Any Conspiracy-Busters here?

[PixyMisa]

Here is a conversation from the physics forum conversation I linked to about this eutectic mixture-

It means nothing

You got that right. It is complete and utter nonsense.

 

[The_Fire]

then there is all this:

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

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.
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.

 

[Belz...]

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.

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.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

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.

 

[Hellbound]

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."

 

[Hellbound]

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.

 

[thesyntaxera]

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.

 

[thesyntaxera]

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.

 

[thesyntaxera]

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.

 

[thesyntaxera]

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.

 

[Belz...]

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 ?

 

[CurtC]

>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?

 

[kookbreaker]

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.

 

[Belz...]

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?

Yes, this is the point where someone can start calling him crazy.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

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.

 

[thesyntaxera]

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.

 

[thesyntaxera]

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.

 

[thesyntaxera]

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.

 

[delphi_ote]

Except that the FEMA report specifically states that the steel was radically melted.

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!

 

[thesyntaxera]

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