• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Any Conspiracy-Busters here?


Good. You provide some points. Let's take the first 20. Let's see what we can achieve.

1. The omission of evidence that at least six of the alleged hijackers--including Waleed al-Shehri, said by the Commission probably to have stabbed a flight attendant on Flight 11 before it crashed into the North Tower of the WTC--are still alive (19-20).

This is a claim of evidence, not evidence itself. If it were true, however, all it would point to is that we may have the wrong names.

2. The omission of evidence about Mohamed Atta--such as his reported fondness for alcohol, pork, and lap dances--that is in tension with the Commission's claim that he had become fanatically religious (20-21).

Religious fundies are allowed to break Allah's code in order to complete their mission.

3. The obfuscation of the evidence that Hani Hanjour was too poor a pilot to have flown an airliner into the Pentagon (21-22).

All you need is a good set of coordinates, I guess. No one's asking these guys to do loops. Of course, I had heard that their initial target was the white house, but I've since read that this might not be true. Still, "poor" is a relative term.

4. The omission of the fact that the publicly released flight manifests contain no Arab names (23).

Could you provide a link to the official manifests, preferably from the company itself ?

5. The omission of the fact that fire has never, before or after 9/11, caused steel-frame buildings to collapse (25).

The WTC was designed differently than most skyscrapers. In addition, those other steel-frame buildings were NOT hit by airliners. The furniture fire may have caused the collapse, but the fuel spread the fire quickly, and the structure must have taken SOME damage from the crash.

6. The omission of the fact that the fires in the Twin Towers were not very big, very hot, or very long-lasting compared with fires in several steel-frame buildings that did not collapse (25-26).

Experts claim that this was unnecessary.

7. The omission of the fact that, given the hypothesis that the collapses were caused by fire, the South Tower, which was struck later than the North Tower and also had smaller fires, should not have collapsed first (26).

This isn't so simple, Syntax. External damaga and internal damage are not the same. No one was inside the tower to survey the damage at those floors.

8. The omission of the fact that WTC 7 (which was not hit by an airplane and which had only small, localized fires) also collapsed--an occurrence that FEMA admitted it could not explain (26).

If you watch the video closely, you'll see that the building takes heavy damage from the towers' collapse and there is a lot of smoke coming from it.

9. The omission of the fact that the collapse of the Twin Towers (like that of Building 7) exemplified at least 10 features suggestive of controlled demolition (26-27).

Again, watch actual demolitions. You can hear the explosives and you can see them explode in sequence. The top of the towers simply collapsed and took the rest with them as they fell. Obviously, the skyscrapers were not designed to handle a mass of such magnitude crashing onto them.

10. The claim that the core of each of the Twin Towers was "a hollow steel shaft"--a claim that denied the existence of the 47 massive steel columns that in reality constituted the core of each tower and that, given the "pancake theory" of the collapses, should have still been sticking up many hundreds of feet in the air (27-28).

Except that, even if this were true, those steel columns would also be damaged by the fire and the collapse. I don't think they'd handle the stress. I could be wrong, though, but first we'd have to confirm their presence. Could you provide a link for this claim ?

11. The omission of Larry Silverstein's statement that he and the fire department commander decided to "pull" Building 7 (28).

From what I've read of that conversation on this very thread, he meant pull the TEAM. Firemen don't use demolition jargon, do they ?

12. The omission of the fact that the steel from the WTC buildings was quickly removed from the crime scene and shipped overseas before it could be analyzed for evidence of explosives (30).

Overseas where ?

13. The omission of the fact that because Building 7 had been evacuated before it collapsed, the official reason for the rapid removal of the steel--that some people might still be alive in the rubble under the steel--made no sense in this case (30).

I'm not sure I follow you, here.

14. The omission of Mayor Giuliani's statement that he had received word that the World Trade Center was going to collapse (30-31).

Quotation and source, please.

15. The omission of the fact that President Bush's brother Marvin and his cousin Wirt Walker III were both principals in the company in charge of security for the WTC (31-32).

These facts do not provide any information that may change the evidence. Everybody's connected to everybody else, and more closely than you might think.

16. The omission of the fact that the west wing of the Pentagon would have been the least likely spot to be targeted by al-Qaeda terrorists, for several reasons (33-34).

If you're talking about it beign reinforced, it would still be pretty risky to ram a jet into a building if you don't want to destroy it. Motive, please ?

17. The omission of any discussion of whether the damage done to the Pentagon was consistent with the impact of a Boeing 757 going several hundred miles per hour (34).

Actually this was discusses at lenght. People saw the 757, a 757 is missing, the passengers are dead, there's a big whole in the pentagon with parts of plane in it. I'd say a place crashed there.

18. The omission of the fact that there are photos showing that the west wing's facade did not collapse until 30 minutes after the strike and also that the entrance hole appears too small for a Boeing 757 to have entered (34).

The WHOLE plane didn't ENTER the building. It also hit the ground and you can bet the wings didn't go through the pentagon. The time of collapse is irrelevant, as we've already said the building was reinforced, and there's no way you can estimate the "proper" collapse time.

19. The omission of all testimony that has been used to cast doubt on whether remains of a Boeing 757 were visible either inside or outside the Pentagon (34-36).

You've seen the photos on this thread. I assume you're just reusing arguments instead of typing them yourself.

20. The omission of any discussion of whether the Pentagon has a anti-missile defense system that would have brought down a commercial airliner--even though the Commission suggested that the al-Qaeda terrorists did not attack a nuclear power plant because they assumed that it would be thus defended (36).

This has also been explained.

some of these are already in dispute here...the problem I am seeing is a lack of strength in a few of the claims that he doesn't cite as fact...

As you see, in about 15 minutes I was able to more-or-less respond, without much effort, to the first 20 points you brought. Some don't make sense at all, others have been disproven by conclusive evidence. The few that I can't answer, need support, which you haven't provided.

I'm pretty sure I could, in about 2-3 hours, respond in a detailed way to each of your 100 points. There would be very few points left that would raise questions.

This said, it shows how conspiracy-types do little researsh to verify their assertions. If they'd spend a fraction of their "researsh" time actually looking for answers, their entire argument would collapse because they'd realise that most of their points are baseless.
 
The minute you start reading the contents of my posts, namely the links that contain the names you seek...

That is so childish. You'll stop doing things that confuse people once they start reading your posts, which is something you can't even verify ?

Logic is not fact...

No, but without it you can't really analyse the facts, can you ? Your 100+ assertions aren't facts, either.

so what is the physical evidence that proves the official story, and that has you so convinced...

It's been named. I hate repeating myself.

or is it just your faith in your own logic that has you convinced..

There is no such thing as A logic. There is only one logic. I think you're confusing logic with belief.

need I remind you this isn't evidence either.

Either what ? It's the same thing you said a moment ago.

have been asking for evidence, cold hard evidence this whole time...and not a single thing...just a lot of excuses and links to sites that say that "we don't know for sure but it is logical to make this guess"...

Yes, in the absence of conclusive evidence we have to make the best guess we can. For certain elements of this subject, that's the case. CTers always ask more proof than is physically possible for the official story they so abhor.

as far as experts...the word experts doesn't mean infalliable as you seem to suggest, it means they are more educated, and just like anyone who is only viewing the video evidence they are going to be limited in the claims they can make.

Perhaps, but their opinion is certainly more "expert" than that of laymen.
 
Someone mentioned a while back that it could be possible to create a PCT to prove the Colmubia didn't actually crash, despite the large amount of debris found.

I found that interesting, in that my own sister actually believes that. She thinks we're all being duped - that it actually broke up into pre-made satellites which are now orbiting the earth conducting mind-control-weapons experiments on us with remote sensing devices.

Got a headache? Nervous twitch? Sore throat? Blame it on NASA. Gah!!!
 
If they (the CT'ers) get THAT out of Columbia, what did they get out of Challenger?

Clearly explosives were put inside shortly after it was built, and the government wanted to cover that fact up. Obviously the Challenger was a weapon designed to attack Soviet ground forces attempting to invade the U.S. from Cuba. If you look at the the tapes after the explosion, it is clear that the pieces were in free fall. thesyntaxera blindly believes the official story, but here is some other evidence for the truth:

1. The astronauts were never given proper instructions on how to exit the vehicle.

2. Several witnesses saw the pieces fall back and to the right.

3. Then President Bill Clinton was seen signing several documents relating to the explosion after it happened.

4. A man in Israel once had a dog named Challenger. You know what that means.

5. The fuel tanks were colored orange, which we all know is the color for hazard. And the Dukes of Hazard.

6. The magnetic couplings connecting the fuel tanks to the rockets were not actually magnets.

7. The astronauts never called home before the launch, which was customary for astronauts to do at the time.

8. Everyone knows that liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen are not explosive.

9. Then President Clinton was quoted as saying "The Challenger disaster is truly a sad event, for which mankind has not the capacity to fathom."

10. Eleven of the sixteen astronauts were later seen alive in Texas.

11. The event took place just three days before major sanctions on Cuba were lifted.

12. "Teacher" was a known code word for "intercontinental ballistic missile" at the time.

13. Students were all forced to watch the launch. I think you see the obvious implication there.

14. Soviet leader Chikov Molestin was never seen again after the explosion.

15. Secret documents obtained from government sources indicate that several such weapons were being designed at the time.

I could go on, but I'm not as tedious as thesyntaxera. Clearly I have presented more evidence than any of you have for the "official story," because there is not one shred of evidence for it.

And since you don't hear anyone talking about this, it just proves my point that this was a cover up.
 
Are they shiney enough yet?

Since we have already established that you can argue either way on every point without proving anything..... what about this guy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones


Steven Earl Jones is a professor of physics at Brigham Young University who conducts research in nuclear fusion and solar energy. Jones has also investigated the hypothesis that the World Trade Center Twin Towers and WTC 7, which all collapsed nearly symmetrically on September 11, 2001, were brought down by pre-positioned explosives. Although the term cold fusion was coined by Jones [1], his experimental work was significantly different than the more controversial cold fusion experiments of Pons and Fleischmann.

