Science experiment proves 9-11 conspiracy theory

[Lucidvizion]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=56836&mesg_id=56836

:laughing1:

I'm sure everyone can appreciate this Friday morning funny.

[35Pete]

That experiment was a Friggin joke, wasn't it?

[г]

LOL, the rabbit died

[TigerJ]

Who says people have evolved into creatures of superior intelligence.

[jimmifli]

That experiment was a Friggin joke, wasn't it?
Not nearly as good as the evolutionism experiment.

[shiva2999]

I thought it was kind of clever myself.

[35Pete]

I thought it was kind of clever myself.
Yeah but only scientific simpletons would give it any kind of creedence.

[shiva2999]

Yeah but only scientific simpletons would give it any kind of creedence.

It has a certain amount of credence Pete.

How much is the question.

I thought his main point was a simple demonstration of how well steel conducts and radiates heat.

Pretty effective.

[35Pete]

It has a certain amount of credence Pete.

How much is the question.

I thought his main point was a simple demonstration of how well steel conducts and radiates heat.

Pretty effective.
It has ZERO credence Shiva.

Is it the same alloy as the WTC columns? Different metals have different phase diagrams (eutectic point, ect..). This alone makes it completely invalid.
Is the loading equivalent?
Was the heat generated equivalent?
No airplane structural damage in the experiment other than "poking a hole" in the mesh. Is this for real?
How does the kinetic energy of a Boeing 757 (123,000 kg, 220 m/s) which at cruise is an incredible 3.1 Giga Joules affect a building's internal structure? (That vs. cutting a hole in some mesh). 3.1 Giga Joules of kinetic energy is the equivalent of almost 500 M1 tank rounds striking the building at once.

Typical ignorant nonsense from the wine and cheese crowd. That guy should go back to criticizing art.

[Lucidvizion]

It has a certain amount of credence Pete.

How much is the question.

I thought his main point was a simple demonstration of how well steel conducts and radiates heat.

Pretty effective.

I think you're giving this guy too much credit.

[shiva2999]

I think you're giving this guy too much credit.

I didn't post it when I first read it months ago.

I thought it was an interesting little model but hardly necessary.

His point being of course that the fires in either building couldn't come ANYWHERE close to being hot enough or localized enough to weaken the structure.

Which is entirely true.

[shiva2999]

It has ZERO credence Shiva.

Is it the same alloy as the WTC columns? Different metals have different phase diagrams (eutectic point, ect..). This alone makes it completely invalid.
Is the loading equivalent?
Was the heat generated equivalent?
No airplane structural damage in the experiment other than "poking a hole" in the mesh. Is this for real?
How does the kinetic energy of a Boeing 757 (123,000 kg, 220 m/s) which at cruise is an incredible 3.1 Giga Joules affect a building's internal structure? (That vs. cutting a hole in some mesh). 3.1 Giga Joules of kinetic energy is the equivalent of almost 500 M1 tank rounds striking the building at once.

Typical ignorant nonsense from the wine and cheese crowd. That guy should go back to criticizing art.

Why not try thinking instead of reacting for a change Pete?

If you did, you might not wind up taking so many ridiculous positions that you have to eventually recant.

[35Pete]

Why not try thinking instead of reacting for a change Pete?

If you did, you might not wind up taking so many ridiculous positions that you have to eventually recant.

Shiva. Don't resort to outright lying to try to discredit me. "So many positions that you eventually recant"? That is an outright lie and you know it.

Now what is wrong with my objections? That IS thinking Shiva. Nothing you said about the experiment had any meat to it whatsoever. You are the one reacting.

Now think, don't emote. Don't react. Refute my points.

[35Pete]

:rofl:

I forwarded that link earlier to my buddy Sal, a Principle Staff Mechanical engineer. He just replied.

"LOL Pete. The guy's a little old for 7th grade science fair stuff, huh? What a **** ing moron!" Thanks for the laugh. Sal"

[Ralonzo]

I 'proved' global warming the same way. As a member of the academic scientific community, just send me those fat grant checks and I'll come up with something to support whatever the consensus of the day is.

[г]

'I may have used a patio stone & my daughter's bunny cage, but at least I got to stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night (after I burned the ***ing house down)'

[Fortunesmith]

I didn't post it when I first read it months ago.

I thought it was an interesting little model but hardly necessary.

His point being of course that the fires in either building couldn't come ANYWHERE close to being hot enough or localized enough to weaken the structure.

Which is entirely true.

Actually, no. It's not true.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=4&c=y

You know that crazy right-wing mag Popular Mechanics? Nothing but Bush shills I tell ya!

