Why the WTC dust matters [Archive] - Page 2 - The Orange Mane

kbreaker

09-23-2009, 08:14 PM

Garbage. I suggest you read the NIST Report.

You first. This is from their FAQ:

Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.

Even if the trusses had failed - this would not have brought down the core.

Nonsense.

For that to happen there ALSO had to be simultaneous fire caused failure of the core columns.

Ummm. No. Failure could happen as a result failures elsewhere. Its a basic concept of structures.

But how did this happen? NIST's own studies indicated that only 2% of their steel samples had been heated to more then 250 C. NO samples had reached temperatures higher than 600 C. You can't get to a failure of core columns with such low temperatures.

This is deliberate and gross misrepresentation of the paint tests only done on perimeter columns. Paint test could only be done on perimeter columns that were 1) Identifiable as being in relevant locations and 2) Did not have all its paint burned off. The paint tests were done as confirmation of the computer fire modeling. They were not a final determination of what temperatures the columns reached.

Twoofers have been misrepresenting the paint test since the NIST report came out.

The additional problem is that when NIST did the fire tests on trusses identical to those in the WTC -- the trusses only sagged a few inches -- not enough to threaten the outer perimeter wall. None of the trusses in the tests failed. Which blows to hell your truss theory.

Again, another misrepresentation of a test NIST performed. The tests were not a simulation of the conditions of the fire, but were to test if the quality of steel was up to claims, as well as the fireproofing and note any inherent defects in the truss design. It was a baseline test, NOT a WTC fire simulation!

Kevin Ryan covered this pretty well in his paper.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Article_1_Ryan5.pdf

No he didn't. Like so many others in the 'truth' movement he cherry picked and deceived. Par for the course with Kevin Ryan.

As I've said many times --- NIST's own research failed to support a collapse caused by impacts/fires.

You can say it all you want. It simply is not true.

You claim that hundreds and thousands of engineers have studied the WTC collapse. That's your speculation. The truth is that very few engineers have studied the NIST Report -- let alone done research on the WTC collapse.

Are you kidding me? From here on out damn near every engineer & architect in college is going to have WTC as part of his or her failure analysis course. What NIST determined was actually already flipping well known to them, hence they already started building skyscrapers differently. Take a look at the construction of the Comcast Tower in Philadelphia, for example.

If there are errors so obvious that water boy and a cherry picking, self-important amateur can spot them then they'd have already been over them. But it is not so, you are just taking bits n pieces from NIST and trying to hide their intent.

As I've pointed out many times -- Americans do not read reports -- and engineers are no different.

Oh really? And just how did you 'point that out'? Claimed it and ignored comments to the contrary? Hardly proof of squat.

One who did read the NIST Report, Wayne Trumpman, posted one of the earliest critiques of NIST -- and IMO still one of the best. I suggest you check it out. Some of my research was an attempt to determine if Trumpman was correct. It turned out he was right about the factor of safety.

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/09/324507.shtml

If he read it, and I doubt it, he's not demonstrating much knowledge. This is one typical example of his idiocy (I really do not have time to chunk another
wannabee engineer).

It is awell known fact that steelis an excellent conductor material

Typos are in the original. But more important is the fact that steel is not an excellent conductor. Its actually very poor. Certainly better than insulating materials, but nowhere near 'excellent'. Far from it. This is why blacksmiths can put iron or steel in the fire, get it red hot at the fire point and still handle it - not a property of an 'excellent conductor'. Ironically he claims this after describing doing a irrelevant steel heating experiment that shows this effect!

kbreaker

09-23-2009, 08:33 PM

THis is verbatim from the NIST Report:

"To the extent that the simulations deviated from the photographic evidence or eyewitness reports, the investigators adjusted the input, but only within the range of physical reality."

NIST here essentially admits that their model did not produce a collapse until they tweaked it.

What more evidence do you need to see that the NIST Report was a scam?

A lot more. You obviously have no clue about the nature of computer modeling. Inputs always have to be varied to get the results.

watermock

09-23-2009, 09:44 PM

The Lone Bolt

09-23-2009, 09:53 PM

watermock

09-23-2009, 10:10 PM

http://wzus1.ask.com/r?t=a&d=us&s=a&c=p&ti=1&ai=30751&l=dir&o=ie7&sv=0a5c4238&ip=4069a27a&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.indymedia.ie%2Fattachments%2Fja n2007%2Fwilliam2bush.jpg

Willie sure looks as happy as GW looks relieved.

I'm no sure what a promo with GW has to with his same day recount.

watermock

09-23-2009, 10:18 PM

Good ol' Willie Rodriguez. A credible source, of course. Beyond reproach.

Here's another pic of Willie:

http://wzus1.ask.com/r?t=a&d=us&s=a&c=p&ti=1&ai=30751&l=dir&o=ie7&sv=0a5c4238&ip=4069a27a&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.indymedia.ie%2Fattachments%2Fja n2007%2Fwilliam2bush.jpg

He sure looks happy and honored shaking bush's hand, doesn't he?

But wait... this was after he "knew" about the explosions and that 9-11 was an inside jobby job.

I'm... I'm... so confused....

The lobby was trashed.

Honored or bribed?

Noone is "beyond reproach" especially if they were told it was "National Security" issue along with some petty cash...

kbreaker

09-24-2009, 04:49 AM

DenverBrit

09-24-2009, 08:47 AM

They also admitted to tweaking their collapse model.

THis is verbatim from the NIST Report:

"To the extent that the simulations deviated from the photographic evidence or eyewitness reports, the investigators adjusted the input, but only within the range of physical reality."

NIST here essentially admits that their model did not produce a collapse until they tweaked it.

This typical of your responses. Do you understand half of what you post??

How else would NIST...or any one else get a result without 'tweaking' the parameters.