Jones also examines the official reports by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (aka the 9/11 commission), which all conclude fires and damage alone caused complete demolition of all three buildings. A central topic within Jones essay is the contention that the condition and nature of the debris which remained following the buildings' collapses was not consistent with the scenarios documented by FEMA and NIST; in particular, along with the observations of molten metal at Ground Zero by Leslie Robertson (WTC structural engineer)and Dr. Allison Geyh (a public health investigator from Johns Hopkins), Jones cites and includes photographic evidence [4], which he says show molten metal in the debris, and notes the reports on sulfidation of structural steel.

http://www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/index.html

FEMA's investigators inferred that a "liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur" formed during a "hot corrosion attack on the steel." The eutectic mixture (having the elements in such proportion as to have the lowest possible melting point) penetrated the steel down grain boundaries, making it "susceptible to erosion."

Now, isn't saying a hot corrision attack on the steel occured similar to saying there was thermite or some other corrosive demolition explosive. Jones points out that sulfur added to a thermite reaction dramatically increases it's capability.



Some critics have claimed that Jones's analysis is similar to that of other researchers which they have disputed in the past, including claims regarding photographic evidence of demolition charges, the claim that no major persistent fires were visible at WTC7, and what they allege are selectively edited quotes from Bill Manning [5]and Stephen Gregory.

commentary on "edited" quotes.
http://www.911myths.com/html/fire_engineering.html

Jones makes a mention that it is for emphasis in his paper, and to be honest it doesn't seem that Manning is in favor of the "truss theory" either so much as he is in favor of a more indepth investigation which one could argue would be why Jones placed the quotes for "emphasis".

However, respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating theory has emerged: The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers. Rather, theory has it, the subsequent contents fires attacking the questionably fireproofed lightweight trusses and load-bearing columns directly caused the collapses in an alarmingly short time. Of course, in light of there being no real evidence thus far produced, this could remain just unexplored theory.

Interesting, isn't that what I been saying all along...that there is no physical evidence to prove/disprove any theory?

There are also some reports that Jones was under the gun for making these allegations in a formal peer reviewed paper, and they are commented on here:

http://www.newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/57724

“The dean explained to me how he handled requests for media interviews; how he managed to give so few,” said Jones, a full-tenured professor whose controversial research into the WTC collapse has sparked national media attention. “I’ve made the personal decision to stick with peer-reviewed papers and scholarly seminars as a means of expressing my views, as much as possible. No one at the university has told me not to talk about this subject.”

In a Nov. 11 interview, Physics Professor Harold Stokes, one of several faculty members who attended the seminar, said the explosive demolition hypothesis “certainly raises some interesting questions” and that Jones’ claims “certainly appear to be valid.”

Like many of his other colleagues, though, Stokes was up front in saying that he didn’t have the technical expertise to properly scrutinize Jones’ claims.

In an effort to accommodate administration and others, Jones said he has modified his paper, and submitted it to another journal and another round of peer reviewing.

He said he feels “a bit awkward” that some colleagues now question the peer review process his paper initially passed through.

“My paper was peer-reviewed and accepted for publication before being made available on the Web with the editor’s approval,” Jones said. “The reviewers included a physicist and an engineer, I now understand. The review has not been shown to have been inappropriate and I believe it was appropriate.”

Still, Jones said he willingly submitted his paper to another publication, where he is confident it will pass peer review a second time.


Here is jones' paper:

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
 
Last edited:
Are they shiney enough yet?

Since we have already established that you can argue either way on every point without proving anything..... what about this guy:

What about him? He's an energy physicist, not at all qualified to review structural failure.

If you read this thread about his 'paper' on the BAUT forum, you will see his credentials and writing are nowhere near up to snuff. I don't feel like re-writing all of it, so here is the thread link.

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=34793&
 
thesyntaxera didn't respond to my post. Clearly he can't prove that the Challenger was not blown up by the U.S. State Department to appease the Mexican and Belgian governments. Obviously it was.
 
kookbreaker wrote:
I pointed this out in the other thread. Re: the Molten metal, there is no evidence, beyond a few unrealiable eyewitness accounts, that there was ever any large quantity of molten metal found in the basement.

Furthermore, explosives don't really make pools of molten metal. Thermite doesn't make squibs. Mixing explosives and cutting fires is a recepie for failure.

I would point out that the good professor was third fool only to Pons & Fleichmann in the whole Cold Fusion fiasco. Not exactly a prize thinker in my book. Also, a physics professor is not a Structural Engineer.

Third fool?

Jones did not claim that any useful energy was produced. Rather, he reported slightly more neutrons were detected from experiments than could be expected from normal sources. Jones said the result suggested at least the possibility of fusion, though unlikely to be useful as an energy source.

What he did has nothing to do with the debunked Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann theory...the link I supplied makes this distinction.

I guess it also doesn't matter that his theory has survived one bout with peer review done by a physicist and an engineer.

As far as the molten metal claims from unreliable sources...what so unreliable about "Leslie Robertson (WTC structural engineer)and Dr. Allison Geyh (a public health investigator from Johns Hopkins)"??

and there are all these varied claims:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/moltensteel.html#ref3
A report by Waste Age describes New York Sanitation Department workers moving "everything from molten steel beams to human remains." 2

A report on the Government Computer News website quotes Greg Fuchek, vice president of sales for LinksPoint Inc. as stating:

In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel 3

A Messenger-Inquirer report recounts the experiences of Bronx firefighter "Toolie" O'Toole, who stated that some of the beams lifted from deep within the catacombs of Ground Zero by cranes were "dripping from the molten steel." 4

A transcription of an audio interview of Ground Zero chaplain Herb Trimpe contains the following passage:

When I was there, of course, the remnants of the towers were still standing. It looked like an enormous junkyard. A scrap metal yard, very similar to that. Except this was still burning. There was still fire. On the cold days, even in January, there was a noticeable difference between the temperature in the middle of the site than there was when you walked two blocks over on Broadway. You could actually feel the heat.

It took me a long time to realize it and I found myself actually one day wanting to get back. Why? Because I felt more comfortable. I realized it was actually warmer on site. The fires burned, up to 2,000 degrees, underground for quite a while before they actually got down to those areas and they cooled off.

I talked to many contractors and they said they actually saw molten metal trapped, beams had just totally had been melted because of the heat. So this was the kind of heat that was going on when those airplanes hit the upper floors. It was just demolishing heat. 5

A report in the Johns Hopkins Public Health Magazine about recovery work in late October quotes Alison Geyh, Ph.D., as stating:

Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel. 6

A publication by the National Environmental Health Association quotes Ron Burger, a public health advisor at the National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, who arrived at Ground Zero on the evening of September 12th. Burger stated:

Feeling the heat, seeing the molten steel, the layers upon layers of ash, like lava, it reminded me of Mt. St. Helen’s and the thousands who fled that disaster. 7

An article in The Newsletter of the Structural Engineers Association of Utah describing an speaking appearance by Leslie Robertson (structural engineer responsible for the design of the World Trade Center) contains this passage:

As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running. 8

A member of the New York Air National Guard's 109th Air Wing was at Ground Zero from September 22 to October 6. He kept a journal on which an article containing the following passage is based.

Smoke constantly poured from the peaks. One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers' remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots. 9


The book American Ground, which contains detailed descriptions of conditions at Ground Zero, contains this passage:

... or, in the early days, the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole. 10

A review of of the documentary Collateral Damage in the New York Post describes firemen at Ground Zero recalling "heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel." 11

It would seem that the current hypothesis(not fact) only works if you exclude all the firefighter testimony of multiple explosions, and of low burning fires, as well as the second video of the first impact that shows the impact and then provides audio of a second explosion and of a corresponding vibration, and assume that the fire ignited every single thing on the affected floors all at once and then proceeded to burn at an ever increasing temperature until a whole floors worth of steel was weakened to the point of failure despite the rapid heat conductivity that steel posesses.

Which doesn't explain wtc7 at all...for the most part...

The main suggestion in the reports is that the key event was the planes striking the buildings because fire alone couldn't have brought them down. In the case of wtc1 it was the combined hole in the outer columns, and the unseen damage to the inner columns that brought it down, and in the case of wtc2 in which it didn't take a direct hit the outer support columns failed and lead to a truss failure during redistribution of weight from the outer columns.

It has been pointed out that this isn't really consistent with the buildings contruction.

It also points out a flaw in the wtc7 explanation which doesn't include a plane, but a piece of flaming wreckage that penetrates the building and happens to land in the vicinity of a diesel fuel store starting a fire that burns so hot and strong that it literally pulls the entire building down almost in unison at nearly free fall speeds.

Maybe you should have just read the links...
 
Last edited:
I don't believe there was 'molten steel'. Bent or melted steel is more likely, but if there was molten metal, it was probably aluminium - aluminium melts at 660°C and most aluminium alloys melt at between 500 and 660°C.
 
thesyntaxera: If we put aside for a moment for whether there actually was molten steel present at the site (as opposed to other things which might have resembled molten steel, such as the aforementioned liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulphur), what do you think it would prove if there was molten steel at the site?
 
Just out of curiosity, do you know the components that make up thermite? And, I mean thermite that burns at 3000 degrees F. or so?

Aluminum and rust.

Yes, that's all. Commercial and military thermite has other chemicals, primarily for ease of ignition.

Do you know how much aluminum and rust there would be in an office building of that size?

Just saying, that even if some areas of melted steel were found, this does not necessarily support the hypothesis of demolition. It would depend on the amount of such melted material found. If thermite was used as a demolition agent, you'd expect quite a bit of this slag to be found. To my understanding, that was not the case.
 
kookbreaker wrote:

Third fool?

Pretty much. He was nowhere near as bad as P&F, but he made some massive, unsupported claims.

Jones did not claim that any useful energy was produced. Rather, he reported slightly more neutrons were detected from experiments than could be expected from normal sources. Jones said the result suggested at least the possibility of fusion, though unlikely to be useful as an energy source.