[35Pete]

It has a certain amount of credence Pete.

How much is the question.

I thought his main point was a simple demonstration of how well steel conducts and radiates heat.

Pretty effective.

I didn't post it when I first read it months ago.

I thought it was an interesting little model but hardly necessary.

His point being of course that the fires in either building couldn't come ANYWHERE close to being hot enough or localized enough to weaken the structure.

Which is entirely true.

Really Shiva? Ya think?

What type of steel was the rabbit cage? What type were the columns of WTC? Do all steels have the same phase properties? The same melting point? Hardness? Tensile strength? Why bother asking. You don't know. You don't know because of limited knowledge.

Fact is that you will not answer my criticisms of this nonsensical experiment. NO, you will in all likelihood attack me instead. That is your modus operandi. That is your method.

I asked valid questions. Questions that required a moment of thought. You call it a "reaction". Well if you did a drop of research before your "reactive knee jerk response" to the critics here you would have refrained from a few comments.

This guy makes the conspiracy nuts looks like jackasses. And by association....

Hence you will defend him at all costs. Right down to the last attempt to impugne anyones credibility. Right down to the last insult. But you will not address the criticism. You never do.

And have you thought about the kerosene? A 757 carries 43,400 litres of jet fuel. A jet cruising at mach 0.8 (272 meters/sec) and suddenly striking an immovable object will VAPORIZE that jet fuel in a fraction of a second. Here is a little high school science for you. Vaporizing increases the surface area of the accellerant. Thus increasing the oxygen ratio and creating a cloud that, when lit, is both highly explosive and burns A HELL OF A LOT HOTTER than kerosene poured on some newspapers. The military uses this concept. They call it a Fuel-Air Explosive. Also known as a Thermobaric Bomb.

And that chicken wire provides excellent heat trapping capabilities! :rofl:

I could go on and on about this nincompoops idiotic experiment. It is completely worthless and you know it. Consider yourself schooled unless you can answer my criticisms with something more than just an attack on me.


http://www.boeing.com/commercial/757family/technical.html

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

[35Pete]

And Shiva. If you want to present your case then present studies like this one, which I found in 5 minutes. At least it has scientific methodology associated with it.

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

My entire point is that the chicken wire experiment is one of the most assinine attempts to "prove" anything that I have seen in quite a while.

[shiva2999]

Shiva. Don't resort to outright lying to try to discredit me. "So many positions that you eventually recant"? That is an outright lie and you know it.

Now what is wrong with my objections? That IS thinking Shiva. Nothing you said about the experiment had any meat to it whatsoever. You are the one reacting.

Now think, don't emote. Don't react. Refute my points.

It isn't a lie Pete. It's the truth.

And what's wrong with your objections? Maybe the fact that you're objecting to something I never said?

You know, the old straw man again?

I never claimed this "experiment" proved anything Pete.

Neither does it's existence disprove anything.

So sorry.

[shiva2999]

Actually, no. It's not true.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=4&c=y

You know that crazy right-wing mag Popular Mechanics? Nothing but Bush shills I tell ya!

Sorry, but the Pop Mech article has been thoroughly debunked.

Aside from the fact it was written by Michael Chertoff's cousin, who lied about the relationship when first questioned about it.

[shiva2999]

And Shiva. If you want to present your case then present studies like this one, which I found in 5 minutes. At least it has scientific methodology associated with it.

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

My entire point is that the chicken wire experiment is one of the most assinine attempts to "prove" anything that I have seen in quite a while.

Shows how much you've been paying attention Pete.

I posted Dr Jones' articles and we discussed them.

And once again, no one here is claiming that the chicken wire demonstration "proves" anything.

Keep slamming that straw man.

[shiva2999]

Really Shiva? Ya think?

What type of steel was the rabbit cage? What type were the columns of WTC? Do all steels have the same phase properties? The same melting point? Hardness? Tensile strength? Why bother asking. You don't know. You don't know because of limited knowledge.

Fact is that you will not answer my criticisms of this nonsensical experiment. NO, you will in all likelihood attack me instead. That is your modus operandi. That is your method.

I asked valid questions. Questions that required a moment of thought. You call it a "reaction". Well if you did a drop of research before your "reactive knee jerk response" to the critics here you would have refrained from a few comments.

This guy makes the conspiracy nuts looks like jackasses. And by association....

Hence you will defend him at all costs. Right down to the last attempt to impugne anyones credibility. Right down to the last insult. But you will not address the criticism. You never do.