For instance: how would an aircraft manufacture design a new wing without 'tweaking' the parameters "within the range of physical reality"??

No wonder you Troofers are a treated as a joke. It's because you are!!

W*GS

09-24-2009, 10:06 AM

I like this version better:

http://4.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kpaplkgFpR1qzi8ddo1_400.jpg

mhgaffney

09-24-2009, 04:56 PM

I take it as a validation of my 9/11 research that my web site

www.the911mysteryplane.com

came under attack and has been down for more than a week.

Last time I checked -- a few minutes ago -- it was still down.

MHG

mhgaffney

09-24-2009, 05:02 PM

Lone Bolt,

You are an idiot. The point of the story about William Rodriguez is that he was a genuine hero of 9/11. Because he was a janitor he had a universal key -- and was able to rescue many people.

He was maybe the last one out -- who survived.

For his heroism he was feted at the White House by GW Bush -- hence the photo above.

Soon after-- however -- when Rodriguez realized that the 9/11 Commission was a sham -- was not interested in hearing about the explosions deep in the basement BEFORE the plane impact -- he began to speak out -- and then became the butt of ridicule by a-holes like yourself.

This is what happened.

MHG

mhgaffney

09-24-2009, 05:11 PM

Kbreaker,

OK so maybe Trumpmann inaccurately stated that steel is an excellent conductor.

But even more importantly -- as I stated -- he turned out to be correct about the factor of safety of the buildings. This is of enormous importance -- and you clowns don't seem to get it.

Because there was no wind on 9/11 - the strength in the outer wall was totally available to support the building -- which is why the factor of safety of the outer wall was 5.7.

This means on 9/11 it could support 570% of the anticipated design load. The damage caused by the planes was therefor of minor significance. The fact that a few floors fell in the impact zone had no effect.

As Ryan pointed out in his paper -- the WTC trusses survived NIST's fire tests with flying colors. None of them failed. The sagging was minor. You can't get to a collapse from here. Sorry.

You are disingenuous to ignore this.

MHG

mhgaffney

09-24-2009, 05:23 PM

How long have we watered the Tree of Deceit with the blood of patriots?

Sep-11-2009 23:46
The 9/11 Commission Rejects own Report as Based on Government Lies

Gordon Duff Salem-News.com

John Farmer’s book: “The Ground Truth: The Story Behind America’s Defense on 9/11″

(CINCINNATI, Ohio) - In John Farmer’s book: “The Ground Truth: The Story Behind America’s Defense on 9/11″, the author builds the inescapably convincing case that the official version... is almost entirely untrue...

The 9/11 Commission now tells us that the official version of 9/11 was based on false testimony and documents and is almost entirely untrue. The details of this massive cover-up are carefully outlined in a book by John Farmer, who was the Senior Counsel for the 9/11 Commission.

Farmer, Dean of Rutger Universities' School of Law and former Attorney General of New Jersey, was responsible for drafting the original flawed 9/11 report.

Does Farmer have cooperation and agreement from other members of the Commission? Yes. Did they say Bush ordered 9/11? No. Do they say that the 9/11 Commission was lied to by the FBI, CIA, Whitehouse and NORAD? Yes. Is there full documentary proof of this? Yes.

Farmer states...“at some level of the government, at some point in time…there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened... I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described …. The [Norad air defense] tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years. This is not spin.”

The 9/11 Commission head, Thomas Kean, was the Republican governor of New Jersey. He had the following to say... “We to this day don’t know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us, it was just so far from the truth. . . " When Bush's own handpicked commission failed to go along with the cover up and requested a criminal investigation, why was nothing done?

9/11 Commission member and former US Senator, Bob Kerrey, says, "No one is more qualified to write the definitive book about the tragedy of 9/11 than John Farmer. Fortunately, he has done so. Even more fortunately the language is clear, alive and instructive for anyone who wants to make certain this never happens again."

With the only "official" 9/11 report now totally false, where do we go from here? Who is hurt by these lies? The families of the victims of 9/11 have fought, for years, to get to the truth. For years, our government has hidden behind lies and secrecy to deny them closure.

In 2006, The Washington Post reported..."Suspicion of wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation, according to several commission sources. Staff members and some commissioners thought that e-mails and other evidence provided enough probable cause to believe that military and aviation officials violated the law by making false statements to Congress and to the commission..."

What does Farmer's book tell us? Farmer offers no solutions, only a total and full rejection of what was told and his own his own ideas concerning the total failure of honesty on the part of the government, a government with something to hide.

Farmer never tells us what. Nobody could keep a job in the public sector speaking out more than Farmer has. What were Farmer's omissions? There are some. Now that we know that intelligence given the 9/11 Commission wasn't just lies from our own government but based on testimony coerced through torture from informants forced to back up a cover story now proven false, a pattern emerges.

We know that, immediately after 9/11, many more potential suspects and informants were flown directly to Saudi Arabia by Presidential order than were ever detained and questioned. We will never know what they could have said. Their testimony would have been vital to any real investigation were they not put beyond the reach of even Congress and the FBI.

Putting aside all other questions of recent evidence of CIA involvement with bin Laden prior to 9/11 or altered physical evidence involving the Pentagon attack, any failure to call to account the systematic perjury committed by dozens of top government officials, now exposed as a certainty is an offense to every American.

What do we know? We know the conjecture about 9/11 still stands but for certain, we know we were lied to, not in a minor way, but systematically as part of a plot covering up government involvement at nearly every level, perhaps gross negligence, perhaps something with darker intent.

Are we willing to live with another lie to go with the Warren Report, Iran Contra and so many others? Has the sacrifice of thousands more Americans, killed, wounded or irreparably damaged by a war knowingly built on the same lies from the same liars who misled the 9/11 Commission pushed us beyond willingness to confront the truth?