From a physics standpoint, claiming excess neutrons is worse than claiming excess heat.

Read 'Bad Science, The short life and weird times of cold fusion.'

from which I will quote:

'David Jackson, a UC Berkely theorist who wrote a seminal paper on muon-catalized fusion in 1959, and served as the field's elder statesman, observed that Jones seemed to be of two minds on the subject: when Jones presnted his data at meetings attended by the PSI competition, he would say that his data were similar to theirs. But, "when you heard Steve Jones talk about it without these other people around", said Jackson "then he's trying to sell you that the sticking probability is dropping like a bomb, and commercial fusion is just around the corner'

mmm-hmm.

What he did has nothing to do with the debunked Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann theory...the link I supplied makes this distinction.

You are quite wrong.

I guess it also doesn't matter that his theory has survived one bout with peer review done by a physicist and an engineer.

A physicist is still unqualified to make judgements of structure. Also this seems to be an elective peer reivew process: He's getting his buddies to review it.

We also do not know what kind of engineer reviewed it. The only Engineer listed in his acknowledgements is a micro-electronics engineer.

Furthermore:

http://www.et.byu.edu/news_jones_statement.htm

" Professor Jones's department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review. The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones."

etc.

As far as the molten metal claims from unreliable sources...what so unreliable about "Leslie Robertson (WTC structural engineer)and Dr. Allison Geyh (a public health investigator from Johns Hopkins)"??

Its all just statments. Not one photo of the pools of molten steel exists.
 
5. The fuel tanks were colored orange, which we all know is the color for hazard. And the Dukes of Hazard.

lol!

Good job.
 
thesyntaxera: If we put aside for a moment for whether there actually was molten steel present at the site (as opposed to other things which might have resembled molten steel, such as the aforementioned liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulphur), what do you think it would prove if there was molten steel at the site?

Well...before we go into it :

"liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur" formed during a "hot corrosion attack on the steel." The eutectic mixture (having the elements in such proportion as to have the lowest possible melting point) penetrated the steel down grain boundaries, making it "susceptible to erosion."

This seems to indicate that there was a hot corrision of steel that generated the eutectic mixture...what that means I haven't determined yet, but from the wording it sounds like there was a corrosion of steel at high temperature and the residual by products were this "mixture"....

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

Metallic eutectics
The term is often used in metallurgy to describe the alloy of two or more component materials having the relative concentrations specified at the eutectic point. When a non-eutectic alloy freezes, one component of the alloy crystallizes at one temperature and the other at a different temperature. With a eutectic alloy, the mixture freezes as one at a single temperature. A eutectic alloy therefore has a sharp melting point, and a non-eutectic alloy exhibits a plastic melting range. The phase transformations that occur while freezing a given alloy can be understood using the phase diagram by drawing a vertical line from the liquid phase to the solid phase on a phase diagram; each point along the line describes the composition at a given temperature.

Some uses include:

eutectic alloys for soldering, composed of tin (Sn), lead (Pb) and sometimes silver (Ag) or gold (Au).
casting alloys, such as aluminum-silicon and cast iron (an iron-carbon eutectic).
brazing, where diffusion can remove alloying elements from the joint, so that eutectic melting is only possible early in the brazing process.
temperature response, i.e. Wood's metal for fire sprinklers.
non-toxic mercury replacements, such as galinstan.
experimental metallic glasses, with extremely high strength and corrosion resistance.


What it would suggest, rather than prove unfortunately, is that temperatures higher than could have been achieved were in fact achieved, which would lend more credence to the official account being wrong.
 
then there is all this:

http://www.wanttoknow.info/9-11cover-up10pg

America’s top military leaders drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in US cities to trick the public into supporting a war against Cuba in the early 1960s. Approved in writing by the Pentagon Joint Chiefs, Operation Northwoods even proposed blowing up a US ship and hijacking planes as a false pretext for war. [ABC News, 5/1/01, Pentagon Documents]




1980s: Osama bin Laden runs a front organization for the mujaheddin—Islamic freedom fighters rebelling against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. The CIA secretly backs the mujaheddin. Pakistan's President Benazir Bhutto, understanding the ferocity of Islamic extremism, tells then President George Bush, "You are creating a Frankenstein." [MSNBC, 8/24/98, Newsweek, 10/1/01, more]

1993: An expert panel commissioned by the Pentagon raises the possibility that an airplane could be used to bomb national landmarks. [Washington Post, 10/2/01, more]

1994: Two attacks take place which involve hijacking planes to crash them into buildings, including one by an Islamic militant group. In a third attack, a lone pilot crashes a plane at the White House. Yet after Sept. 11, over and over aviation and security officials say they are shocked that terrorists could have hijacked airliners and crashed them into landmark buildings. [New York Times, 10/3/01]

Oct 1995: The oil company Unocal signs a contract for a “the perfect pipeline” through Afghanistan. Unocal edges out a more experienced Argentinean company for the contract. Henry Kissinger, a Unocal consultant, calls it "the triumph of hope over experience." But not long afterward, the Taliban alienates the US and the contract falls through. [Washington Post, 10/5/98]

1996: Analysts start working through the night in a chamber, deep in the bowels of CIA headquarters, known as the Bin Laden Room. Approximately 10-15 individuals are assigned to the unit, which is part of the CIA's Counter-Terrorism Center. By September 10, 2001, there are approximately 35-40 personnel assigned. Recognizing the danger posed by Bin Laden, the FBI also created a unit in 1999 at FBI headquarters to focus on him. [Newsweek, 10/1/01, Senate Intelligence (Witness Hill), 9/18/02]

1996: The Saudi Arabian government is financially supporting Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda and other extremist groups. After 9/11, the Bush Administration chooses not to confront the Saudi leadership over its support of terror organizations and its refusal to help in the investigation. [New Yorker, 10/22/01, more]

1996-1999: The CIA officer in charge of operations against Al Qaeda from Washington writes, “I speak with firsthand experience (and for several score of CIA officers) when I state categorically that during this time senior White House officials repeatedly refused to act on sound intelligence that provided multiple chances to eliminate Osama bin Laden.” [Los Angeles Times, 12/5/04]

1996-2001: Federal authorities have known for years that suspected terrorists with ties to bin Laden were receiving flight training at schools in the US and abroad. One convicted terrorist confessed that his planned role in a terror attack was to crash a plane into CIA headquarters. [Washington Post, 9/23/01, more]

1996-Sept 11, 2001: Taliban envoys repeatedly discuss turning bin Laden over, but the US wants to be handed bin Laden directly, and the Taliban want to turn him over to some third country. About 20 more meetings on giving up bin Laden take place up till 9/11, all fruitless. [Washington Post, 10/29/01]

1997: Former National Security Advisor Brzezinski publishes a book portraying Eurasia as the key to world power, and Central Asia with its vast oil reserves as the key to domination of Eurasia. He states that for the US to maintain its global primacy, it must prevent any adversary from controlling that region. He notes that because of popular resistance to US military expansionism, his ambitious strategy can’t be implemented "except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat." [The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives]

1998: An Oklahoma City FBI agent sends a memo warning that "large numbers of Middle Eastern males" are getting flight training and could be planning terrorist attacks. [CBS, 5/30/02] A separate CIA intelligence report asserts that Arab terrorists are planning to fly a bomb-laden aircraft into the WTC. [New York Times, 9/19/02, Senate Intelligence Committee (Witness Hill), 9/18/02, more]

Aug 1998: Within minutes of each other, truck bombs blow up the US embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, killing more than 220. For some of the time that bin Laden’s men were plotting to blow up the two embassies, US intelligence was tapping their phones. [Newsweek, 10/1/01]

Dec 1998: A Time magazine cover story entitled "The Hunt for Osama," reports that bin Laden may be planning his boldest move yet - a strike on Washington or possibly New York City. [Time, 12/21/98]

Late 1998-Early 2000: On at least three occasions, spies in Afghanistan report bin Laden's location. Each time, the president approves an attack. Each time, the CIA Director says the information is not reliable enough and the attack cannot go forward. [New York Times, 12/30/01, more]

Sept 1999: A US intelligence report states bin Laden and Al-Qaeda terrorists could crash an aircraft into the Pentagon. The Bush administration claims not to have heard of this report until May 2002, though it was widely shared within the government. [CNN, 5/18/02, AP, 5/18/02, Guardian, 5/19/02]

Nov 1999: The head of Australia's security services admits the Echelon global surveillance system exists. The US still denies it exists. BBC describes Echelon's power as "astounding." Every international telephone call, fax, e-mail, or radio transmission can be listened to by powerful computers capable of voice recognition. They home in on key words, or patterns of messages. [BBC, 11/3/99]

Jan 2000: George Bush Sr. meets with the bin Laden family on behalf of the Carlyle Group. He also met with them in 1998. Bush’s chief of staff could not remember that this meeting took place until shown a thank you note confirming the meeting. [Wall Street Journal, 9/27/01, Guardian, 10/31/01]

Summer 2000: A secret military operation named Able Danger identifies four future 9/11 hijackers, including lead hijacker Mohamed Atta, as a potential threat and members of Al Qaeda. Yet none of this is mentioned later in the 9/11 Commissions' final report. When questioned, the 9/11 commission's chief spokesman initially says that staff members briefed about Able Danger did not remember hearing anything about Atta. Days later, however, after provided detailed information, he says the uniformed officer who briefed two staff members had indeed mentioned Atta. [New York Times, 8/11/05, more]

Sept 2000: The think-tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC) writes the blueprint for a global “Pax Americana.” Written for the Bush team before the 2000 election, the report Rebuilding America’s Defenses is a plan for maintaining global US preeminence and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests. The plan shows Bush intends to take control of the Persian Gulf whether or not Saddam Hussein is in power. [Sunday Herald, 9/7/02, read report]

2000 – 2001: The military conducts exercises simulating what the White House says was unimaginable at the time: hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties. One imagined target is the World Trade Center. [USA Today, 4/19/04] Another is the Pentagon. [Military District of Washington (Army website), 11/3/00]