And have you thought about the kerosene? A 757 carries 43,400 litres of jet fuel. A jet cruising at mach 0.8 (272 meters/sec) and suddenly striking an immovable object will VAPORIZE that jet fuel in a fraction of a second. Here is a little high school science for you. Vaporizing increases the surface area of the accellerant. Thus increasing the oxygen ratio and creating a cloud that, when lit, is both highly explosive and burns A HELL OF A LOT HOTTER than kerosene poured on some newspapers. The military uses this concept. They call it a Fuel-Air Explosive. Also known as a Thermobaric Bomb.

And that chicken wire provides excellent heat trapping capabilities! :rofl:

I could go on and on about this nincompoops idiotic experiment. It is completely worthless and you know it. Consider yourself schooled unless you can answer my criticisms with something more than just an attack on me.


http://www.boeing.com/commercial/757family/technical.html

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

You're foaming at the mouth Pete.

Your example of the Thermobaric Bomb is utterly pointless.

Think about it.

[two4trippn]

This is getting good...

[Fortunesmith]

Sorry, but the Pop Mech article has been thoroughly debunked.

Aside from the fact it was written by Michael Chertoff's cousin, who lied about the relationship when first questioned about it.

Show me where this is portion is specifically debunked. Link please.

Here is another article...(from PBS).

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse2.html

Of course every 9/11 Conspiracy blog will say that it is debunked or else they're left without a leg to stand on. The same goes for yourself.

[shiva2999]

Show me where this is portion is specifically debunked. Link please.

Here's one. There's more if you wish to seriously consider the other side of the argument.

But, of course you don't...

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pop_mech/reply_to_popular_mechanics.htm

[35Pete]

Shiva and others: I read that report that I posted from Utah/BYU.

And let me tell you. I was up all last night verifying it via google and thumbing through my old Materials Engineering texts.

I can only conclude that it raises serious doubt as to the official report issued by the United States Government as to how the WTCs collapsed.

IT DOES NOT HOWEVER, AND IN NO WAY, IMPLICATE THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION AS THE MASTERMINDS BEHIND 911.

It does question the validity of the conclusions. And it does suggest that the government may have lied.

I am a scientist. And this was a well researched, well written report. Based on objective fact and devoid of politics. Objective natural observations cannot be disputed. They cannot be reasoned, rationalized, or opined away.

So why would the government lie? I really don't know. But speculation (and that is all I am doing) could suggest many reasons. One that comes to mind is that there was an Al-Qaeda groundforce in the building earlier to assure that the planes brought the towers down. Or something similar to that.

My guy instinct thinks that if this were true and the truth came out then the resulting national security failure would so jar the American public as to jeopardize the Bush Administration.

Here is the problem for you guys. The left blew the opprotunity of a lifetime. Anecdotal evidence (never proof, just a "where there is smoke there is fire concept") suggested that the gov't version of events was not totally accurate. Instead of touting this to the press, which would have been at least a plausible accusation, the left, in its unbelievable zealous hatred of Bush, wanted the whole enchilada. Me thinks that if they felt that they could link Bush to PERFORMING 911 then not only could they completely and permanently destroy the conservative movement in the US, but, by domino effect, neuter it globally. The left got greedy.

Problem. Rightfully so, no one believed them. So a potential scandal greater than Nixonian proportions was lost. No way the press was going to pick up on the "Bush killed 3,000 people" line. No way. They would have bitten on inconsistencies in the gov't report. Now there is no way that they would do even that to any significant degree. You lost your opprotunity because of crazy lunatic maniacal hatred. You emoted, you didn't think.

In any event I highly recommend reading the report. Something stinks. And really badly.

[35Pete]

Shows how much you've been paying attention Pete.

I posted Dr Jones' articles and we discussed them.

And once again, no one here is claiming that the chicken wire demonstration "proves" anything.

Keep slamming that straw man.
The problem is Shiva that you post so much crap from blogger sites on this nonsense that one easily gets desensitized to it. I bet that you did post this report (which is quite recent I believe). But like "The sky is falling" I probably saw another hyperlink, thought "more blogger crap" and didn't give it a second thought.

Now if you would have made this report your centerpiece and dropped all that blogger crap you may have made some headway. Bad strategy. Your bad, not mine.

[shiva2999]

In any event I highly recommend reading the report. Something stinks. And really badly.

We'll pursue this further Pete.

It'll have to be later though cuz I'm going to watch the Argos game this afternoon with my son and my mom.

"RUN RICKEY!"

[Fortunesmith]

After reading Shiva's and Pete's links, it definitately renewed my interest in the subject. Hard to argue with a scientist. Although, I won't put all my eggs in one basket in trying to diciphre exactly what it means.