Have we yet found where the lies have begun and ended? There is no evidence of this, only evidence to the contrary. The lies live on and the truth will never be sought. The courage for that task has not been found.

Can anyone call themselves an American if they don't demand, even with the last drop of their blood, that the truth be found?

How long have we watered the Tree of Deceit with the blood of patriots?

About the reviewer:

Gordon Duff is a Marine combat veteran and a regular contributor to Veterans Today. He specializes in political and social issues. You can see a large collection of Gordon's published articles at this link: VeteransToday.com.

He is an outspoken advocate for veterans and his powerful words have brought about change. Gordon is a lifelong PTSD sufferer from his war experiences and he is empathetic to the plight of today's veterans also suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. We greatly appreciate the opportunity to feature Gordon's timely and critical reports on Salem-News.com, a news organization staffed by a number of veterans, particularly former U.S. Marines.

*************
Farmer's book has received very mixed reviews, partly because people in the 9/11 truth movement find it so lame. I can understand that point of view. But IMO Paul Craig Roberts hit the nail on the head with his review, which I have copied from amazon.

Most of the reviews of John Farmer's book miss its importance.
Farmer has no way of knowing what happened on 9/11 or who did it.
What he does know and has figured out is that the 9/11 Commission
was lied to by people who were supposed to be helping the Commission
deliver the truth to the public.
Whether the lies were big or little, whether the lies were told to coverup
a false flag operation or to cover the butts of agencies that had failed
in their responsibilities, whether Farmer's explanations for the lies are
correct or incorrect, the fact remains that the Commission was misled.
The conclusion to be drawn is that the Commission's report is unreliable
and, therefore, that we do not have the truth about 9/11.
That this conclusion comes from the legal counsel to the Commission is
compelling evidence that a new investigation is required.
---Paul Craig Roberts

DenverBrit

09-24-2009, 06:44 PM

I take it as a validation of my 9/11 research that my web site

www.the911mysteryplane.com

came under attack and has been down for more than a week.

Last time I checked -- a few minutes ago -- it was still down.

MHG

Yes, that would be the most likely reason.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_rLV-ZuNPwJ4/SCkZiUt1PxI/AAAAAAAABg4/9b74aQIB0MM/s400/SLCNutbaroMeterParanoid.0.jpg

W*GS

09-24-2009, 07:35 PM

gaff-o, you're one sick ****.

Sam.I.Am

09-24-2009, 08:03 PM

Farmer states...“at some level of the government, at some point in time…there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened... I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described …. The [Norad air defense] tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years. This is not spin.”

Whenever a truther uses a lot of these (...) they are usually quote mining or taking the statement out of context. What Farmer was saying was that some of the commissioners thought that some of the generals might have gotten together to get their story straight. They then listened to the tapes and discovered that it didn't happen the way the generals stated... there was an even better response by NORAD compared to what they had previously stated.

In other words they doubted what some people said, checked into it and made the report more accurate. Hardly the narrative that truthers try to feed you.

kbreaker

09-24-2009, 08:24 PM

Kbreaker,

OK so maybe Trumpmann inaccurately stated that steel is an excellent conductor.

Just one of a host of technical errors.

But even more importantly -- as I stated -- he turned out to be correct about the factor of safety of the buildings. This is of enormous importance -- and you clowns don't seem to get it.

He was correct? Doubtful. Where is this assertion of a "5x load safety factor" for the perimeter columns? He claims it is NIST, then dismisses the very valid point that it was bearings for Wind Loads. It goes on from there to make mistakes about about load bearing on the columns vs. kinetic energy, he claims 'the majority' of columns still had fireproof. A whole series of unsupported assertions. It adds crap to a load of crap.

Because there was no wind on 9/11 - the strength in the outer wall was totally available to support the building -- which is why the factor of safety of the outer wall was 5.7.

Idiocy. You are comparing two completely different loads and forces. There is a reason why structural engineers separate these loads.

This means on 9/11 it could support 570% of the anticipated design load. The damage caused by the planes was therefor of minor significance. The fact that a few floors fell in the impact zone had no effect.

Bull, for the same reason as above.

As Ryan pointed out in his paper -- the WTC trusses survived NIST's fire tests with flying colors. None of them failed. The sagging was minor. You can't get to a collapse from here. Sorry.

Ryan conveniently ignores the fact that NIST's test had their fireproofing because as I noted before THOSE TESTS WERE NOT SIMULATIONS OF THE WTC FIRES! They were to make certain the fireproofing and the steel were up to the standards they were suppose to meet under normal standards...which were nothing like what happened on 9/11

You are disingenuous to ignore this.

MHG

I haven't ignored it. It is bull**** that you think is gold because they threw out some numbers at you.

kbreaker

09-24-2009, 08:32 PM

Lone Bolt,

You are an idiot. The point of the story about William Rodriguez is that he was a genuine hero of 9/11. Because he was a janitor he had a universal key -- and was able to rescue many people.

He was a hero.

He was maybe the last one out -- who survived.

No, he was not. There were survivors in the stairwell. He was likely the last non-fireman out of their under his own power.

For his heroism he was feted at the White House by GW Bush -- hence the photo above.

Yes.

Soon after-- however -- when Rodriguez realized that the 9/11 Commission was a sham

No. The sad fact is that Rodriguez likely found that being a 9/11 hero was not a path to much glory and riches as he might have liked.

-- was not interested in hearing about the explosions deep in the basement BEFORE the plane impact -- he began to speak out -- and then became the butt of ridicule by a-holes like yourself.

Read the link I provided and you will see that Rodriguez's claims about the commission were not ignored, but rather it his story that has changed. There are perfectly good explanations for everything else he experienced that he probably didn't lie or exaggerate about.

This is what happened.

No, it is not.

http://911stories.googlepages.com/

mhgaffney

09-25-2009, 09:27 AM

Kbreaker,

The fact remains that in the fire tests the WTC trusses did not fail. Let me explain why it's so important.