Jan 2001: A flight school alerts the FAA. Hijacker Hani Hanjour lacks English and flying skills needed for his commercial pilot's license. An FAA official then sits next to him in class. The official offers a translator to help him pass, but the flight school points out this is against the rules. [AP, 5/10/02]

Jan 2001: After the elections, US intelligence agencies are told to “back off” investigating the bin Ladens and Saudi royals. There have always been constraints on investigating Saudis. [BBC, 11/6/01, more]

Spring 2001: Military and government documents are released that seek to legitimize the use of US military force in the pursuit of oil. One article advocates presidential subterfuge in the promotion of conflict and "explicitly urge painting over the US's actual reasons for warfare as a necessity for mobilizing public support for a conflict." [Sydney Morning Herald, 12/26/02, more]

May 2001: US security chiefs reject Sudan's offer to turn over voluminous files about bin Laden and al-Qaeda. Sudan has made this offer repeatedly since 1995. [Guardian, 9/30/01, more]

May 2001: Secretary of State Powell gives $43 million in aid to the Taliban government. [Los Angeles Times, 5/22/01] This follows $113 million given by the US in 2000. [State Dept. Fact Sheet, 12/11/01]

May 2001: The US introduces the "Visa Express" program allowing any Saudi Arabian to obtain visas through their travel agent instead of appearing at a consulate in person. [US News and World Report, 12/12/01] Five hijackers use Visa Express over the next month to enter the US. [Congressional Intelligence Committee, 9/20/02, (Witness Hill)]

May-Aug 2001: A number of the 9/11 hijackers make at least six trips to Las Vegas. These "fundamentalist" Muslims drink alcohol, frequent strip clubs, and smoke hashish. Some even have strippers perform lap dances for them. [San Francisco Chronicle, 10/4/01, Newsweek, 10/15/01]

June 2001: German intelligence warns the CIA, Britain's MI6, and Israel's Mossad that Middle Eastern terrorists are training for hijackings and targeting US and Israeli symbols. [Fox News, 5/17/02]

June 13, 2001: Egyptian President Mubarak through his intelligence services warns the US that bin Laden's Islamic terrorist network is threatening to kill Bush and other G8 leaders at their July economic summit meeting in Italy. The terrorists plan to use a plane stuffed with explosives. [NY Times, 9/26/01]

July 4-14, 2001: Bin Laden reportedly receives kidney treatment from Canadian-trained Dr. Callaway at the American Hospital in Dubai. Telephoned several times, the doctor declines to answer questions. During his stay, bin Laden allegedly is visited by one or two CIA officers. [Guardian, 11/1/01, Sydney Morning Herald, 10/31/01, London Times 11/1/01, UPI, 11/1/01, more]

July 10, 2001: A Phoenix FBI agent sends a memorandum warning about Middle Eastern men taking flight lessons. He suspects bin Laden's followers and recommends a national program to check visas of suspicious flight-school students. The memo is sent to two FBI counter-terrorism offices, but no action is taken. [New York Times, 5/21/02] Vice President Cheney says in May 2002 that he opposes releasing this memo to congressional leaders or to the media and public. [CNN, 5/20/02]

July 24, 2001: Larry Silverstein's $3.2 billion 99-year lease of the WTC is finalized. Silverstein hopes to win $7 billion in insurance from the 9/11 destruction of the WTC towers. [New York Times, 02/16/03, Newsday, 09/25/02]

July 26, 2001: Attorney General Ashcroft stops flying commercial airlines due to a threat assessment. [CBS, 7/26/01] He later walks out of his office rather than answer questions about this. [AP, 5/16/02, more]

Late July 2001: The US and UN ignore warnings from the Taliban foreign minister that bin Laden is planning an imminent huge attack on US soil. The FBI and CIA also fail to take seriously warnings that Islamic fundamentalists have enrolled in flight schools across the US. [Independent, 9/7/02, more]

Summer 2001: Intelligence officials know that al Qaeda both hopes to use planes as weapons and seeks to strike a violent blow within the US, despite government claims following 9/11 that the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks came “like bolts from the blue.” [Wall Street Journal, 09/19/02]

Summer 2001: Russian President Putin later says publicly that he ordered his intelligence agencies to alert the US of suicide pilots training for attacks on US targets. [Fox, 5/17/02]

Late summer 2001: Jordanian intelligence agents go to Washington to warn that a major attack is planned inside the US and that aircraft will be used. Christian Science Monitor calls the story "confidently authenticated" even though Jordan later backs away from it. [CS Monitor, 5/23/02]

Aug 5-11, 2001: Israel warns US of an imminent Al Qaeda attack. [Fox News, 5/17/02]

Aug 6, 2001: President Bush is warned by US intelligence that bin Laden might be planning to hijack commercial airliners. The White House waits eight months after 9/11 to reveal this fact. [New York Times, 5/16/02] Titled “Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US,” the intelligence briefing specifically mentions the World Trade Center. Yet Bush later states the briefing “said nothing about an attack on America.” [Washington Post, 4/12/04, White House, 4/11/04, Intelligence Briefing, 8/6/01, more]

Aug 22, 2001: Top counter-terrorism expert John O'Neill quits the FBI due to repeated obstruction of his al-Qaeda investigations and a power play against him. He was the government's "most committed tracker of bin Laden and al-Qaeda." The next day he starts a new job as head of security at the WTC. He is killed weeks later in the World Trade Center during the 9/11 attack. [New Yorker, 1/14/02]

Aug 24, 2001: Frustrated with lack of response from FBI headquarters about detained suspect Moussaoui, the Minnesota FBI begins working with the CIA. The CIA sends alerts calling him a "suspect 747 airline suicide hijacker." Three days later an FBI Minnesota supervisor says he is trying keep Moussaoui from “taking control of a plane and fly it into the WTC." [Senate Intelligence Committee (Hill #2), 10/17/02] FBI headquarters chastises Minnesota FBI for notifying the CIA. [Time, 5/21/02] FBI Director Mueller will later say "there was nothing the agency could have done to anticipate and prevent the [9/11] attacks." [Senate Intelligence Committee (Witness Breitweiser), 9/18/02, more]

Sept 10, 2001: A particularly urgent warning may have been received the night before the attacks, causing some top Pentagon brass to cancel a trip. “Why that same information was not available to the 266 people who died aboard the four hijacked commercial aircraft may become a hot topic on the Hill." [Newsweek, 9/13/01] "A group of top Pentagon officials suddenly canceled travel plans for the next morning, apparently because of security concerns." [Newsweek, 9/24/01, more]

Sept 10, 2001: Former president Bush is with a brother of Osama bin Laden at a Carlyle business conference. The conference is interrupted the next day by the attacks. [Washington Post, 3/16/03]

Sept 10, 2001: Defense Secretary Rumsfeld announces that by some estimates the Department of Defense "cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions." CBS later calculates that 25% of the yearly defense budget is unaccounted for. A defense analyst says, “The books are cooked routinely year after year." [DOD, 9/10/01, CBS, 1/29/02] This announcement was buried by the next day’s news of 9/11.

Sept 11, 2001: Warren Buffett, the second richest man on Earth [BBC, 6/22/01], schedules a charity event inside Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska. A small group of business leaders attend, including at least one who would otherwise have died in the WTC. [SF Business Times, 2/1/02] Bush flies to this same base that day, where there is an underground command center. [CNN, 9/12/01, CBS, 9/11/02]

Sept 11, 2001: Recovery experts extract data from 32 WTC computer drives revealing a surge in financial transactions. Illegal transfers of over $100 million may have been made through some WTC computer systems immediately before and during the disaster. [Reuters, 12/18/01, CNN, 12/20/01, more]

Sept 11, 2001: In what the government describes as a bizarre coincidence, a US intelligence agency (the National Reconnaissance Office or NRO) was all set for an exercise at 9 AM on September 11th in which an aircraft would crash into one of its buildings near Washington, DC. [AP, 8/22/02, more]

Sept 11, 2001: The entire continental United States is defended by only seven air bases and 14 military jets. [CNN, 9/9/03, Newsday, 9/23/01]

September 11, 2001—Timeline for the Day of the Attacks

Department of Defense (6/1/01) and FAA (7/12/01) procedure: In the event of a hijacking, the FAA hijack coordinator on duty at Washington headquarters requests the military to provide escort aircraft. Normally, NORAD escort aircraft take the required action. The FAA notifies the National Military Command Center by the most expeditious means. [DOD/, 6/1/01, FAA, 7/12/01, FAA 7/12/01]

If NORAD (North American Aerospace Defense Command) hears of any difficulties in the skies, they begin the work to scramble jet fighters [take off and intercept aircraft that are off course]. Between Sep 2000 and June 2001 fighters were scrambled 67 times. [AP, 8/12/02] When the Lear jet of golfer Payne Stewart didn’t respond in 1999, F-16 interceptors were quickly dispatched. According to an Air Force timeline, a series of military planes provided an emergency escort to Payne’s stricken Lear about 20 minutes after ground controllers lost contact with his plane.[Dallas Morning News, 10/26/99, more]

8:20 AM (approx.): Air traffic controllers suspect Flight 11 has been hijacked. [NY Times, 9/15/01, more]

8:40 AM: NORAD is notified of hijacking. [NY Times, 10/16/01, 8:38 AM Washington Post, 9/15/01]

8:46 AM: Flight 11 crashes into the WTC (World Trade Center) north tower. [approximately 26 minutes after controllers lost contact][New York Times, 9/12/01]

8:46 AM: Bush later states, "I was sitting outside the classroom and I saw an airplane hit the tower. The TV was on.” [CNN, 12/4/01] “When we walked into the classroom, I had seen this plane fly into the first building.” [White House, 1/5/02] There was no live coverage of the first crash on TV.

