• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Adventures with AE911truth

Apollo20 said:
BeAChooser:

Could you please provide a reference to the EPA expert that Dr Jones quoted concerning the WTC spheres who you claim has published a report explaining them.

Thanks!
Click to expand...


I must apologize. I was incorrect when I said that Steven Jones cited an EPA expert about the iron spheres who had provided in a report a reasonable explanation for them. I misremembered what I'd read.

What I was thinking of was a webpage that quotes a UC Davis air-quality expert named Thomas Cahill who testified at an EPA hearing. And what he said contradicted a statement by Christopher Bollyn in a May 24 article at GlobalResearch.ca titled "Why are Honest 9/11 Researchers Targeted". In that article Bollyn wrote "I took Jones' research to the University of California at Davis where I met with Professor Thomas Cahill. Cahill had collected data and analyzed the smoke (with a Davis DRUM) that rose from the WTC debris pile from early October until Christmas 2001. The extraordinary abundance of nano-size particles in the smoke indicated that the molten metal beneath the towers was hotter than the boiling point of iron and the other metals found in the bluish smoke. This is the kind of evidence that those who support the official version hate."

What I found in a document at xttp://delta.ucdavis.edu/WTC.htm (change the x to an h) was this:

************

"The fuming World Trade Center debris pile was a chemical factory that exhaled pollutants in particularly dangerous forms that could penetrate deep into the lungs of workers at Ground Zero, says a new study by UC Davis air-quality experts.

The new work helps explain the very fine particles and extraordinarily high concentrations found by an earlier UC Davis study, the first to identify very fine metallic aerosols in unprecedented amounts from Ground Zero. It will be essential to understanding the growing record of health problems.

The conditions would have been "brutal" for people working at Ground Zero without respirators and slightly less so for those working or living in immediately adjacent buildings, said the study's lead author, Thomas Cahill, a UC Davis professor emeritus of physics and atmospheric science and research professor in engineering.

"Now that we have a model of how the debris pile worked, it gives us a much better idea of what the people working on and near the pile were actually breathing," Cahill said. "Our first report was based on particles that we collected one mile away. This report gives a reasonable estimate of what type of pollutants were actually present at Ground Zero.

"The debris pile acted like a chemical factory. It cooked together the components of the buildings and their contents, including enormous numbers of computers, and gave off gases of toxic metals, acids and organics for at least six weeks."

*************

The last line seems to offer a perfectly reasonable and relatively ordinary (ie, one not involving thermite) explanation for the composition of the dust Cahill found. Guess I overstated my case, didn't I.:blush:
 
BeAChooser; said:
I must apologize. I was incorrect when I said that Steven Jones cited an EPA expert about the iron spheres who had provided in a report a reasonable explanation for them. I misremembered what I'd read.

What I was thinking of was a webpage that quotes a UC Davis air-quality expert named Thomas Cahill who testified at an EPA hearing. And what he said contradicted a statement by Christopher Bollyn in a May 24 article at GlobalResearch.ca titled "Why are Honest 9/11 Researchers Targeted". In that article Bollyn wrote "I took Jones' research to the University of California at Davis where I met with Professor Thomas Cahill. Cahill had collected data and analyzed the smoke (with a Davis DRUM) that rose from the WTC debris pile from early October until Christmas 2001. The extraordinary abundance of nano-size particles in the smoke indicated that the molten metal beneath the towers was hotter than the boiling point of iron and the other metals found in the bluish smoke. This is the kind of evidence that those who support the official version hate."

What I found in a document at xttp://delta.ucdavis.edu/WTC.htm (change the x to an h) was this:

************

"The fuming World Trade Center debris pile was a chemical factory that exhaled pollutants in particularly dangerous forms that could penetrate deep into the lungs of workers at Ground Zero, says a new study by UC Davis air-quality experts.

The new work helps explain the very fine particles and extraordinarily high concentrations found by an earlier UC Davis study, the first to identify very fine metallic aerosols in unprecedented amounts from Ground Zero. It will be essential to understanding the growing record of health problems.

The conditions would have been "brutal" for people working at Ground Zero without respirators and slightly less so for those working or living in immediately adjacent buildings, said the study's lead author, Thomas Cahill, a UC Davis professor emeritus of physics and atmospheric science and research professor in engineering.

"Now that we have a model of how the debris pile worked, it gives us a much better idea of what the people working on and near the pile were actually breathing," Cahill said. "Our first report was based on particles that we collected one mile away. This report gives a reasonable estimate of what type of pollutants were actually present at Ground Zero.

"The debris pile acted like a chemical factory. It cooked together the components of the buildings and their contents, including enormous numbers of computers, and gave off gases of toxic metals, acids and organics for at least six weeks."