NIST's assumption that 100% of the fire insulation was knocked off during the impact was absolutely crucial to its collapse model -- yet elsewhere in its report NIST admits that not all of the insulation was knocked loose. In fact, there are photos in the NIST report itself showing this to be the case. Considerably less than 100% was lost. The exact number is impossible to determine.

So why did NIST assume 100% of the insulation was lost? Good question.

And what about outside the impact zone?

In those areas there was zero loss of insulation due to the impact. Need I point out that the vast majority of columns and floor trusses in the WTC were in this category -- since the impact zone was a small part of the whole.

This means that over 95% of columns and trusses in the WTC were fully protected and at full strength during the fires. This is why NIST's inability to duplicate a truss failure in its fire tests is so important --

Again - you ignore all of this because you can't handle the unthinkable implication -- that the WTC was demolished before our eyes.

MHG

mhgaffney

09-25-2009, 09:29 AM

NIST presented zero evidence that any core columns in the impact zone had lost strength due to fire. I repeat: zero.

There is absolutely no evidence that the core columns in the WTC failed due to fire.

The Lone Bolt

09-25-2009, 09:35 AM

Kbreaker, thanks for the link on Rodriguez. Excellent read.

Too bad Gaff will just hand-wave it all away.

mhgaffney

09-25-2009, 09:38 AM

As for Rodriguez, I read his statements and heard his story. What I see is a man wanting to expose the truth to honor the memory of the many friends and co workers he lost on 9/11. None of his statements reveal a man on an ego trip -- trying to self aggrandize.

Just the opposite. You also forget, Rodriguez, like many on 9/11, lost his livelihood in the attack. 9/11 was a devastating experience for all concerned.

What better way to honor the victims than to demand that truth be told -- and that those responsible be held accountable?

As a disillusioned Marine put it - "how long will the tree of deceit be watered with the blood of patriots?"

Rodriguez is a true patriot.

The Lone Bolt

09-25-2009, 09:42 AM

As for Rodriguez, I read his statements and heard his story. What I see is a man wanting to expose the truth to honor the memory of the many friends and co workers he lost on 9/11. None of his statements reveal a man on an ego trip -- trying to self aggrandize.

Just the opposite. You also forget, Rodriguez, like many on 9/11, lost his livelihood in the attack. 9/11 was a devastating experience for all concerned.

What better way to honor the victims than to demand that truth be told -- and that those responsible be held accountable?

As a disillusioned Marine put it - "how long will the tree of deceit be watered with the blood of patriots?"

Rodriguez is a true patriot.

Did you read the link? Did you note the multiple false statements he has been making? Did you notice the changing story?

He may be a hero but he is an unreliable source for the events of 9-11. That article proves it beyond any doubt.

The Lone Bolt

09-25-2009, 09:48 AM

Rodriguez knows damn well what caused that "explosion":

...Rodriguez did say this to NIST:

"The fire, the ball of fire, for example, I was in the basement when the first plane hit the building. And at that moment, I thought it was an electrical generator that blew up at that moment. A person comes running into the office saying 'explosion, explosion, explosion.' When I look at this guy; has all his skin pulled off of his body. Hanging from the top of his fingertips like it was a glove. And I said, what happened? He said the elevators. What happened was the ball of fire went down with such a force down the elevator shaft on the 58th (50A) – freight elevator, the biggest freight elevator that we have in the North Tower, it went out with such a force that it broke the cables. It went down, I think seven flights. The person survived because he was pulled from the B3 level. But this person, being in front of the doors waiting for the elevator, practically got his skin vaporized." Read his entire statement here.

That wasn't a slip. On September 11, 2002, Rodriguez was interviewed by CNN:

“And at that terrible day when I took people out of the office, one of them totally burned because he was standing in front of the freight elevator and the ball of fire came down the duct of the elevator itself, I put him on the ambulance.”

mhgaffney

09-25-2009, 09:57 AM

I checked out the link -- about Rodriguez. Another hit piece.

The debunker writes:

"Rodriguez believes he heard an explosion in the basement of the north tower an instant before American Airlines flight 11 slammed into its upper floors. However, since he was in the windowless B1 sublevel at the time, he had no way of knowing when the plane actually hit the building. His supervisor, who was with him in the maintenance office when the building was hit, says, "Being inside, we didn't know that there was anything wrong from the upper levels."

This is garbage. Rodriguez had worked in the WTC for many years. He knew the lay out better than anyone.

He was not the only one who heard the explosion in the basement. At least a dozen other janitors were with him and verified his story.

The debunker claims that Rodriguez ignored rational explanations for the alleged explosion. Not true. The janitor thought, at first, that it was an exploding generator.

He realized it had been a bomb -- only later -- after witnessing many other similar explosions over the course of the next hour -- before he eventually fled the WTC.

The debunker's claim that Rodriguez mixed up his time line -- that he could not possibly know when FL 11 hit the WTC is also specious. Rodriguez says he actually heard and felt the impact - coming from far above. As I said -- he knew the WTC lay out better than anyone.

I am not surprised the 9/11 Commission staffers refused to record his testimony about explosions. The panel ignored or suppressed everything at variance with the official story. There are plenty of other cases, such as the testimony of Sec of Transportation Mineta. In this latter case, because it was videotaped -- they could not completely suppress it - though they tried.

What we have seen is an all out effort to debase and discredit every witness whose testimony contradicts the official story.

America is now in lock down mode. The situation in America today is comparable to the propaganda machine of the Nazi Third Reich and Stalinist Russia -- the difference being that today the spin meisters are vastly more sophisticated.

They want Americans to beg for the chip -- they don't want to force it on us.

As of this morning -- my web site is still down. www.the911mysteryplane.com

I guess I must have pissed someone off -- royal!
MHG

Rohirrim

09-25-2009, 10:03 AM

I checked out the link -- about Rodriguez. Another hit piece.