8:52 AM: Two F-15s take off from Otis Air Force Base. [Washington Post, 9/15/01] They go after Flight 175. Major General Paul Weaver, director of the Air National Guard, states "the pilots flew like a scalded ape, topping 500 mph but were unable to catch up to the airliner. We had a nine-minute window, and in excess of 100 miles to intercept 175,'' he said. ''There was just literally no way.'' [Dallas Morning News, 9/15/01] F-15's fly at up to 2.5 times the speed of sound [1875 mph or 30+ miles a minute or 270+ miles in nine minutes] and are designed for low-altitude, high-speed, precision attacks. [BBC]

8:56 AM: By this time, it is evident that Flight 77 is lost. The FAA, already in contact with the Pentagon about the two hijackings out of Boston, reportedly doesn’t notify NORAD of this until 9:24, 28 minutes later. [see 9:10 AM for comparison, New York Times, 10/16/01]

9:03 AM: Flight 175 crashes into the south WTC tower. [23 minutes after NORAD notified, 43 minutes after air traffic control lost contact with pilots][New York Times, 9/12/01, CNN, 9/12/01]

9:10 AM: Major General Paul Weaver states Flight 77 came back on the (radar) scope at 9:10 in West Virginia. [Dallas Morning News, 9/15/01] Another report states the military was notified of Flight 77 several minutes after 9:03. [Washington Post, 9/15/01]

9:24 AM [? – see above]: The FAA, who 28 minutes earlier had discovered Flight 77 off course and heading east over West Virginia, reportedly notifies NORAD. A Pentagon spokesman says, "The Pentagon was simply not aware that this aircraft was coming our way." [Newsday, 9/23/01, New York Times, 10/16/01] Yet since the first crash, military officials in a Pentagon command center were urgently talking to law enforcement and air traffic control officials about what to do. [New York Times, 9/15/01]

9:28 AM: Air traffic control learns that Flight 93 has been hijacked. [MSNBC, 7/30/02]

9:38 AM: Flight 77 crashes into the Pentagon. [42 minutes or more after contact was lost, one hour after NORAD notification of first hijacking][New York Times, 10/16/01, 9:43 CNN, 9/12/01]

9:59 AM: The south tower of the World Trade Center collapses. [New York Times, 9/12/01]

10:10 AM: Flight 93 crashes in Pennsylvania. [42 minutes after contact was lost][CNN, 9/12/02]

10:28 AM: The World Trade Center north tower collapses. [CNN, 9/12/01, NY Times, 9/12/01]

5:20 PM: Building 7 of the World Trade Center collapses. [CNN, 9/12/01]

Sept 11, 2001: Did the Air Force send up planes after the hijacked aircraft? The Air Force won't say. It says they keep about 20 F-15 and F-16 fighters on duty with Air National Guards along the nation's coastline, ready to inspect unknown aircraft entering U.S. airspace. "We can scramble and be airborne in a matter of minutes," said an Air Force spokesperson. Some airline pilots are wondering whether the FAA did enough to try to prevent the crashes. [Wall Street Journal, 09/14/01]

Sept 11, 2001: Six air traffic controllers who dealt with two of the hijacked airliners make a tape recording describing the events, but the tape is later destroyed by a supervisor without anyone making a transcript or even listening to it. [Washington Post, 5/6/04, New York Times, 5/6/04]

Sept 11, 2001: Hours after the attacks, a "shadow government" is formed. Key congressional leaders say they didn’t know President Bush had established this government-in-waiting. Some Congressmen state the administration should have conferred about its plans. [CBS, 3/2/02, Washington Post, 3/2/02, more]

Sept 11, 2001: A National Public Radio correspondent states: "I spoke with Congressman Ike Skelton who said that just recently the director of the CIA warned that there could be an attack – an imminent attack – on the United States of this nature. So this is not entirely unexpected." [NPR, 9/11/01]

Sept 12, 2001: Senator Orrin Hatch says the US was monitoring bin Laden supporters and overheard them discussing the attack. [AP, 9/12/01] Why has the media not explored the fact that the US could monitor private communications of al-Qaeda on 9/11?

Sept 13-19, 2001: Members of bin Laden's family are driven or flown under FBI supervision to a secret assembly point in Texas and then to Washington, where they leave the country on a private plane when airports reopen three days after the attacks. [NY Times, 9/30/01, Boston Globe, 9/20/01, more]

Sept 14, 2001: The two black boxes for Flight 77 are found. [PBS, 9/14/01] FBI Director Robert Mueller later says Flight 77's data recorder provides altitude, speed, headings and other information, but the voice recorder contains “nothing useful.” [CBS, 2/23/02]

Sept 15-16, 2001: U.S. military sources give the FBI information that several of the 9/11 hijackers, including leader Mohamed Atta, may have received training at secure U.S. military installations. Three hijackers listed their address on drivers licenses and car registrations as the Naval Air Station in Pensacola, Fla. Atta graduated from the US International Officers School at Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama. The media drops the story after the Air Force issues a statement saying that while the names are similar, "we are probably not talking about the same people." [Newsweek, 9/15/01, Washington Post, 9/16/01, New York Times, 9/15/01, more]

Sept 19, 2001: The FBI claims that there may have been six hijacking teams on the morning of 9/11. [New York Times, 9/19/01, CBS, 9/14/01] Authorities have identified teams that total as many as 50 infiltrators who supported or carried out the strikes. About 40 of the men have been accounted for. [Los Angeles Times, 9/13/01] Yet only one person, Moussaoui, is later charged.

Sept 23, 2001: Several of the alleged 9/11 hijackers are still alive. Pilot Waleed Al Shehri is one of the men the FBI said deliberately crashed a plane into the WTC. He is protesting his innocence from Morocco. His photograph was released, and he acknowledges that he is indeed the Waleed Al Shehri whom FBI has named. But, he says, he left the US last year, and became a pilot with Saudi Arabian airlines. [BBC, 9/23/01]

Oct 2, 2001: The Patriot Act is introduced in Congress. The next day, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D) accuses the Bush administration of reneging on an agreement on this anti-terrorist bill. [Washington Post, 10/4/01] Anthrax letters are sent to Leahy and Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D) on October 9. [CNN, 11/18/01]

Oct 10-11, 2001: After consulting with the FBI and CDC, Iowa State University in Ames destroys anthrax spores collected over seven decades. On Oct 25, the White House homeland security director confirms publicly that the tainted letters contained the Ames strain. [New York Times, 11/9/01]

Nov 12, 2001—Mar 25, 2002: 13 renowned microbiologists mysteriously die over the span of less than five months. All but one or two are killed or murdered under unusual circumstances. Some are world leaders in developing weapons-grade biological plagues. Others are the best in figuring out how to stop millions from dying because of biological weapons. Still others are experts in the theory of bioterrorism. [Globe and Mail, 5/4/02] Nov 12: Benito Que, 52, an expert in infectious diseases—killed in carjacking, later deemed possible stroke. [Globe and Mail, 5/4/02] Nov. 16: Don Wiley, 57, one of the world's leading researchers of deadly viruses—body found in Mississippi River. [CNN, 12/22/01] Nov 21: Dr. Vladimir Pasechnik, 64, an expert in adapting germs and viruses for military use—stroke. [New York Times, 11/23/01] Dec 10: Dr. Robert Schwartz, 57, a leading researcher on DNA sequencing analysis—slain at home. [Washington Post, 12/12/01] Dec 14: Nguyen Van Set, 44, his research organization had just come to fame for discovering a virus which can be modified to affect smallpox—dies in an airlock in his lab. [Sydney Morning Herald, 12/12/01] Jan 2002: Ivan Glebov (bandit attack) and Alexi Brushlinski (killed in Moscow), both world-renowned members of the Russian Academy of Science. [Pravda, 2/9/02] Feb 9: Victor Korshunov, 56, head of the microbiology sub-faculty at the Russian State Medical University—killed by cranial injury. [Pravda, 2/9/02] Feb 11: Ian Langford, 40, one of Europe's leading experts on environmental risk—murdered in home. [London Times, 2/13/02] Feb 28 (2): Tanya Holzmayer, 46, helped create drugs that interfere with replication of the virus that causes AIDS, and Guyang Huang, 38, a brilliant scholar highly regarded in genetics—murder/suicide. [San Jose Mercury News, 2/28/02] Mar 24: David Wynn-Williams, 55, an astrobiologist with NASA Ames Research Center—killed while jogging. [London Times, 3/27/02] Mar 25: Steven Mostow, 63, an expert on the threat of bioterrorism—private plane crash. [KUSA TV/NBC, 3/26/02]

Dec 2001: The US engineers the rise to power of a former Unocal Oil employee, Hamid Karzai, as the interim president of Afghanistan. Looking at the map of the big US bases in Afghanistan, one is struck that they are identical to the route of the projected oil pipeline. [Chicago Tribune, 3/18/02, more]

Dec 25, 2001: Leading structural engineers and fire-safety experts believe the investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Center is "inadequate.” They note that the current team of 20 or so investigators has inadequate financial and staff support, has been prevented from interviewing witnesses and from examining the disaster site. They couldn’t even get detailed blueprints of the World Trade Center. The decision to rapidly recycle the steel beams from the WTC means definitive answers may never be known. [New York Times, 12/25/01]

Jan 1, 2002: Zalamy Khalilzad is appointed by Bush as special envoy to Afghanistan. [BBC, 1/1/02, Chicago Tribune, 3/18/02] Khalilzad once lobbied for the Taliban and worked for an American oil company that sought concessions for pipelines in Afghanistan. [Independent, 1/10/02]

Jan 4, 2002: An editorial in the respected trade magazine Fire Engineering states that there is good reason to believe that the "official investigation," blessed by FEMA, into the WTC collapse is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests are clearly not full disclosure. Respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating theory has emerged: The structural damage from the planes and the jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers. [Fire Engineering, 1/02]

Jan 24, 2002: Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle claims that on this day Cheney calls him and urges that no 9/11 inquiry be made. He is repeatedly pressured thereafter. [Newsweek, 2/4/02, more]

Feb 6, 2002: CIA Director Tenet tells a Senate hearing that there was no 9/11 intelligence failure. When asked about the CIA on 9/11, he states that the 9/11 plot was "in the heads of three or four people." He rejects any suggestion that the CIA failed to do its job. [USA Today, 2/7/02]

Feb 21, 2002: A ban on poppy growing by the Taliban in July 2000 along with severe droughts reduced Afghanistan's opium yield by 91% in 2001. Yet the UN expects its 2002 opium crop to be equivalent to the bumper one of three years ago. Afghanistan is the source of 75% of the world's heroin. [Guardian, 2/21/02] Why is the US unable to control opium production which had almost stopped?