[35Pete]

After reading Shiva's and Pete's links, it definitately renewed my interest in the subject. Hard to argue with a scientist. Although, I won't put all my eggs in one basket in trying to diciphre exactly what it means.
I can draw no inferences from it other than it is highly likely that the governments official report is inaccurate to say the least, a fabrication at worst.

The fact of the matter is that it is an excellent piece of research. Seems almost unimpeachable, unless you accuse the scientific community as a whole of lying about certain laws of physics for a hundred or so years.

[jimmifli]

Kevin Ryan, the whistleblower from Underwriters Laboratories, did his own brief statistical analysis in a recent letter regarding the NIST report, arguing that probabilities of collapse-initiation needed to be calculated (Ryan, 2005). NIST nowhere provides such a likelihood analysis for their non-explosive collapse model. Ryan’s estimate is that the probability that fires and damage (the “official theory”) could cause the Towers complete collapse is less than one in a trillion, and the probability is much less still when the complete collapse of WTC7 is included:

To follow the latest "leading hypothesis" [of NIST], what are the odds that all the fireproofing fell off in just the right places, even far from the point of impact? Without much test data, let's say it's one in a thousand. And what are the odds that the office furnishings converged to supply highly directed and (somehow) forced-oxygen fires at very precise points on the remaining columns? Is it another one in a thousand? What is the chance that those points would then all soften in unison, and give way perfectly, so that the highly dubious "progressive global collapse" theory could be born? I wouldn't even care to guess. But finally, with well over a hundred fires in tall buildings through history, what are the chances that the first, second and third incidents of fire-induced collapse would all occur on the same day? Let's say it's one in a million. Considering just these few points we're looking at a one in a trillion chance, using generous estimates and not really considering the third building (no plane, no jet fuel, different construction [for WTC 7]).

The science while being easily understood is hard to verify without the background education required. The source and fact that it was peer reviewed leads me trust it.

But I found the above quote is also quite strong.

Shiva, is there any research on which insurance companies were on the hook for the WTC?

There are only a few companies in the world capable of writing a policy of that size, most likely it would be split between several lage re's. The insurance companies wouldn't accept a BS cause without reason.

[shiva2999]

Shiva, is there any research on which insurance companies were on the hook for the WTC?

There are only a few companies in the world capable of writing a policy of that size, most likely it would be split between several lage re's. The insurance companies wouldn't accept a BS cause without reason.

Google "Larry Silverstein WTC insurance".

Larry Silverstein took over the lease on the WTC months before 9/11.

There was a 3.5 billion insurance policy on the site.

Silverstein took the insurance companies to court asking for 7 billion on the basis of it being two separate incidents.

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

World Trade Center lease
In 1980 Larry Silverstein won a bid to buy the last undeveloped parcel from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to build 47-story 7 World Trade Center.

During the 1990s, New York was suffering from the effects of Black Monday (1987) leading to high vacancy rates at the World Trade Center. George Pataki became governor of New York in 1995 on a campaign of cutting costs including privatizing the World Trade Center. A sale of the property was considered too complex, so it was decided by the Port Authority to open a 99-year lease to competitive bidding. [1]

In January 2001, Silverstein via Silverstein Properties along with Westfield America made a $3.2 billion bid for the lease to the World Trade Center. Silverstein was outbid by $50 million by Vornado Realty. However, Vornado withdrew and Silverstein's bid closed on July 24, 2001, just seven weeks before it was destroyed in the September 11, 2001 attacks.

The deal was described in a press release on July 24, 2001, as:

"Silverstein Properties, Inc., and Westfield America, Inc. will lease the Twin Towers and other portions of the complex in a deal worth approximately $3.2 billion – the city's richest real estate deal ever and one of the largest privatization initiatives in history. [2]"
The lease agreement applied to World Trade Center Buildings One, Two, Four and Five World Trade Center, and about 425,000 square feet of retail space. Silverstein put up only $14 million of his own money [3]. Silverstein was also given the right to rebuild the structures, should they be destroyed. [4]

[edit]
September 11, 2001 attacks
When the attacks occurred, Silverstein was at home debating with his wife about plans to move his headquarters to the 88th floor of the North Tower. His son Roger was at 7 World Trade Center but was not hurt. 7 World Trade Center is said to have caught fire when debris fell from the North Tower. The building collapsed shortly after 5 p.m. -- 8 hours after the attack.