The debunker writes:

"Rodriguez believes he heard an explosion in the basement of the north tower an instant before American Airlines flight 11 slammed into its upper floors. However, since he was in the windowless B1 sublevel at the time, he had no way of knowing when the plane actually hit the building. His supervisor, who was with him in the maintenance office when the building was hit, says, "Being inside, we didn't know that there was anything wrong from the upper levels."

This is garbage. Rodriguez had worked in the WTC for many years. He knew the lay out better than anyone.

He was not the only one who heard the explosion in the basement. At least a dozen other janitors were with him and verified his story.

The debunker claims that Rodriguez ignored rational explanations for the alleged explosion. Not true. The janitor thought, at first, that it was an exploding generator.

He realized it had been a bomb -- only later -- after witnessing many other similar explosions over the course of the next hour -- before he eventually fled the WTC.

The debunker's claim that Rodriguez mixed up his time line -- that he could not possibly know when FL 11 hit the WTC is also specious. Rodriguez says he actually heard and felt the impact - coming from far above. As I said -- he knew the WTC lay out better than anyone.

I am not surprised the 9/11 Commission staffers refused to record his testimony about explosions. The panel ignored or suppressed everything at variance with the official story. There are plenty of other cases, such as the testimony of Sec of Transportation Mineta. In this latter case, because it was videotaped -- they could not completely suppress it - though they tried.

What we have seen is an all out effort to debase and discredit every witness whose testimony contradicts the official story.

America is now in lock down mode. The situation in America today is comparable to the propaganda machine of the Nazi Third Reich and Stalinist Russia -- the difference being that today the spin meisters are vastly more sophisticated.

They want Americans to beg for the chip -- they don't want to force it on us.

As of this morning -- my web site is still down. www.the911mysteryplane.com

I guess I must have pissed someone off -- royal!
MHG

Seek help.

DenverBrit

09-25-2009, 10:09 AM

Seek help.

Too late.

DenverBrit

09-25-2009, 10:16 AM

As of this morning -- my web site is still down

A nation mourns.

http://pro.corbis.com/images/HU037247.jpg?size=67&uid=342CE7D4-5904-417C-BD84-2C498AA7A50F

kbreaker

09-25-2009, 06:38 PM

Kbreaker,

The fact remains that in the fire tests the WTC trusses did not fail. Let me explain why it's so important.

NIST's assumption that 100% of the fire insulation was knocked off during the impact was absolutely crucial to its collapse model

Where does it say that?

-- yet elsewhere in its report NIST admits that not all of the insulation was knocked loose. In fact, there are photos in the NIST report itself showing this to be the case. Considerably less than 100% was lost. The exact number is impossible to determine.

Where did you determine it was 'considerably less than 100%'. I'd like a source besides your backside.

So why did NIST assume 100% of the insulation was lost? Good question.

From my readings they made no such assumptions.

And what about outside the impact zone?

What about them? Are you suggesting that their load capacity was able to handle the mass of moving material once the structure started to fail?

In those areas there was zero loss of insulation due to the impact. Need I point out that the vast majority of columns and floor trusses in the WTC were in this category -- since the impact zone was a small part of the whole.

Irrelevant. The rest of the structure was not designed to have a mass the size of an aircraft carrier impact it with even a small amount of kinetic force.

This means that over 95% of columns and trusses in the WTC were fully protected and at full strength during the fires. This is why NIST's inability to duplicate a truss failure in its fire tests is so important --

No. It is completely irrelevant to collapse of the building except to determine if the original standards held up.

Again - you ignore all of this because you can't handle the unthinkable implication -- that the WTC was demolished before our eyes.

And you are so batcrap crazy you cannot accept that the vast, vast majority of engineers, architects and other relevant professionals do not agree with you.

Furthermore, you are completely incapable of dealing with the fact that there is zero evidence of explosives being used in the towers.

kbreaker

09-25-2009, 06:46 PM

I checked out the link -- about Rodriguez. Another hit piece.

The debunker writes:

"Rodriguez believes he heard an explosion in the basement of the north tower an instant before American Airlines flight 11 slammed into its upper floors. However, since he was in the windowless B1 sublevel at the time, he had no way of knowing when the plane actually hit the building. His supervisor, who was with him in the maintenance office when the building was hit, says, "Being inside, we didn't know that there was anything wrong from the upper levels."

This is garbage. Rodriguez had worked in the WTC for many years. He knew the lay out better than anyone.

What does that have to do with anything?

He was not the only one who heard the explosion in the basement. At least a dozen other janitors were with him and verified his story.

Not a big deal. We know there were sounds of explosions around the basement after the plane hit. That is what happened after fuel when down the elevator shafts and hit the subbasements.

The debunker claims that Rodriguez ignored rational explanations for the alleged explosion. Not true. The janitor thought, at first, that it was an exploding generator.

I can't tell if you are deliberately misreading what was written in the article, which is: "Rodriguez ignores rational explanations for the explosion in the basement,". That is noting that TO THIS DAY he is ignoring perfectly sensible , rational explanation of what happened.

He realized it had been a bomb -- only later -- after witnessing many other similar explosions over the course of the next hour -- before he eventually fled the WTC.

This is where his tale is embellished, to say the least.

It is apparent from the rest of your frothing ravings that you totally ignored much of the article, or missed the points being made.

kbreaker

09-25-2009, 06:48 PM

As of this morning -- my web site is still down.
MHG

That is what happens when your Password is "password".

(sadly, no-one here will get the joke). :clown:

kbreaker

09-25-2009, 06:53 PM

NIST presented zero evidence that any core columns in the impact zone had lost strength due to fire. I repeat: zero.

There is absolutely no evidence that the core columns in the WTC failed due to fire.