Mar 2, 2002: The 9/11 collapse of WTC building 7 was the first time a modern, steel-reinforced high-rise in the US has ever collapsed in a fire. [New York Times, 3/2/02] Building 7 was where the SEC was storing files related to numerous Wall Street investigations. The files for approximately 3,000 to 4,000 cases were destroyed. [National Law Journal, 9/17/01] Lost files include documents that could show the relationship between Citigroup and the WorldCom bankruptcy. [The Street, 8/9/02]

Mar 13, 2002: Bush says of bin Laden: "I truly am not that concerned about him." [White House, 3/13/02] Military chief Myers states: "the goal has never been to get bin Laden." [CNN/DOD, 4/6/02]

Apr 19, 2002: FBI Director Mueller: "We have not uncovered a single piece of paper that mentioned any aspect of the 9/11 plot. The hijackers had no computers, no laptops, no storage media of any kind." [FBI, 4/19/02, Los Angeles Times, 4/30/02] Yet investigators have amassed a ''substantial'' amount of e-mail traffic among the hijackers. [USA Today, 10/1/01] The laptop computer of Moussaoui, the alleged 20th hijacker, was confiscated weeks before 9/11, yet FBI headquarters systematically dismissed and undermined requests by Minneapolis FBI agents to search the computer. [Time, 5/21/02, CNN, 5/27/02]

May 15, 2002: For the first time, the White House admits that Bush was warned about bin Laden hijacking aircraft and wanting to attack the US in Aug 2001. It is unclear why they waited eight months to reveal this. The Press Secretary states that while Bush had been warned of possible hijackings, "the president did not receive information about the use of airplanes as missiles by suicide bombers." Yet the August memo left little doubt that the hijacked airliners were intended for use as missiles and that US targets were intended. [New York Times, 5/16/02, Washington Post, 5/16/02, Guardian, 5/19/02]

May 16, 2002: Congressional committee members investigating 9/11 say there is far more damaging information that has not yet been disclosed. “We've just scratched the surface,” said Senator Richard Shelby, ranking Republican member of the Senate intelligence committee. [Washington Post, 5/17/02]

May 17, 2002: Dan Rather says that he and other journalists haven't been properly investigating since 9/11. He graphically describes the pressures to conform after the attacks. [Guardian, 5/17/02, more]

May 21, 2002: A memo is released in which Minnesota FBI agent Coleen Rowley writes to FBI Director Mueller, “I have deep concerns that a delicate and subtle shading/skewing of facts by you and others at the highest levels of FBI management has occurred and is occurring.” [Time, 5/21/02] CNN calls the memo a "colossal indictment of our chief law-enforcement agency." [CNN, 5/27/02] Time magazine later names Rowley one of three "Persons of the Year" for 2002. [Time, 12/22/02]

May 23, 2002: President Bush says he is opposed to establishing a special, independent commission to probe how the government dealt with terror warnings before 9/11. [CBS, 5/23/02]

May 30, 2002: FBI Agent Robert Wright formally accuses the FBI of deliberately curtailing investigations that might have prevented 9/11. He is under threat of retribution if he talks to members of Congress about what he knows. [Fox News, 5/30/02, more] He also accuses the agency of shutting down his 1998 criminal probe into alleged terrorist-training camps in Chicago and Kansas City. Wright has written a book, but the agency won't let him publish it or even give it to anyone. [LA Weekly, 8/2/02]

July 23, 2002: The New York City government decides that many of the audio and written records of the Fire Department's actions on 9/11 should never be released. The New York Times had filed a lawsuit seeking numerous records concerning the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, including firsthand accounts by scores of firefighters and chiefs. [New York Times, 7/23/02]

Aug 11, 2002: The Observer has learned of three heroin refineries in Afghanistan. There are believed to be several more, some of them operating in broad daylight. [Observer, 8/11/02]

Aug 30, 2002: German authorities charge a Moroccan man with complicity in the 9/11 attacks. He is only the second person ever to be charged formally in connection with 9/11. [Telegraph, 8/30/02]

Sept 11, 2002: On the first anniversary of 9/11, New York Times writes, "One year later, the public knows less about the circumstances of 2,801 deaths at the foot of Manhattan in broad daylight than people in 1912 knew within weeks about the Titanic." The former police commissioner of Philadelphia says: "You can hardly point to a cataclysmic event in our history when a blue-ribbon panel did not set out to establish the facts and suggest reforms. That has not happened here." [New York Times, 9/11/02]

Oct 5, 2002: Congressional investigators say the FBI's efforts to block their inquiry makes them skeptical of FBI assertions. They also say the Justice Department has joined the FBI in fighting congressional requests for information, while the CIA has been antagonistic. [New York Times, 10/5/02]

Oct 16, 2002: The CIA, FBI, and NSA all testify that no individual at their agencies has been punished or fired for any of the missteps surrounding the Sept. 11 attacks. [Washington Post, 10/18/02]

Oct 21, 2002: No more than six of the 19 hijackers were interviewed by US officials before being granted visas. This contradicts the State Department’s claim that 12 had been interviewed. Of 15 hijackers, none filled in the visa documents properly. All 15 of them should have been denied entry to the country. “The system was rigged in their favor from the get-go.” [Washington Post, 10/22/02, ABC News, 10/23/02] In December 2002, two top Republican senators report that if State Department personnel had merely followed the law in Saudi Arabia, 9/11 would not have happened. [AP, 12/18/02, more]

Oct 27, 2002: A report from Defense Secretary Rumsfeld's Defense Science Board recommends the creation of a super-intelligence body (P2OG) which would launch secret operations to “stimulate reactions” among terrorists and states owning weapons of mass destruction. It would prod terrorist cells into action, thus exposing them to quick-response attacks by US forces. [Los Angeles Times, 10/27/02, more]

Oct 29, 2002: Of over 800 people rounded up since 9/11, only 10 have been linked to the hijackings and probably will turn out to be innocent. [Newsweek, 10/29/02] Though many were held for months, the vast majority were never charged with anything other than overstaying a visa. [New York Times, 7/11/02]

Nov 27, 2002: Bush names Henry Kissinger to lead an independent investigation into the 9/11 terrorist attacks. [New York Times, 11/28/02] He is a highly controversial figure. Documents released by the CIA strengthen suspicions that Kissinger was actively involved in a covert plan to assassinate thousands of political opponents in six Latin American countries. He is also famous for his obsession with secrecy. [BBC, 4/26/02] "Indeed, it is tempting to wonder if the choice of Mr. Kissinger is not a clever maneuver by the White House to contain an investigation it long opposed." [New York Times, 11/29/02]

Dec 13, 2002: Kissinger resigns as chairman of the new 9/11 investigation citing controversy over potential conflicts of interest with his business clients. [CNN, 12/13/02, BBC, 12/14/02]

Dec 16, 2002: Bush names Thomas Kean chairman after Henry Kissinger resigns. Kean promises a thorough investigation. [AP, 12/17/02] He plans to devote one day a week to the 9/11 commission. [Washington Post, 12/17/02]

Jan 13, 2003: The worldwide turmoil caused by US government policies goes not exactly unreported, but entirely de-emphasized. Guardian writers are inundated by e-mails from Americans asking why their own papers never print what is in UK papers. If there is a Watergate scandal lurking in this administration, it is unlikely to be [Washington Post's Bob] Woodward or his colleagues who will tell us about it. If it emerges, it will probably come out on the web. "That is a devastating indictment of the state of American newspapers." [Guardian, 1/13/03]

July 22, 2004: The 9/11 Commission Report is published. It fails to mention that a year before the attacks a secret Pentagon project named Able Danger had identified four 9/11 hijackers, including leader Mohamed Atta. The Commission spokesperson initially states members were not informed of this, but later acknowledges they were. [New York Times, 8/11/05, more]

Nov 19, 2004: The fear that Afghanistan might degenerate into a narco-state is becoming a reality. Afghanistan has surpassed Colombia as the world's biggest gross producer of illicit narcotics, heroin being the "main engine of economic growth" and the "strongest bond" among tribes that previously fought constantly. What we have here now is a narco-economy where 40 to 50 percent of the GDP is from illicit drugs. [San Francisco Chronicle, 11/19/04] How does a country controlled by the US become the largest producer of illegal drugs? For a possible answer, click here.

Nov 17, 2005: Former FBI Director Louis Freeh: "The Able Danger intelligence, if confirmed, is undoubtedly the most relevant fact of the entire post-9/11 inquiry. Yet the 9/11 Commission inexplicably concluded that it 'was not historically significant.' This astounding conclusion—in combination with the failure to investigate Able Danger and incorporate it into its findings—raises serious challenges to the commission's credibility and, if the facts prove out, might just render the commission historically insignificant itself." [Wall Street Journal, 11/17/05, more]

2004 - 2005: A growing number of top government officials and public leaders express disbelief in the official story of 9/11. Some even believe 9/11 may have been an inside job. 100 prominent leaders and forty 9/11 family members sign a statement calling for an unbiased inquiry into evidence that suggests high-level government officials may have deliberately allowed the attacks to occur. [Various Publications]
 
About the Eutectic mixture-

http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/steel.html

There is no indication that any of the fires in the World Trade Center buildings were hot enough to melt the steel framework. Jonathan Barnett, professor of fire protection engineering, has repeatedly reminded the public that steel--which has a melting point of 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit--may weaken and bend, but does not melt during an ordinary office fire. Yet metallurgical studies on WTC steel brought back to WPI reveal that a novel phenomenon--called a eutectic reaction--occurred at the surface, causing intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese.

You know...you can label me a holocaust denier or whatever...but I would be quite happy to find out that they just didn't look deep enough...in fact I would be relieved.
 