Silverstein was quoted in a 2002 PBS documentary America Rebuilds:

I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'You know, we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is. . .is pull it.' Ah, and they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse..[1]
Silverstein and the building owners, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, were spared having to pick up the costs of the $10 billion actual clean up costs when federal taxpayers picked up that tab in 2001 (along with a provision in which survivor families signed waivers promising not to sue in exchange for million dollar plus cash settlements).

[edit]
Dispute with Insurers
As a private developer with a 99-year lease on the World Trade Center, Silverstein insured the property. Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, he sought payment for the destruction of the towers as two incidents. The two dozen insurers held that it was one incident. If it were considered to be a single incident, the payout would be $3.55 billion and if it were two incidents, it would be $7.1 billion. Silverstein sued the insurers. On December 6, 2004, a federal jury ruled in favor of Silverstein giving him an additional $1.1 billion from nine insurers, declaring it to be two "occurrences". [5] However, in a previous trial, a different federal jury delivered a mixed verdict which highly favored insurers on April 29, 2004 [6]

At dispute in the trial were interpretation of standard forms used in the application for property insurance and when particular insurers saw which documents.[7]

In total, Silverstein was awarded nearly $5 billion in insurance money following the destruction of the Twin Towers [8].



So Silverstein invested $14 million of his own money and came out of it with a $5 BILLION dollar payday.

Pretty sweet for Larry.

[г]

That's like, what, a brazillian dollars profit ?

His brother makes a good pumpernickel, though.

[JLB]

Is Larry under investigation for anything at this time? That anybody knows about sounds pretty fishy.

[shiva2999]

...sounds pretty fishy.

No shit.

[JLB]

No shit.

Is he under investigation that you know of.

Sounds like he should be.

[shiva2999]

Is he under investigation that you know of.

Sounds like he should be.

Unless he was in on it.

Then the lack of an investigation makes perfect sense.

And I don't care how tough insurance companies are.

They still can't accuse the US gov't of mass murder.

[uppy]

Unless he was in on it.

Then the lack of an investigation makes perfect sense.

And I don't care how tough insurance companies are.

They still can't accuse the US gov't of mass murder.

Why not..if thay Have proof ?

[shiva2999]

Why not..if thay Have proof ?

If a group of people are willing to kill 3,000 innocent people to start a war that kills 10s of 1000s of innocent people...

Why would they blink at killing a few insurance executives?

[shiva2999]

The problem is Shiva that you post so much crap from blogger sites on this nonsense that one easily gets desensitized to it. I bet that you did post this report (which is quite recent I believe). But like "The sky is falling" I probably saw another hyperlink, thought "more blogger crap" and didn't give it a second thought.

Now if you would have made this report your centerpiece and dropped all that blogger crap you may have made some headway. Bad strategy. Your bad, not mine.

It's MY fault that you've refused to see what's as plain as the nose on your face for four years?

That's rich Pete.

[JLB]

If a group of people are willing to kill 3,000 innocent people to start a war that kills 10s of 1000s of innocent people...

Why would they blink at killing a few insurance executives?

Are you saying give the guy a pass?
Don't look into it because why? Not following your logic.
Why would you not want to dig deeper?
To get everybody involved if thats what your accusing.

[shiva2999]

Are you saying give the guy a pass?
Don't look into it because why? Not following your logic.
Why would you not want to dig deeper?
To get everybody involved if thats what your accusing.

Jlb

I've been digging for four years.

How long have YOU been digging for?

I've posted ALL this stuff previously right here and endured an enormous amount of abuse because of it.

Some have managed to get it.

Many others considered it just partisan whining.

But I won't stop. This is my continent too and Americans are my brothers.

I refuse to sit by and watch evil men ruin a country I've always loved.

[uppy]

If a group of people are willing to kill 3,000 innocent people to start a war that kills 10s of 1000s of innocent people...

Why would they blink at killing a few insurance executives?

You give the goverment too much credit Shiva,do you think major
Company Executives would sit around on their hands while there buddys
are knocked off by Bu$hco ?

[JLB]

Jlb

I've been digging for four years.

How long have YOU been digging for?

I've posted ALL this stuff previously right here and endured an enormous amount of abuse because of it.

Some have managed to get it.

Many others considered it just partisan whining.

But I won't stop. This is my continent too and Americans are my brothers.

I refuse to sit by and watch evil men ruin a country I've always loved.


:rockon:

Keep digging I say.

[gilchristfan]

The science while being easily understood is hard to verify without the background education required. The source and fact that it was peer reviewed leads me trust it.

But I found the above quote is also quite strong.

Shiva, is there any research on which insurance companies were on the hook for the WTC?

There are only a few companies in the world capable of writing a policy of that size, most likely it would be split between several lage re's. The insurance companies wouldn't accept a BS cause without reason.


The guy seems a little reckless with his "odds" if you ask me.

what are the odds that all the fireproofing fell off in just the right places, even far from the point of impact? Without much test data, let's say it's one in a thousand.

One in a thousand? First, the insulation didn't have to fall off the steel of the entire building, only the few contiguous floors at the impact site. The "just the right places" is, well, the point of impact.

But turn it around. If you take 100 tons of aluminum and magnesium and hurl it at some steel poles @ around 500 mph, what are the chances that some sprayed on asboestos-like stuff will continue to stay on the steel. (I'd read before that the floors above 64 weren't asboestos but a non hazardous substitute) What are the chances when the stuff is 30 years old?

Put on a respirator, take a baseball bat and whack a pipe that has spray insulation on it. Multiply that effect exponentially until you get to the impact energy release of 100 tons of aluminum @ 500 mph

1 in 1000? Closer to 1-1 I'd guess.

[35Pete]

The guy seems a little reckless with his "odds" if you ask me.

what are the odds that all the fireproofing fell off in just the right places, even far from the point of impact? Without much test data, let's say it's one in a thousand.

One in a thousand? First, the insulation didn't have to fall off the steel of the entire building, only the few contiguous floors at the impact site. The "just the right places" is, well, the point of impact.

But turn it around. If you take 100 tons of aluminum and magnesium and hurl it at some steel poles @ around 500 mph, what are the chances that some sprayed on asboestos-like stuff will continue to stay on the steel. (I'd read before that the floors above 64 weren't asboestos but a non hazardous substitute) What are the chances when the stuff is 30 years old?

Put on a respirator, take a baseball bat and whack a pipe that has spray insulation on it. Multiply that effect exponentially until you get to the impact energy release of 100 tons of aluminum @ 500 mph

1 in 1000? Closer to 1-1 I'd guess.
In the article that I read the metalurgy research I found to be very disturbing.

[35Pete]

It's MY fault that you've refused to see what's as plain as the nose on your face for four years?

That's rich Pete.
The "George Bush Masterminded 911" crap is still bull shit. You have not one shred of evidence to prove that.

The Utah report did NOT imply that at all.

[shiva2999]

The "George Bush Masterminded 911" crap is still bull shit. You have not one shred of evidence to prove that.

The Utah report did NOT imply that at all.

http://www.billmon.org/archives/shining.gif

http://youtube.com/watch?v=aHLhYJXRPyY&search=full%20metal%20jacket%20

[jimmifli]

The guy seems a little reckless with his "odds" if you ask me.

what are the odds that all the fireproofing fell off in just the right places, even far from the point of impact? Without much test data, let's say it's one in a thousand.

One in a thousand? First, the insulation didn't have to fall off the steel of the entire building, only the few contiguous floors at the impact site. The "just the right places" is, well, the point of impact.

But turn it around. If you take 100 tons of aluminum and magnesium and hurl it at some steel poles @ around 500 mph, what are the chances that some sprayed on asboestos-like stuff will continue to stay on the steel. (I'd read before that the floors above 64 weren't asboestos but a non hazardous substitute) What are the chances when the stuff is 30 years old?

Put on a respirator, take a baseball bat and whack a pipe that has spray insulation on it. Multiply that effect exponentially until you get to the impact energy release of 100 tons of aluminum @ 500 mph

1 in 1000? Closer to 1-1 I'd guess.
and tower7?

[Fortunesmith]

The "George Bush Masterminded 911" crap is still bull shit. You have not one shred of evidence to prove that.

The Utah report did NOT imply that at all.

http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/5407/911conspiracy7aq.gif

[sukie]

:rofl:

[uppy]

Great Post Phil...LOL

[JLB]

:rofl:

Boy that sure makes it all a lot clearer.
Thanks for the easy to follow illustrations.

[gilchristfan]

and tower7?


I don't think he was, and I certainly wasn't referring to insulation being knocked off the steel in WTC 7. I was referring directly to his odds of insulation being knocked off steel beams, and I'm assuming that was WTC 1 and WTC 2.

I'd think it'd be pretty likely, considering the impact.

[gilchristfan]

In the article that I read the metalurgy research I found to be very disturbing.


I read it a few months ago, when it came out, and scanned it a bit yesterday.

1. I think he's probably the first with any type of academic credentials that came out talking about a controlled deomolition.

2. I never have doubted that thermite could be used to bring down a building, or that it can melt steel. The problem I have with the article is the premise, i.e. "if it wasn't jet fuel that created melted steel (or some type of other melted metal), it had to be thermite, and therefore, a controlled demoltion.

3. Were there other materials in the building besides steel, jet fuel and aluminum in the building?

a. After the collapse, you've taken to building of more than 1/4 mile in linear height and compressed them into a height of what, 100 feet max? So all of the wooden and pseudo-wooden furniture, liquid flammables, more than 10,000 cheap furniture coverings, acres of nylon carpet, tons of plastics, soft metals, etc. etc, is now concentrated into an area that is 1/10th of its original size. In all of that junk, weren't there other fuel sources besides jet fuel?

b. With all of the junk falling into an area no more than 100 feet high, would it create an oven effect on the burning materials? Would that make them burn hotter than normal?

4. Is it unusual to find molten metal at a fire scene without the presence of thermite? I don't know, but it might not be:

http://www.atslab.com/fire/PDF/IndicatorsOfTrouble.pdf



10. Damage to metals such as copper and steel at low levels in the structure. This alleged indicator is based on the misconception that accelerants burn at higher temperatures than ordinary combustibles. This is untrue, it has been shown to be untrue, and if you base your determination of a fire cause on evidence of “higher than normal” temperatures, you will be discredited. “Wood and gasoline burn at essentially the same flame temperature. The flame temperatures achieved by all hydrocarbon fuels (plastics and ignitable liquids) and cellulosic fuels are approximately the same, although the fuels release heat at different rates” (NFPA 921, 4-8.1).
The difference between accelerated and non-accelerated fires is a difference in heat release rate, not a difference in temperature. The amount of energy released per unit time is greater, but the temperature is not.
The presence of melted metals at floor level is particularly meaningless in the context of a black hole fire. A study of the 1991 Oakland fire that burned 3,000 homes revealed the presence of melted copper in over 80% of the burned structures, and what appeared to be melted steel in over 90% of the burned structures. With respect to steel, looks can be deceiving. What appears to be melted may be merely oxidized.

Page 5
Interpret melted metals, particularly steel, with caution, and interpret the temperatures you infer from these melted metals with extreme caution. High temperatures are more likely a result of increased ventilation than of the presence of ignitable liquid residues.

[shiva2999]

The black boxes. Where are they?

This was originally published by the Philadelphia News...

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BUN410B.html

New Cover-up revealed? 9/11 Black Boxes found
by Will Bunch
Philadelphia News 28 October 2004
www.globalresearch.ca 28 October 2004
The URL of this article is: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/BUN410B.html


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Two men who worked extensively in the wreckage of the World Trade Center claim they helped federal agents find three of the four “black boxes” from the jetliners that struck the towers on 9/11 - contradicting the official account.

Both the independent 9/11 Commission and federal authorities continue to insist that none of the four devices - a cockpit voice recorder (CVR) and flight data recorder (FDR) from the two planes - were ever found in the wreckage.

But New York City firefighter Nicholas DeMasi has written in a recent book -- self-published by several Ground Zero workers -- that he escorted federal agents on an all-terrain vehicle in October 2001 and helped them locate three of the four...

His account is supported by a volunteer, Mike Bellone , whose efforts at Ground Zero have been chronicled in the New York Times and elsewhere. Bellone said assisted DeMasi and the agents and that saw a device that resembling a “black box” in the back of the firefighter’s ATV.

Their story raises the question of whether there was a some type of cover-up at Ground Zero. Federal aviation officials - blaming the massive devastation - have said the World Trade Center attacks seem to be the only major jetliner crashes in which the critical devices were never located.

A footnote to the 9/11 Commission Report issued this summer flatly states: “The CVRs and FDRs from American 11 and United 175” - the two planes that hit the Trade Center - “were not found.”

And officials for the FBI - which oversaw the cleanup at Ground Zero - and the New York City Fire Department repeated this week that the devices were never recovered.

The “black boxes” - actually orange - could have provided valuable new information about the worst terror attack to ever take place on American soil.

The cockpit voice recorder uses two microphones to capture the sounds of the cockpit for the last 30 minutes of a doomed flight on a tape loop. In the case of the hijacked 9/11 jetliners, the devices should have captured any conversations or actions involving the hijackers, as well as radio transmissions.

The flight data recorder records things like airspeed, heading, and altitude. Both devices - located in the tail of the airplane - emit loud “pings” so they can be located even in ocean jetliner crashes, like the 1996 explosion of TWA Flight 800 off Long Island.

They are built to survive an impact of enormous force - 3400 Gs - and a fire of 1100 degrees Celsius for one hour, somewhat higher than official estimates of the World Trade Center blaze.