You are completely and utterly wrong.

mhgaffney

09-28-2009, 08:52 PM

Kbreaker,

All of the sources for my claims above are from the NIST report. The citations are in my book - chapter 7.

You are wrong about the design of the WTC. John Skilling, the structural engineer who built it - stated that it was designed to withstand an impact by a fully loaded Boeing 707 -- the biggest commercial jet of the day.

The Boeing 707 is slightly smaller than a Boeing 767 -- but has a higher cruising speed. For this reason, a Boeing 707 impact at cruising speed would have MORE kinetic force than a Boeing 767 impact at cruising speed.

Skilling stated categorically that the WTC would survive a large body jet impact.

NIST agreed in its report that the WTC survived the impact. According to NIST the WTC would have survived indefinitely but for the fact that insulation was knocked loose -- and thus made the steel vulnerable to fire.

This was NIST's view.

As I've shown, overwhelming evidence disputes NIST's conclusion , including much evidence in the NIST report, which was overlooked/ignored in the NIST executive summary--

mhgaffney

09-28-2009, 09:08 PM

you are completely incapable of dealing with the fact that there is zero evidence of explosives being used in the towers.

I've presented overwhelming evidence for explosives on this board. Let's summarize it, once again, in no particular order:

1. residues of thermite/thermate found in WTC dust

2. traces of unexploded ordnance -- nano thermite -- found in WTC dust

3. micro spheres of iron found in WTC dust - proving that steel melted

4. large lumps of iron rich slag found in WTC basement - proving that large amounts of steel melted

5. Videos and photos of molten metal -- probably molten iron -- pouring out of WTC 2 minutes before it collapsed

6. video taken from Hoboken by Rick Siegel with an audio documenting the sounds of explosions - thus confirming eyewitnesses who reported them

7. Other videos documenting explosions, including one video taken on a tripod of WTC 1 collapse indicating that the ground shook seconds before the collapse began

8. hundreds of eyewitness accounts of molten steel, and explosions in the WTC BEFORE onset of collapse

9. FEMA study showing that inch thick steel phlanges had been evaporated

10. enormous beams bent in "U" shapes with no stress cracks -- proving extremely high temperatures -- far beyond temperatures caused by carbon fires

11. hard evidence found in the WTC dust that metallic lead had boiled -- which requires temperatures vastly above what is achievable by carbon fires

12. USGS thermal imagery taken from the air above the WTC ruin proving persistence of extremely high temperatures on site 6 days after WTC collapse -- despite heavy rain and dumping of millions of gallons of water on ruin by NYC firemen

13. video evidence that the first 100 feet of the WTC-7 collapse fell at free fall speed. This is impossible without explosives. Also, NIST's collapse model for WTC 7 is scientifically absurd.

14. pulverization of nearly all of the concrete from WTC, which required an enormous amount of energy.

There are probably other points of evidence I have left out. Even so, these 14 points should be conclusive, taken together, especially in the absence of any evidence supporting NIST's official collapse model.

MHG

Rohirrim

09-29-2009, 05:59 AM

I'd like to hear your theory about who planted these explosives, how they planted them, when did they plant them, and why did they plant them.

mhgaffney

09-29-2009, 06:05 AM

I'd like to hear your theory about who planted these explosives, how they planted them, when did they plant them, and why did they plant them.

I have my own personal opinion on all this. But what I think is secondary.

The important thing now is the material evidence for explosives. This is what needs to be emphasized. A new REAL investigation would be able to answer the question about the WHO -- quickly.

To get there you need subpoena authority -- to make witnesses testify. You also need a policy of clemency for whistleblowers -- to induce people to come forward.

W*GS

09-29-2009, 07:21 AM

I've presented overwhelming evidence for explosives on this board. Let's summarize it, once again, in no particular order[...]

There are probably other points of evidence I have left out. Even so, these 14 points should be conclusive, taken together, especially in the absence of any evidence supporting NIST's official collapse model.

All you've got is a list of 14 lies.

But since your book won't sell if you don't lie about 9/11, your personal profit motive outweighs the truth. You're scum.

Rohirrim

09-29-2009, 07:33 AM

I have my own personal opinion on all this. But what I think is secondary.

The important thing now is the material evidence for explosives. This is what needs to be emphasized. A new REAL investigation would be able to answer the question about the WHO -- quickly.

To get there you need subpoena authority -- to make witnesses testify. You also need a policy of clemency for whistleblowers -- to induce people to come forward.

This is a message board. It's all about personal opinion. Let's hear yours:

Who planted these (alleged) explosives?
How did they plant them?
When did they plant them?
Why did they plant them?

After all, if you can't answer these basic questions, or if your answers are ridiculous, then your other findings are anomalous and some other reason must exist for the presence of your "evidence." You must answer these questions first for your "evidence" to be plausible.

SPfloppy

09-29-2009, 07:36 AM

I saw a show recently that debunked troother bs. One of the guys who believes the controled demo theory said that an elevator modification had been ongoing for sometime and that is how someone could have planted explosives. This is not my opinion but I don't think Gaff is on the mane today to answer your question. This is just what he might say in response to your question about who and when

Rohirrim

09-29-2009, 07:40 AM

I saw a show recently that debunked troother bs. One of the guys who believes the controled demo theory said that an elevator modification had been ongoing for sometime and that is how someone could have planted explosives. This is not my opinion but I don't think Gaff is on the mane today to answer your question. This is just what he might say in response to your question about who and when

But if that is true, why the planes? After all, they could have just set off the explosives, arrested a bunch of Arabic looking dudes, and claimed that Al Queda in Iraq did it, etc. etc. etc. After all, they tried to blow up the WTC in 1993. Nobody would have questioned it and it would have been cheaper and easier.