*************

The last line seems to offer a perfectly reasonable and relatively ordinary (ie, one not involving thermite) explanation for the composition of the dust Cahill found. Guess I overstated my case, didn't I.:blush:
Click to expand...

This is a particularly interesting aspect of 9/11 wish some of the forum would discuss in more detail. I'm particularly interested in the gypsum and what chemical reactions are statistically favorable in the pile. (gypsum itself is a very interesting in its fabrication, the exothermic nature of the cure process)
 
BeAChooser:

When you say "Guess I overstated my case, didn't I."

No! You were totally incorrect; Prof. Cahill wasn't even talking about micro-spheres. I have had many discussions with Prof. Cahill on the WTC emissions so I can speak with certitude on this topic....

Please try to be more accurate and less "misremembering"... Thank you.
 
It looks like the AE9/11Truth forum is up and running again, but not all of it is visible to the public.

I hope their having a good time validating their own beliefs.
 
"Chemists Who Harbour Irrational Hatred Toward Engineers" for 9/11 Truth.
 
Lawyers for 9/11 Litigants - ie a website for certain unscrupulous members of the Bar who wish to cash in on the nutjobs. Cash up front, no refunds.
 
AZCat said:
It looks like the AE9/11Truth forum is up and running again, but not all of it is visible to the public.

I hope their having a good time validating their own beliefs.
Click to expand...

How much will you wager that they will not be posting a names list or a qualifications list this time...lol

TAM:)
 
T.A.M. said:
How much will you wager that they will not be posting a names list or a qualifications list this time...lol

TAM:)
Click to expand...

Gage has posted a new "welcome" in the public area of the forum:

ae911truth said:
Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2007 3:59 pm Post subject: Welcome to our new forum
We now have over 100 A/E's as well as numerous "Others and A/E students" with many more waiting to be verified! This is an extraordinary response and represents a very loud voice from technical building professionals demanding a new investigation by Congress into the 3 WTC high-rise "collapses" on 9/11! Our website has tens of thousands of hits since it launched on Memorial Day 2007, and I now have speaking engagements coming up all across the country and am doing an interview on some radio program every week. We're getting overwhelming positive support from the 9/11 Truth community in about 100 emails per day!

Our mission is to research and to disseminate the facts of the controlled demolitions of the Twin Towers and Building #7 to every architect and engineer in North America and around the world. To this end we began a public discussion forum when we launched the website on Memorial Day which was met with quite an effort by non-members with a different agenda intending to distract us from productive discussion. We therefore re-formatted the forum because we were spending too much of our time moderating it.

Today we have completed our new Discussion Forum! Posts on this forum will be met with constructive discussion and support from other members. Only members may post and anyone can become a member by joining us in calling upon Congress for a truly independent investigation into the 3 WTC High-rise "collapses" on 9/11 and your name will be listed on the website along with the rest of us. (And any member may be removed from the forum for violating the posted forum rules.) The discussions are member-only viewable to provide a safe, productive environment. Certain research results will be displayed publicly here so that the 9/11 Truth community may also benefit from the research that will be shared.

We look forward to a very positive experience with the new forum! Many of you have already submitted extremely important research and topics for discussion. Let's get them all posted so we can learn from each other and build our research database.

Welcome members — let's get to work. There is much to be done!!

Sincerely,

Richard Gage, AIA
Click to expand...

Apparently a "safe, productive environment" means one in which the members of AE9/11Truth won't have to be exposed to dissenting voices, nor will they have their posts scrutinized by others (too bad - the Stundies could have used another source).
 
Notice that they haven't even removed "Massimo Dell'Affidabilità" (maximum reliability) from the list of *members*? ROTFLOL!
 
BeAChooser said:
Notice that they haven't even removed "Massimo Dell'Affidabilità" (maximum reliability) from the list of *members*?
Click to expand...

Or Peter Gibbons from Office Space.

Or names that are recognizable as debunkers, who are apparently still having fun at their expense.

Or "Am Amnusydcjkorn." Seriously, does any real word in any language have "ydcjk" in the middle of it?
 
As an aside, by way of Doc I've challeneged Gage and co to a professional to professional debate on the subject. Last time I heard, there was a resounding silence from them.

Which seems strange, if they're so keen to spread the Truth and have nothing to hid from peer level review of their arguments.
 
Architect said:
As an aside, by way of Doc I've challeneged Gage and co to a professional to professional debate on the subject. Last time I heard, there was a resounding silence from them.

Which seems strange, if they're so keen to spread the Truth and have nothing to hid from peer level review of their arguments.
Click to expand...

Didn't you read Gage's notice when they temporarily closed the forum? IIRC it read "the time for debate has passed." He is not interested in having anyone challenge his beliefs. For all their mouthing about "just asking questions" and just wanting a "new investigation" they're a remarkably close-minded group.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom