden and the Taliban, according to American officials.The I.S.I. did cooperate with the C.I.A. and the F.B.I. on several counterterrorism operations in the 1990's. Most notably, the Pakistanis were instrumental in the capture in Islamabad in 1995 of Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind of the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993, and the arrest in Pakistan in 1997 of Mir Aimal Kansi, who killed two C.I.A. employees on a shooting rampage outside C.I.A. headquarters in 1993.One former official said the C.I.A. "fell for" what amounted to a stalling tactic aimed at fending off political pressure. The C.I.A. equipped and financed a special commando unit that Pakistan had offered to create to capture Mr. bin Laden. "But this was going nowhere," the former official said. "The I.S.I. never intended to go after bin Laden. We got completely snookered."

I could post a lot more information on the relationship, but you get the point.
Gumbot, you are either lying or lack the knowledge about the relationship the CIA has and continues to have with ISI.
On another note, thanks for being the subject of my first post here at JREF!

 

[defaultdotxbe]

so you're saying its impossible to glue thermate to a column and melt it enough to weaken it? if not completely melt it? if you can then thats what i mean by my statement!

yes, thats exactly what im saying, when thermite is reacting is 2500 degrees centigrade and its a liquid, no glue is going to hold it in place

imagine trying to boil water in a cup made out of ice, it aint happening

Even if you had the column cutting device to place thermite in, I think it was invented after 9/11. But the device would have to be on the Steel, not 3 inches away behind the wall board or fire insulation.

the device has been patented (after 9/11) but never produced, and from what ic an tell from reading the patent documents it pretty much only cuts downward, and in circular holes

 

[Swing Dangler]

Or....

You need to research Jones and you ideas and then use your head. Jones has nothing.

Or you could perform the experiments yourself to invalidate or validate his theory. If the theory was invalidated through the scientific process and experiments, it would completely end any discussion of Jone's theory.

 

[Blackwell]

Or you could perform the experiments yourself to invalidate or validate his theory. If the theory was invalidated through the scientific process and experiments, it would completely end any discussion of Jone's theory.

...and then you could move on to Judy Woods. Build an energy beam, launch it into space, aim it at some buildings, and see what happens. Right?
It's not up to us to INVALIDATE his theory. HE needs to validate his theories "through the scientific process and experiments". The onus is on those who propose these outlandish theories to prove their merit.

PS - welcome to the forum, SD

 

[gumboot]

From the Journal Of Homeland Security and Management-
Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001
After the embassy bombings of 1998:



The New York Times, October 29, 2001
Pakistani Intelligence Had Links to Al Qaeda, U.S. Officials Say


I could post a lot more information on the relationship, but you get the point.
Gumbot, you are either lying or lack the knowledge about the relationship the CIA has and continues to have with ISI.
On another note, thanks for being the subject of my first post here at JREF!

Nothing you have posted refutes what I have said. Neither indicate a close relationship between the CIA and ISI, in fact they suggest the total opposite - one of reluctant cooperation when forced to by political pressure.

This is a far cry from Israelside's assertion that the CIA controls the ISI.

Also neither indicate any sort of official government-sanctioned relationship between Al Qaeda and the ISI. As I said, the ties between specific ISI members (even high-ranking ones) and Al Qaeda has been common knowledge for a very long time, and is no surprise whatsoever.

-Gumboot

 

[Dave Rogers]

If it wasn't for me no one would talk in these forums however Dave you are getting at another crucial point, that is, if you can show there is no way to ever prove something like thermate was used in the WTC then you prove it wasn't in there? So if we can't prove it was in there by chemical analysis and we can't prove it wasn't in there because of chemical analysis thennnn that must mean we should trust the government and believe their statements about the events of 911.

Wrong.

There is no realistic possibility of proving by chemical analysis of the debris that therm*te either was or was not present; the main constituents of thermite, aluminium, oxygen and iron, were all present in enormous quantities in the structure of the towers and the air around them, and any other elements found by Jones can be explained by experimental artefacts and contamination from other materials known to be present in enormous quantities. As a result, Jones's work tells us precisely nothing.

OK, that's chemical analysis disposed of. However, there is more to consider than chemical analysis. There is the absence of any testimony that large scale work was under way in the WTC towers prior to the attacks that might have been a cover for installing thermite cutting devices. There is the observed failure mode of the towers, which is visibly inconsistent with the cause being severing of the core columns. There are the known properties of the thermite reaction, which make it impossible that the proposed demolition mechanism could have been used without technology that is not known to exist and would certainly involve bulky installations, taking us back to the first point. There is the absence of any testimony from the workers cleaning up ground zero and the FBI agents examining the debris to the effect that any mechanisms were found whose purpose was unknown or mysterious and might have been connected with the use of thermite to effect a controlled demolition. There is the absence of any credible motive for controlled demolition of the towers. And so on, and so on.

In summary, there is overwhelming physical, testimonial (is that the word?) and circumstantial evidence that there was no controlled demolition of the twin towers. The suggestion that it should be considered as a possibility because a piece of evidence claimed to suggest CD cannot in fact be shown to disprove CD is what's known as shifting the burden of proof - and in this case there's ample proof to shoulder the burden.

Dave

 

[chipmunk stew]

I'v been on here for a few months now and no one has agreed with my hardly at all...

Worth repeating.