AE911Truth, physicists to debate Coast to coast

[Furcifer]

High-order damage is characterized by shattering of the structure, producing small, pulverized debris. Walls, roofs, and structural members are splintered or shattered, with the building completely demolished. [27]
​

That description applied to the destruction of the Twin Towers and WTC 7. The next sentence – “Debris is thrown great distances, possibly hundreds of feet” – applied to the destruction of the Twin Towers, a fact that NIST had to admit in order to explain how fires were started in WTC 7. [28] So NIST should have looked for signs of explosives, such as nanothermite.
[/indent]
I don't know what to do with it. Ideas?

Isn't this out of context? I mean if the investigation was to determine the cause of a suspicious fire I can see investigating for explosives. But if you know a gas line was ruptured why would you test for explosives? The primary cause of the WTC7 collapse was never in question.

 

[TexasJack]

I'd say that would be Kevin Ryan, and maybe Steven Jones. AFAIK Ryan was fired because he spoke in the name of his company (Environmental Health Laboratories Inc., a subsidiary of Underwriters Laboratories Inc.), talking conspiracy theories, without authorization. The Jones story is not too clear to me. If someone knows more please add to it.

Jones was put on paid leave, then elected to resign.
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/650200587/BYU-professor-in-dispute-over-911-will-retire.html

 

[triforcharity]

But NIST, as a matter of routine, should have tested the WTC dust for residue of explosives, such as nanothermite. The Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations put out by the National Fire Protection Association says that a search for evidence for explosives should be undertaken whenever there has been “high-order damage.” Leaving no doubt about the meaning of this term, the Guide says:

High-order damage is characterized by shattering of the structure, producing small, pulverized debris. Walls, roofs, and structural members are splintered or shattered, with the building completely demolished. [27]
​

That description applied to the destruction of the Twin Towers and WTC 7. The next sentence – “Debris is thrown great distances, possibly hundreds of feet” – applied to the destruction of the Twin Towers, a fact that NIST had to admit in order to explain how fires were started in WTC 7. [28] So NIST should have looked for signs of explosives, such as nanothermite.
​

I don't know what to do with it. Ideas?

Dave,

To elaborate on this, this is NFPA 921, and will most likely come out if this topic is touched on. It is brought forth by Eric Lawyer. But, the problem is this.

First off, as you know, thermite in any flavor is not an explosive. Secondly, no evidence of an explosive capable of cutting any of the steel. But, in specific relation to NFPA 921, you have to remember NFPA is not a law, but mearly good practice guidelines.

NFPA in fact puts thermite in the category of exotic accelerants.

See here http://books.google.com/books?id=cm...=result&resnum=9#v=snippet&q=thermite&f=false

ALso, NFPA makes it very clear that the effects of thermite can be seen with the naked eye. I don't have a copy of it available online, but I will see if I can get a digital copy and quote it.

Lastly, Eric Lawyer contorts and takes NFPA 921 out of context many times. In fact, AE911T do this often to. When they say that NFPA says that they should have tested for explosives, it gives the qualifier, something along the lines of " IF there is evidence of a loud explosion before the fire, or no immediate cause of fire can be determined, and there is evidence of an explosion, than testing for explosives should occur. Or something along those lines.

Hope this helps! If I get a digital copy of NFPA 921, I will let you know.

 

[triforcharity]

Isn't this out of context? I mean if the investigation was to determine the cause of a suspicious fire I can see investigating for explosives. But if you know a gas line was ruptured why would you test for explosives? The primary cause of the WTC7 collapse was never in question.

Yes, that is absolutely correct. In most cases, it gives the qualifier of "Fire of Unknown Origin"

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Dave,

Hope this helps! If I get a digital copy of NFPA 921, I will let you know.

I have a PDF of the 1995 edition. I'm not well versed in the literature or their releases so I have no idea how relevant it is to today's standards but I imagine it'd at least give people an idea. PM me if you want me to forward you any relevant pages

 

[pgimeno]

Lastly, Eric Lawyer contorts and takes NFPA 921 out of context many times. In fact, AE911T do this often to. When they say that NFPA says that they should have tested for explosives, it gives the qualifier, something along the lines of " IF there is evidence of a loud explosion before the fire, or no immediate cause of fire can be determined, and there is evidence of an explosion, than testing for explosives should occur. Or something along those lines.

There's also this paragraph by NIST which may help:

NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly showed that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward, until the dust clouds obscured the view.
​

(NCSTAR 1, chapter 8, p.176 of the report or 226 of the PDF)

They will probably try to argue that no analysis of the dust was performed or something like that, to determine the presence of explosives like nanothermite. I guess that's not how explosives are checked in case of fire. The "search for evidence of explosives" that "should be undertaken whenever there has been high order damage" would already be covered with the paragraph above.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

As mentioned earlier therm*te is not an explosive, it's not even close to being seriously considered one by anyone but the truly uninformed and the snake oil salesmen who rely on the ignorance of others to buy their books and DVDs.