Here is a conversation from the physics forum conversation I linked to about this eutectic mixture-

It means nothing but if offers points for consideration-

Again, I contend that thermite fires account for ALL the following facts & parameters, (which no one from the gravity-driven collapse supporters has yet to account for in their nonsensical postulations)...

a - a compressed mass of rubble continued to burn for weeks after the 'attack / collapse'

b - a 'lake' of water was applied to douse this persistant fire

c - water had NO EFFECT to douse or suppress the fires

d - water will 'FEED' a thermite / diasite reaction

e - a thermite / diasite reaction gives off ultraviolet radiation (and this ultraviolet radiation could possibly account for the anomalous lightening of videos and photographs at the end of the collapses, which many writers have commented on)

f - Pyrocool absorbs ultraviolet radiation whilst dousing the oxygen-absorbing ability of a thermite / diasite based incendiary

g - Pyrocool reached the areas of the 'underground fires' and put them out, whereas ALL other fire-fighting efforts failed.

h - Pyrocool was specifically developed to fight 'incendiary' fires (primarily for use in military theaters).

AND Additionally...

i - Thermite melts steel

j - the smoke coming from the fires was white (just like the white smoke referred to by Pecararo in the basement explosions).... thermite produces white smoke.


Until someone comes up with a better theory for the underground fires THAT ACCOUNTS FOR ALL the above factors, I'll have to stick with the Most Plausible One (as presented above - thermite... OR something else which has the same properties and fulfills All the above parameters.)

<!--emo&:lol:-->

Now Foxx, weren't you supporting Hoffman's analysis earlier????

You know the one where the AVERAGE temperature of the PYROCLASTIC CLOUD was over 1,000 deg C.

Caused by the HEATING of the CONCRETE to this TEMP.

So, according to HOFFMAN, it doesn't MATTER where you started in the pile, you were HOT by the time it was all over.

So which is it. Did the collapse CAUSE HEATING or NOT???


As to thermite....

Let me just say

Thermite is:

A ) HEAVY
B ) BURNS FAIRLY QUICKLY
C ) LEAVES TELL TALE SLAG

How many TONS of Thermite would it take to burn for several weeks?

You see, while paper and such could ignite at reasonable temps, thermite has a VERY HIGH ignition temp.

Why was NO SLAG found??

Arthur

How about adding a little sulfur to bring the ignition tempter down? Helps explain appendix c in the FEMA report.
 
Last edited:
A couple of comments:

1980s: Osama bin Laden runs a front organization for the mujaheddin—Islamic freedom fighters rebelling against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. The CIA secretly backs the mujaheddin. Pakistan's President Benazir Bhutto, understanding the ferocity of Islamic extremism, tells then President George Bush, "You are creating a Frankenstein." [MSNBC, 8/24/98, Newsweek, 10/1/01, more]
What Benazir Bhutto, allthough I would like for you to supply some sort of online reference from a preferably credible source like a newspaper or official website, may or may not have said is not relevant right now. What one needs to understand is the political climate at the time, not only in afghanistan but also in the worlds as a whole. The Cold war was at an all time high and the Russians were embedded in Afghanistan by way of occupation.
Given Afghanistans geographical location (http://go.hrw.com/atlas/norm_htm/asia.htm) close to western allies like Saudi Arabia, India and Pakistan (Spelling?) as well as the proximity to the olieresources of the region, it would have been a VERY bad idea to allow that situation to continue. As it were, America was not allowed by international conventions to interfer directly but instead choose to educate a bunch of freedom fighters, which they could be considered as at the time depending of your definition of the word, to perform to the best of their ability.
This is, from a political viewpoint as well as a military viewpoint, a very sound idea as it would allow America to aid the freedomfighters by claiming that the natives weren't happy with the occupation and give the entire "We support Freedom" speech. From a military viewpoint, it is also a sound idea to utilise local people since they would know the area, it's cultural habits as well as the topography in a degree which no foreigner could. It would also give the locals a focal point saying "It is allright to fight these *SelfCensored* and it works!". This is a strategy enabled as far back as WW2.
Unfortunately the selection of the freedomfighters to support could have been screened better, but hindsight is 20/20 and there were no way of predicting that a well-educated saudi (A western ally) whom had grown up in a relative western inviroment would order a number of airliners to crash into American Property 20+ years later. Otherwise the Randi Challenge would already be resolved.

1993: An expert panel commissioned by the Pentagon raises the possibility that an airplane could be used to bomb national landmarks. [Washington Post, 10/2/01, more]
Do you by any chance have a link to an online copy of said article? A headline would also help. Untill then I refrain to comment on this.

1994: Two attacks take place which involve hijacking planes to crash them into buildings, including one by an Islamic militant group. In a third attack, a lone pilot crashes a plane at the White House. Yet after Sept. 11, over and over aviation and security officials say they are shocked that terrorists could have hijacked airliners and crashed them into landmark buildings. [New York Times, 10/3/01]
The "attack" on the White House weren't an attack as I understand it. I quote (http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/ustreas/usss/t1pubrpt.html):
On Sunday, September 11, 1994, after spending an evening with his brother consuming alcohol and smoking crack cocaine, Frank Eugene Corder asked his brother to drop him off in the vicinity of Aldino Airport in Churchville, Maryland. Corder walked to the airport and found the keys to a Cessna P150 airplane that had been returned to the airport earlier that day after having been rented by another individual. Although Corder was not a licensed pilot, he had taken several lessons in the aircraft and had flown it several times during the summer of 1993.
Jup, that really sounds like an islamic plot to take over the world. But wait! There is more!:
Based on the physical evidence, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) concluded that the crash was intentional rather than a failed attempt at a controlled landing. The airplane's velocity on impact clearly exceeded a safe landing speed. Moreover, the airplane's wing flaps were up and its throttle position was "full forward," neither of which is characteristic of an aircraft in a landing posture. At the time of the crash, Corder was thirty-eight years old. He abused alcohol and cocaine, and faced a wide array of financial, marital, and legal problems. Both cocaine and alcohol were found in Corder's blood after the crash. The D.C. Medical Examiner ruled Corder's death a suicide. The Review did not discover information inconsistent with this conclusion.
It appears that by crashing onto the White House lawn, Corder was attempting to fulfill an ambition he had expressed to friends to kill himself "in a big way" by flying an airplane into the White House or the dome of the Capitol.


Oh yeah! It's a terrorist attack.:boggled:
I'll be back later when I'm not at risk of being tossed out on my ear for doing something I shouldn't be doing..

Edit: Grammar hickup.
 
thesyntaxera said:
It would seem that the current hypothesis(not fact) only works if you exclude all the firefighter testimony of multiple explosions, and of low burning fires, as well as the second video of the first impact that shows the impact and then provides audio of a second explosion and of a corresponding vibration,

As it's been explained, Syntax, firefighters could not tell you what was going on 80 floors above them, and even if they could, they could make mistakes. We can't just look at one or two testimonies and think this invalidates the whole theory. Look at any other case in which testimony contradicts the official account. Does this mean the official story is wrong ?

and assume that the fire ignited every single thing on the affected floors all at once and then proceeded to burn at an ever increasing temperature until a whole floors worth of steel was weakened to the point of failure despite the rapid heat conductivity that steel posesses.

I honestly don't understand what's wrong with the theory, although you exaggerate it quite nicely, here. Jumbo jet impact, jet fuel fire, big office building. I didn't expect the thing to fall down, but when the structure is explained to me, it makes sense. All you have is anecdotal evidence.

It also points out a flaw in the wtc7 explanation which doesn't include a plane, but a piece of flaming wreckage that penetrates the building and happens to land in the vicinity of a diesel fuel store starting a fire that burns so hot and strong that it literally pulls the entire building down almost in unison at nearly free fall speeds.

Free fall. Yes. Things fall faster when explosives are involved. Great. Yeah.

thesyntaxera said:
This seems to indicate that there was a hot corrision of steel that generated the eutectic mixture...what that means I haven't determined yet, but from the wording it sounds like there was a corrosion of steel at high temperature and the residual by products were this "mixture"....

Sounds ? It sounds like ? Come back when you're SURE.
 
You know...you can label me a holocaust denier or whatever...but I would be quite happy to find out that they just didn't look deep enough...in fact I would be relieved.

Going purely on the article you linked to it looks like an unexpected chemical reaction happened either during the fire, or more likely in the rubble afterwards, that explains the observations of something looking like molten steel that were made during the cleanup process.

So what is this proof of again? How does this lead you to believe there was a conspiracy? Kindly explain your thought processes for once.
 
a - a compressed mass of rubble continued to burn for weeks after the 'attack / collapse'

Thermite burns quickly. It would not burn for weeks. In fact, thermite burns out in a relatively short time even for large amounts. Same for napalm and other incendiaries. The author of this bit knows nothing of thermite, and ignores basic properties of simple fires. A wooden bed of coals can smolder for several days, igniting to open flame as soon as it is stirred or otherwise disturbed, allowing inner embers access to oxygen. The compressed mass part of this makes it even more likely. In olden times, coals used to be kept in small metal boxes surrounded by sand, to be used for starting fires. They lasted quite some time, as well.

b - a 'lake' of water was applied to douse this persistant fire

c - water had NO EFFECT to douse or suppress the fires

d - water will 'FEED' a thermite / diasite reaction
Again, the author betrays his absolute ignorance of thermite. Here, he confuses thermite (a mixture of aluminum and rust) with phospherous (an elementary compound, this particular type a white powder or chalky solid). Thermite can be doused by water. Phosperous will pull oxygen atoms from water molecules and continue to burn.

e - a thermite / diasite reaction gives off ultraviolet radiation (and this ultraviolet radiation could possibly account for the anomalous lightening of videos and photographs at the end of the collapses, which many writers have commented on)

Source? While it may well give off UV, I seriously doubt the amount of UV given off would overpower that of, say, the sun. He's speaking out his anus.

f - Pyrocool absorbs ultraviolet radiation whilst dousing the oxygen-absorbing ability of a thermite / diasite based incendiary

Again, thermite does not absorb oxygen from water. Phosperous does.

g - Pyrocool reached the areas of the 'underground fires' and put them out, whereas ALL other fire-fighting efforts failed.