SPfloppy

09-29-2009, 07:56 AM

Oh don't get me wrong man. I am no troother. My opinion is the most likely. A heavy aerodynamicly designed airframe flying at a high rate of speed impacts a very tall fixed object. Structural integrity is damaged at critical points that support the entire top portion of the buildings above the point of impact. Fire burns hot, support beams weaken, the wieght begins to strain the weakened supports and gravity does the rest. I have never seen any evidence that was compelling enough to make me believe otherwise. I am even willing to read Gaff's book of myths just to be fair, but I doubt it will even give me pause. This was exactly what it was advertised as, a terrorist attack carried out by determined enemies of the United States. Period

DenverBrit

09-29-2009, 09:38 AM

But if that is true, why the planes? After all, they could have just set off the explosives, arrested a bunch of Arabic looking dudes, and claimed that Al Queda in Iraq did it, etc. etc. etc. After all, they tried to blow up the WTC in 1993. Nobody would have questioned it and it would have been cheaper and easier.

A better question might be: 'Why the explosives'?

Why spend all the months secretly planting tons of explosives if the Government knew the planes were going to hit the WTC?

or.

If they didn't know about the planes, how did they choreograph the explosions to coincide with the planes hitting the Towers?

The answer?

None of the above, Troofers are batsh*t crazy!!!

http://dogsounds.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/tinfoilhat.jpg

Rohirrim

09-29-2009, 10:19 AM

I'll take door number three, Monty. ;D

DenverBrit

09-29-2009, 10:31 AM

I'll take door number three, Monty. ;D

You're a winner!!!

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/00rWeCN7aX3Vj/610x.jpg

kbreaker

09-29-2009, 02:07 PM

I've presented overwhelming evidence for explosives on this board. Let's summarize it, once again, in no particular order:

If this is what you consider 'overwhelming'...I am not impressed with your choice of adjectives.

1. residues of thermite/thermate found in WTC dust

Please. Call it as what was 'found': Sulfur. That's right, Dr. Jones & company found Sulfur and declared it to be remains of thermate. Never mind that sulfur was the third most common element int he building due to gypsum drywall.

2. traces of unexploded ordnance -- nano thermite -- found in WTC dust

Jones find paint chips, burns them, and declares them to be 'nano-thermite'. Refuses to do experiments that would reveal them to be thermite or not (i.e. burning them in a non-oxygenated environment

3. micro spheres of iron found in WTC dust - proving that steel melted

Let's ignore for the moment that Jones' chain of custody sucks - microspheres can be found from hundreds of sources that do not involve wild imagination of conspiracy kooks: friction impacts, welding (and gosh...there was *no* welding done after the towers fell), even certain printer toners could be the source of these spheres.

4. large lumps of iron rich slag found in WTC basement - proving that large amounts of steel melted

Please tell me you aren't talking about the 'meteor'....ITS CONCRETE!

5. Videos and photos of molten metal -- probably molten iron -- pouring out of WTC 2 minutes before it collapsed

No evidence it was iron whatsoever.

6. video taken from Hoboken by Rick Siegel with an audio documenting the sounds of explosions - thus confirming eyewitnesses who reported them

Videos taken right at ground zero have no such sounds.

7. Other videos documenting explosions, including one video taken on a tripod of WTC 1 collapse indicating that the ground shook seconds before the collapse began

Again, videos taken right at the sight at the collapse had no such noises, and Lower Manhatten is not deaf. This easily trumps some idiot kicking his tripod

8. hundreds of eyewitness accounts of molten steel, and explosions in the WTC BEFORE onset of collapse

Classic quote mining by truthers. Explosions does not mean explosives.

9. FEMA study showing that inch thick steel phlanges had been evaporated

The cause is Eutectic melting. It is not a product of explosives or thermite. It is a result of pollution.

10. enormous beams bent in "U" shapes with no stress cracks -- proving extremely high temperatures -- far beyond temperatures caused by carbon fires

Look up 'Sherman's Bowties' sometime and tell me again what carbon fires cannot do.

11. hard evidence found in the WTC dust that metallic lead had boiled -- which requires temperatures vastly above what is achievable by carbon fires

This sounds like you are repeating yourself.

12. USGS thermal imagery taken from the air above the WTC ruin proving persistence of extremely high temperatures on site 6 days after WTC collapse -- despite heavy rain and dumping of millions of gallons of water on ruin by NYC firemen

A fact unaccepted by truthers is that fires can burn and that water can't magically put them out. The Centralia mine fire is an example of this effect.

In any case what does this prove? Explosives don't make things hot, and thermite doesn't burn for 6 days.

13. video evidence that the first 100 feet of the WTC-7 collapse fell at free fall speed. This is impossible without explosives. Also, NIST's collapse model for WTC 7 is scientifically absurd.

Spoken by someone who did not read it. WTC-7 was not near free-fall and only resembles it if you ignore the Penthouse collapsing several seconds (along with much of the internal structure) before the facade of the building collapsed.

14. pulverization of nearly all of the concrete from WTC, which required an enormous amount of energy.

A lie, easily put to rest by a simple examination of ground zero photos.

There are probably other points of evidence I have left out. Even so, these 14 points should be conclusive, taken together, especially in the absence of any evidence supporting NIST's official collapse model.

MHG

The only thing I can say in the face of such utter dreck is:

"That's not right...that's not even wrong" - Wolfgang Pauli

mhgaffney

09-29-2009, 02:36 PM

But if that is true, why the planes? After all, they could have just set off the explosives, arrested a bunch of Arabic looking dudes, and claimed that Al Queda in Iraq did it, etc. etc. etc. After all, they tried to blow up the WTC in 1993. Nobody would have questioned it and it would have been cheaper and easier.

NO, they could not.

These were three of the most secure buildings on the planet. No way for Al Qaeda to get in there and plant the charges.