“It's extremely rare that we don't get the recorders back. I can't recall another domestic case in which we did not recover the recorders,” Ted Lopatkiewicz, spokesman for the National Transportation Safety Board, told CBS News in 2002. However, officials said little of the jets was recovered.

...more...

http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff12202005.html

9/11: Missing Black Boxes in World Trade Center Attacks Found by Firefighters, Analyzed by NTSB, Concealed by FBI
By DAVE LINDORFF

One of the more puzzling mysteries of 9-11 is what ever happened to the flight recorders of the two planes that hit the World Trade Center towers. Now it appears that they may not be missing at all.

Counterpunch has learned that the FBI has them.

Flight recorders (commonly known as black boxes, though these days they are generally bright orange) are required on all passenger planes. There are always two-a flight data recorder that keeps track of a plane's speed, altitude, course and maneuvers, and a cockpit voice recorder which keeps a continuous record of the last 30 minutes of conversation inside a plane's cockpit. These devices are constructed to be extremely durable, and are installed in a plane's tail section, where they are least likely suffer damaged on impact. They are designed to withstand up to 30 minutes of 1800-degree heat (more than they would have faced in the twin towers crashes), and to survive a crash at full speed into the ground.

All four of the devices were recovered from the two planes that hit the Pentagon and that crashed in rural Pennsylvania. In the case of American Airlines Flight 77, which hit the Pentagon, the FBI reports that the flight data recorder survived and had recoverable information, but the voice recorder was allegedly too damaged to provide any record. In the case of United Airlines Flight 93, which hit the ground at 500 mph in Pennsylvania, the situation was reversed: the voice recorder survived but the flight data box was allegedly damaged beyond recovery.

But the FBI states, and also reported to the 9-11 Commission, that none of the recording devices from the two planes that hit the World Trade Center were ever recovered.

There has always been some skepticism about this assertion, particularly as two N.Y. City firefighters, Mike Bellone and Nicholas De Masi, claimed in 2004 that they had found three of the four boxes, and that Federal agents took them and told the two men not to mention having found them. (The FBI denies the whole story.) Moreover, these devices are almost always located after crashes, even if not in useable condition (and the cleanup of the World Trade Center was meticulous, with even tiny bone fragments and bits of human tissue being discovered so that almost all the victims were ultimately identified). As Ted Lopatkiewicz, director of public affairs at the National Transportation Safety Agency which has the job of analyzing the boxes' data, says, "It's very unusual not to find a recorder after a crash, although it's also very unusual to have jets flying into buildings."

Now there is stronger evidence that something is amiss than simply the alleged non-recovery of all four of those boxes. A source at the National Transportation Safety Board, the agency that has the task of deciphering the date from the black boxes retrieved from crash sites-including those that are being handled as crimes and fall under the jurisdiction of the FBI-says the boxes were in fact recovered and were analyzed by the NTSB.

"Off the record, we had the boxes," the source says. "You'd have to get the official word from the FBI as to where they are, but we worked on them here."

The official word from the NTSB is that the WTC crash site black boxes never turned up. "No recorders were recovered from the World Trade Center," says the NTSB's Lopatkiewicz. "At least none were delivered to us by the FBI." He adds that the agency has "always had a good relationship' with the FBI and that in all prior crime-related crashes or flight incidents, they have brought the boxes to the NTSB for analysis.

For its part, the FBI is still denying everything, though with curious bit of linguistic wiggle room. "To the best of my knowledge, the flight recording devices from the World Trade Center crashes were never recovered. At least we never had them," says FBI spokesman Stephen Kodak.

...more...

[jimmifli]

Professor Jones for non readers:

a speaking presentation...

mid page http://question911.com/links.php
or click the four parts below:
http://question911.com/linkout.php?filename=BYU%20Professor%20Steven%20Jo nes%20Lecture%20on%20911%20Explosives%2002012006%2 01of4.wmv
http://question911.com/linkout.php?filename=BYU%20Professor%20Steven%20Jo nes%20Lecture%20on%20911%20Explosives%2002012006%2 02of4.wmv
http://question911.com/linkout.php?filename=BYU%20Professor%20Steven%20Jo nes%20Lecture%20on%20911%20Explosives%2002012006%2 03of4.wmv
http://question911.com/linkout.php?filename=BYU%20Professor%20Steven%20Jo nes%20Lecture%20on%20911%20Explosives%2002012006%2 04of4.wmv

[JLB]

http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/5407/911conspiracy7aq.gif

Shit this is real proof better make it disappear.

:rofl:

[Gibby]

I thought it was kind of clever myself.

you would, then again when it comes to trashing the BA-and yes it should be trashed- you are very gullible.