You can purchase thermite on the internet and there is not even anything close to a background check for the individual buying the stuff beyond seeing if the credit card is good. You will have a harder time buying fertilizer than you will thermite. This is in a post 9/11 world where supposedly the government is looking under every rock (right down to what library books you're reading) to find suspicious people.

The thing that truthers will run away from is any discussion of real explosives because there are some hard and fast truths that they can never get away from. Thry are, in no particular order:

1) No matter what the primary explosive is (by primary I mean the one that causes the intended damage) be it as crude as black gunpowder or some exotic military grade plastic compound there is always one "Weak" point that is susceptible to heat and shock. The more stable the primary explosive is, the more volatile that the detonator must be to get the explosion started.

2) All conventional explosives leave telltale debris, residue and distinctive marks after detonation. Most of this is visible to the untrained naked eye.

3) By definition any explosive has a distinctive sound of... an explosion. What isn't always true is that the sound of an explosion means that there were explosives involved. An explosion is nothing more than the sudden and rapid release of energy from a single point. Sudden and rapid are subjective observations and not quantitative measurements. What are quantitative are the measured rate of burn for conventional explosives usually measured in the several hundreds and thousands of meters of expansion in the first millisecond of the burn.

Based upon these very basic truths every single argument for any explosives being used on 9/11 is absolute trash. No explosive can survive the impacts and/or fires seen that day, or to be more specific, no detonating device could survive those conditions. This leaves only one option to be able to consider CD as a viable choice. Some very stupid ninjas with more balls than brains slipped into the floors on fire and somehow got through all of the debris and right next to the columns to plant magically quiet explosives that left no debris, residue or markings on the steel. They had to do this not once, not twice, but three times with nobody being the wiser after the fact.

There are literally hundreds of volumes of literature built upon lessons learned while handling explosives, usually after the loss of many lives over something that was easily avoidable but overlooked or not suspected to be a problem at the time. Almost every single incident and accident in all of those books involved either fire, shock or both and nobody who was aware of these simple truths (as anyone who is experienced in handling explosives will tell you) would've gone anywhere near those buildings with anything larger than a firecracker in their pocket (and even then you can bet that they'd be wearing a cup before seriously entertaining the idea).

 

[bill smith]

As mentioned earlier therm*te is not an explosive, it's not even close to being seriously considered one by anyone but the truly uninformed and the snake oil salesmen who rely on the ignorance of others to buy their books and DVDs.

You can purchase thermite on the internet and there is not even anything close to a background check for the individual buying the stuff beyond seeing if the credit card is good. You will have a harder time buying fertilizer than you will thermite. This is in a post 9/11 world where supposedly the government is looking under every rock (right down to what library books you're reading) to find suspicious people.

The thing that truthers will run away from is any discussion of real explosives because there are some hard and fast truths that they can never get away from. Thry are, in no particular order:

1) No matter what the primary explosive is (by primary I mean the one that causes the intended damage) be it as crude as black gunpowder or some exotic military grade plastic compound there is always one "Weak" point that is susceptible to heat and shock. The more stable the primary explosive is, the more volatile that the detonator must be to get the explosion started.

2) All conventional explosives leave telltale debris, residue and distinctive marks after detonation. Most of this is visible to the untrained naked eye.

3) By definition any explosive has a distinctive sound of... an explosion. What isn't always true is that the sound of an explosion means that there were explosives involved. An explosion is nothing more than the sudden and rapid release of energy from a single point. Sudden and rapid are subjective observations and not quantitative measurements. What are quantitative are the measured rate of burn for conventional explosives usually measured in the several hundreds and thousands of meters of expansion in the first millisecond of the burn.

Based upon these very basic truths every single argument for any explosives being used on 9/11 is absolute trash. No explosive can survive the impacts and/or fires seen that day, or to be more specific, no detonating device could survive those conditions. This leaves only one option to be able to consider CD as a viable choice. Some very stupid ninjas with more balls than brains slipped into the floors on fire and somehow got through all of the debris and right next to the columns to plant magically quiet explosives that left no debris, residue or markings on the steel. They had to do this not once, not twice, but three times with nobody being the wiser after the fact.

There are literally hundreds of volumes of literature built upon lessons learned while handling explosives, usually after the loss of many lives over something that was easily avoidable but overlooked or not suspected to be a problem at the time. Almost every single incident and accident in all of those books involved either fire, shock or both and nobody who was aware of these simple truths (as anyone who is experienced in handling explosives will tell you) would've gone anywhere near those buildings with anything larger than a firecracker in their pocket (and even then you can bet that they'd be wearing a cup before seriously entertaining the idea).

Just let me know Sam if you want a full explanation of how the explosives/incendiaries were secretly planted throughout the buildings without anybody noticing and how they were protected from premature ignition by any of the fires that there were.
Maybe a hundred tons or more- and not a sinner noticing a thing. And so simple....

 

[triforcharity]

Just let me know Sam if you want a full explanation of how the explosives/incendiaries were secretly planted throughout the buildings without anybody noticing and how they were protected from premature ignition by any of the fires that there were.
Maybe a hundred tons or more- and not a sinner noticing a thing. And so simple....