So they kept trying things until it worked? I don't see a problem here.

h - Pyrocool was specifically developed to fight 'incendiary' fires (primarily for use in military theaters).

And superglue was originally designed as a medical adhesive. Does this mean that when I glue the handle back on my coffee cup I'm performing surgery?

AND Additionally...

i - Thermite melts steel

Well, he did get this part right, at least.

j - the smoke coming from the fires was white (just like the white smoke referred to by Pecararo in the basement explosions).... thermite produces white smoke.

So does phosperhous, so do a burning pile of pine needles, so does an arc weilder....sorry, but white smoke does not even come close to positively identifying any possible incendiary. Many completly average items can give off white smoke, and even then smoke color may vary depending on the conditions of burning (temperature, total heat, pressure/constriction, availability of oxygen, etc).

I'm sorry, but your "physics" expert is clueless on thermite. I have, personally, experienced thermite, white phospherous, and many other incendiaries and explosives used (over 12 years military, including multiple deployments into active combat zones). I can conclusively say that your source knows nothing about military incediaries or the differences between them. A simple google search into the relevant items, from a trusted source (not some post on a forum), would have shown his ignorance within 5 minutes (or, if he had bothered to research his subject before pontificating, prevented the entire mess of ignorance).

For some reason, this thread continually reminds me of a bit of folk wisdom:

"A fool cannot help but speak, and reveal his ignorace."
 
One other quick comment...

Have you ever heated steel in a normal wood fire?

"hot corrosion of steel" does not necesarily equal "melting steel". Steel will rust quickly when heated. This allows for all sorts of other reactions to occur in the rusted areas, as the chemical properties of iron oxide differ from those found in the carbon steel.
 
Going purely on the article you linked to it looks like an unexpected chemical reaction happened either during the fire, or more likely in the rubble afterwards, that explains the observations of something looking like molten steel that were made during the cleanup process.

So what is this proof of again? How does this lead you to believe there was a conspiracy? Kindly explain your thought processes for once.

Sure, that would be what the FEMA report details..

http://www.fema.gov/library/wtcstudy.shtm
this one in particular.
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf

Kevin, I never said I believed there was a "conspiracy" as you are suggesting, what I suggested was that there was a cover up of events and a lack of investigation...which is entirely feasible.

This is only BIG for ease of reading...not to be an ass.

The line of logic goes as such...according to the official accounts>fuel from the planes doesn't reach the temp needed to produce this reaction> fuel from office building materials and furniture does not produce this temp>the impact is the key factor in the collapse as it is responsible for the extra weakening of the building infrastructure>the buildings thus has no reason to reach such intense temperatures>the buildings fall in a manner that resembles a controlled demolition to the layman or somone who may "dabble in physics">the buildings all have telltale signs of demolition identifiable in the video evidence>regardless these signs could be misread>the buildings debris field is hotter than it should be as evidenced by the thermal readings, the heat is isolated to the the three fallen buildings>debris culled from the bottom of the pile is a orange/red indicating temperatures of extreme intensity that should not exist if the former indications of heat determined by multiple investigations is accurate>during analysis it is determined that core pieces of steel from the center columns contain the evidence for an Eutectic reaction that occured>it is described as "intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese.">No source of the sulphur is identified, and it is noted for furthur inquiry>it is possible that the sulfur in the drywall, or in the diesel of the emergency generators that burned in wtc7 and possibly in wtc 1,2>it should be noted that diesel doesn't ignite like gasoline, it explodes from being compressed in the cylinder of a motor>it should also be noted that the temperatures required to yield this eutectic reaction are far too high to have been generated by any of the known sources of fire(1000C - 1800F)>the report notes that these temperatures are not likely to have melted the steel>Eutectic mixtures are used in the manufacture of explosives http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4555280.html > http://www.google.com/search?q=Eutectic+explosives&hl=en&lr= > sulphur is a key ingredient in accelerating thermite and other explosives> http://www.du.edu/~jcalvert/phys/bang.htm > no source of the sulphur is identified in the report as stated previously...all building sources are ruled out...

Therefore.....

it is likely that explosives were used...


I would also like to point out that there were many government agencies located in these buildings, and many sensitive possibly explosive things could have been lurking about on their own without being planted...any cover up could be related to these agencies and whatever was there....this is just guessing though...the above is not.
 
Do you by any chance have a link to an online copy of said article? A headline would also help. Untill then I refrain to comment on this.

Yeah, it was at the top of that post.
 
The author of this bit knows nothing of thermite, and ignores basic properties of simple fires. A wooden bed of coals can smolder for several days, igniting to open flame as soon as it is stirred or otherwise disturbed, allowing inner embers access to oxygen. The compressed mass part of this makes it even more likely. In olden times, coals used to be kept in small metal boxes surrounded by sand, to be used for starting fires. They lasted quite some time, as well.

all quite true, I made a similar analogy earlier regarding fire pits and burnt wood....however no one said that thermite burned for days...they said that the debris was incredibly hot for days....and it was too hot for the fires that pre-existed the collapse...so there must have been an accelerant in there somewhere. The compressed mass would have insulated the heat present not created excess heat to cause these reactions.
 
One other quick comment...

Have you ever heated steel in a normal wood fire?

"hot corrosion of steel" does not necesarily equal "melting steel". Steel will rust quickly when heated. This allows for all sorts of other reactions to occur in the rusted areas, as the chemical properties of iron oxide differ from those found in the carbon steel.

Except that the FEMA report specifically states that the steel was radically melted.
 
This is only BIG for ease of reading...not to be an ass.

Actually it makes it more painful... like this thread.

The line of logic goes as such...according to the official accounts>fuel from the planes doesn't reach the temp needed to produce this reaction> fuel from office building materials and furniture does not produce this temp>the impact is the key factor in the collapse as it is responsible for the extra weakening of the building infrastructure [...]

it is likely that explosives were used...

But each of these elements has been explained to you countless times. You seem to me to be adamant that something is wrong and you won't have anything to do with any form of evidence or argument contrary to your belief.

If you don't want to learn, why are you here ?
 
>the buildings all have telltale signs of demolition identifiable in the video evidence>regardless these signs could be misread
And what, pray tell, are those "telltale signs of demolition"? The fact that the buildings fell down? That they fell straight down instead of toppling over like a kid's toy?
>it should be noted that diesel doesn't ignite like gasoline, it explodes from being compressed in the cylinder of a motor
This has zero relevance. Unless/until it's compressed, it simply ignites like gasoline.
Therefore.....
it is likely that explosives were used...
That's one huge non sequitur.
I would also like to point out that there were many government agencies located in these buildings, and many sensitive possibly explosive things could have been lurking about on their own without being planted...
Are you seriously suggesting that the government could have stockpiled explosives within their offices at the WTC, and this could have been responsible for the collapse?
 
all quite true, I made a similar analogy earlier regarding fire pits and burnt wood....however no one said that thermite burned for days...they said that the debris was incredibly hot for days....and it was too hot for the fires that pre-existed the collapse...

There is no indication that any 'hot-spot' temperatures reached higher than what could be expected from the original fire

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/thermal.r09.html

so there must have been an accelerant in there somewhere.

Nonsense.

The compressed mass would have insulated the heat present not created excess heat to cause these reactions.

That is what happened.
 
I've seen James Bond movies, "they" have arsenals in the strangest places.

Probably the impact of the planes set off a stockpile of exploding umbrellas and acid-squirting wristwatches. The rest is history.
 
But each of these elements has been explained to you countless times. You seem to me to be adamant that something is wrong and you won't have anything to do with any form of evidence or argument contrary to your belief.

If you don't want to learn, why are you here ?

Explained? You call what you guys do explaining? The points that I mention are directly taken from the documents that you so prize...there is no explaining needed. I am adamant yes, but only because there are so many glaring holes that you seem to think are invalid if you can write them off with right brain logic.
 
There is no indication that any 'hot-spot' temperatures reached higher than what could be expected from the original fire

Except that there were visible hot spots 23 days afterward. Thats quite an achievement for a hydrocarbon fire that should by rights, have been nearly extinguished by the debris.
 
And what, pray tell, are those "telltale signs of demolition"? The fact that the buildings fell down? That they fell straight down instead of toppling over like a kid's toy?

Sort of...more like there are visible "squib" jets, there is a pyroclastic flow of hot dust and debris that usually accompanies volcano's, this flow has to be a certain temperature in order to behave this way, they fell on the foot print, the center fell first...there are ten that are identified by several sources...you have read and wrote them off I am sure.

This has zero relevance. Unless/until it's compressed, it simply ignites like gasoline.

not exactly. it ignites by heating air with glow plugs until it reaches it's flash point, and then injecting the fuel into thje mix....

Go buy a small can of diesel and throw a match into it....my bet is that it probably won't flash like gas.


Are you seriously suggesting that the government could have stockpiled explosives within their offices at the WTC, and this could have been responsible for the collapse.

uh...no....I am suggesting that there may have been some explosives present, and that there might have been sensitive materials that needed obscuring.
 
Except that the FEMA report specifically states that the steel was radically melted.
wacken4cannibalcorpse.jpg

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN! PUT YOUR HANDS TOGETHER AND THROW THOSE DEVIL HORNS FOR THE BADDEST METAL BAND EVER, RADICALLY MELTED!!!

ETA But first, let's hear it for our opening act, FEMA Report!
quinn.jpg
 
Last edited:
Sort of...more like there are visible "squib" jets, there is a pyroclastic flow of hot dust and debris that usually accompanies volcano's, this flow has to be a certain temperature in order to behave this way, they fell on the foot print, the center fell first...there are ten that are identified by several sources...you have read and wrote them off I am sure.

to add to this..there is also the fact that in order for the building to fall as fast as it did it would have to be progressively weakened in advance of the falling debris to remove any resistance by the building itself...like a demolition
 

Back
Top Bottom