And so ABSOLUTELY retarded, it's almost funny.

 

[bill smith]

And so ABSOLUTELY retarded, it's almost funny.

Shall I mark that up as you asking for the explanation Tri ? Though I would like Sam to ask too.

 

[triforcharity]

No, not here, as it would be off topic. Find an appropriate thread.

 

[bill smith]

No, not here, as it would be off topic. Find an appropriate thread.

Don't you find it amazing that Richard Gage and Harrit and Steven Jones etc have not realised how and where the incendiaries/explosives were hidden ?

 

[twinstead]

Don't you find it amazing that Richard Gage and Harrit and Steven Jones etc have not realised how and where the incendiaries/explosives were hidden ?

they must not have as vivid of an imagination as you do.

 

[Sabretooth]

Maybe a hundred tons or more- and not a sinner noticing a thing. And so simple....

200,000+ lbs of explosives secretly rigged without anyone noticing or suspecting a thing?! And all going off without the aid of fire...or even a shock wave from its detonation?

I'm almost on pins and needles waiting to hear the justification of that one.

 

[ProfJoey223]

If you spoke to demolition EXPERTS (as have I) around the g--d---n world, you'd know it is not such an impossible task, particularly given that Marvin was in charge of "security" at the WTC (untill the day of 9/11!!!) and that the Bin Laden's were were given the job of reconstruction after the FIRST WTC bombing in '93.

But oh, we don't want to talk about how Bush Sr. was meeting with the Bin Laden's the day OF the first WTC bombing, do we?

Add to that the mysterious power downs during the weeks before 9/11 and the most "extensive elevator renovation" in history.... and the witnesses who saw "maintenence" men going in and out of the WTC during these "power downs" and the...

Oh, what's the use... You're not interested in truth are you?

Talk to an expert. It won't hurt. Well, a little. Truth sometimes hurts.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Don't you find it amazing that Richard Gage and Harrit and Steven Jones etc have not realised how and where the incendiaries/explosives were hidden ?

They never had technical readouts (blueprints) of the Towers. Anyways, all this talk of "explosives" is not making much sense in technical terms.

1: Why would they need to "hide explosives" when there's 50,000+ witnesses who would see everything? Because nothing can't be hidden from 100,000+ eye balls!

2: Iron oxide, aka RUST, is known to be every where in the US. Steel buildings built near the ocean have been subjected to weather & salt, causing the rust formations on the steel structures. This is why it would seem that there would be "thermite" present in the dust samples. It doesn't take much to disprove a retarded theory just by doing proper research.

3: If there were "explosives" used, why isn't there copper residue on the buildings supports? Because there were never "explosives" there to begin with!

4: Truthers really lack the research skills to make a logical report of 9/11. Handwaving the evidence for an insane theory is just proving, yet again, that evolution is for the strong minded & not the weak minded.

 

[DGM]

If you spoke to demolition EXPERTS (as have I) around the g--d---n world, you'd know it is not such an impossible task, particularly given that Marvin was in charge of "security" at the WTC (untill the day of 9/11!!!) and that the Bin Laden's were were given the job of reconstruction after the FIRST WTC bombing in '93.

But oh, we don't want to talk about how Bush Sr. was meeting with the Bin Laden's the day OF the first WTC bombing, do we?

Add to that the mysterious power downs during the weeks before 9/11 and the most "extensive elevator renovation" in history.... and the witnesses who saw "maintenence" men going in and out of the WTC during these "power downs" and the...

Oh, what's the use... You're not interested in truth are you?

Talk to an expert. It won't hurt. Well, a little. Truth sometimes hurts.

The old "Marvin Bush in charge of security". Welcome back from 2006!

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Talk to an expert. It won't hurt. Well, a little. Truth sometimes hurts.

And an expert will say: "Are you kidding?", then proceed to laugh in the Truthers faces.

 

[Sabretooth]

If you spoke to demolition EXPERTS (as have I) around the g--d---n world ...

Name them. I can always give them a call to verify this.

 

[T.A.M.]

If you spoke to demolition EXPERTS (as have I) around the g--d---n world, you'd know it is not such an impossible task, particularly given that Marvin was in charge of "security" at the WTC (untill the day of 9/11!!!) and that the Bin Laden's were were given the job of reconstruction after the FIRST WTC bombing in '93.

But oh, we don't want to talk about how Bush Sr. was meeting with the Bin Laden's the day OF the first WTC bombing, do we?

Add to that the mysterious power downs during the weeks before 9/11 and the most "extensive elevator renovation" in history.... and the witnesses who saw "maintenence" men going in and out of the WTC during these "power downs" and the...

Oh, what's the use... You're not interested in truth are you?

Talk to an expert. It won't hurt. Well, a little. Truth sometimes hurts.

What are you a professor of, idiocy?

everything in your post has been proven wrong and/or debunked. Did you just fly in from 2006 or something. Marvin Bush...really? Bush/Bin laden friends...really? Power downs? really? really? Like I said, did you just float in from 2006, cause even the worst of your truther moron friends don't bother with these silly canards anymore.

Come on dude, get with the program.

TAM