Parking a car bomb in a parking lot in 1993 was one thing -- this was much more ambitious.

mhgaffney

09-29-2009, 02:42 PM

Oh don't get me wrong man. I am no troother. My opinion is the most likely. A heavy aerodynamicly designed airframe flying at a high rate of speed impacts a very tall fixed object. Structural integrity is damaged at critical points that support the entire top portion of the buildings above the point of impact. Fire burns hot, support beams weaken, the wieght begins to strain the weakened supports and gravity does the rest. I have never seen any evidence that was compelling enough to make me believe otherwise. I am even willing to read Gaff's book of myths just to be fair, but I doubt it will even give me pause. This was exactly what it was advertised as, a terrorist attack carried out by determined enemies of the United States. Period

This is close to the official story. It's the story they want people to believe -- and it's reasonable enough that most people accept it. Heck, I accepted it for years -- until I began to examine the evidence.

Probably the biggest flaw in this picture you painted -- is that the WTC could never collapse through itself -- even if a major failure had happened up above. No way.

The lower you went in the WTC the stronger the building. The thicker and stronger the steel beams - and conversely, the higher you went the lighter the structure.

A light block of floors up top cannot gain enough force dropping just a few feet -- to crush the denser stronger mass of the building down below. That's like claiming that a feather crushed a cinder block.

It can't happen.

The only way the top 100 feet of WTC 7 could drop at free fall speed is via explosives.

MHG

SPfloppy

09-29-2009, 02:45 PM

?

mhgaffney

09-29-2009, 03:09 PM

K breaker,

Your response is scatter brained.

I will only make a few comments/corrections.

You must be desperate to try to argue that Dr Jones engaged in lies and trickery. You are wrong. That did not happen.

There is a continuous chain of custody with the WTC dust studied by Jones at al. In fact, Jones rejected one sample because the necessary protocol was not followed. This is not an issue.

The slag "meteors" in the WTc basement were analyzed and found to be iron rich -- just like the iron rich spherules. BTW, every lab that studied the dust found the same thing.

The shape of the spherules is what you get when molten droplets of iron solidify. Since the WTC was primarily steel -- 90,000 tons -- with iron being the primary ingredient of steel -- one must consider the steel to be the most likely source.

This view is reinforced by the analysis of the slag in the basement -- again -- it involved large amounts of iron -- which had been molten.

Your assertion that the sulfur came from the gypsum is garbage. No way can such a transformation happen as through some magical process. We are talking about precise amounts of elemental sulfur -- an engineered substance.

Your claim that FEMA found evidence of pollution is twaddle. More garbage. The sulfur was embedded in the steel -- which had been melted by some intense heat source.

It was not Jones who found the evidence of boiled lead. It was an independent study done by RJ Lee Group -- a private lab -- commissioned by Deutsche Bank. RJ Lee found that lead oxide had condensed on fibers found in the dust. Lead had been vaporized -- which requires temperatures of 3180 F -- which is far far far above the highest temperature you can get in a carbon fire, i.e. around 1800 F.

RJ Lee also found the iron rich spheres.

The persistence of extreme temperatures (along with eyewitness accounts and the other evidence) should have prompted a forensic analysis of the steel and dust. NIST refused.

Indeed, the unprecedented collapse of three steel high rise buildings on the same day should have occasioned the most thorough investigation ever done -- to locate the cause -- and insure that no similar structural failure would ever happen again. Instead of an investigation, the authorities responded with the wholesale destruction of evidence.

The destruction of evidence from a crime scene is a crime in and of itself -- and this should have raised red flags immediately.

Apparently the knee jerks were too mesmerized by their rah rah fooball game at the time -- even to notice. But some people did notice -- back in 2002. This was the start of the 9/11 truth movement.

MHG

W*GS

09-29-2009, 03:49 PM

The lower you went in the WTC the stronger the building. The thicker and stronger the steel beams - and conversely, the higher you went the lighter the structure.

A light block of floors up top cannot gain enough force dropping just a few feet -- to crush the denser stronger mass of the building down below.

To give you the best change of proving your point, calculate the mass of the floors above the impact point of the north WTC tower (the first one hit, and the one hit highest up). Now calculate the kinetic energy of that mass once it starts moving under the force of gravity as the collapse begins. Now tell us that the floor just below the lowermost collapsing floor can withstand that kinetic energy and not collapse itself. Then repeat for each floor as you go down, remembering to add the mass and recalculating the kinetic energy as the velocity of the increasing mass itself increases.

Do your ****ing homework instead of stroking off to a picture of Paul Craig Roberts, for a change.

Rohirrim

09-29-2009, 03:49 PM

NO, they could not.

These were three of the most secure buildings on the planet. No way for Al Qaeda to get in there and plant the charges.

Parking a car bomb in a parking lot in 1993 was one thing -- this was much more ambitious.

WTF? You argue that explosives were used on 911, but now you are saying that the buildings were so secure that explosives could not have been planted?

W*GS

09-29-2009, 03:50 PM

Remember, folks:

W*GS

09-29-2009, 03:51 PM

WTF? You argue that explosives were used on 911, but now you are saying that the buildings were so secure that explosives could not have been planted?

Ol' gaff-o doesn't even realize it when he contradicts himself.

Just like all troofers.

Wadda ****ing pud.

mhgaffney

09-29-2009, 04:08 PM

WTF? You argue that explosives were used on 911, but now you are saying that the buildings were so secure that explosives could not have been planted?

Ro,
Sorry, but at times your stupidity is stupifying.

Everything has to be spelled out for you. I've already stated this on the mane a hundred times. But OK, I'll do again. Here goes.

Because jihadists could never have gained access to the WTC -- the explosives could only have been planted by insiders. Duh..

That's as simple as I can make it. 9/11 was an inside job.

mhgaffney

09-29-2009, 04:10 PM

W*gs the troglodyte comes out of his hole on cue -- as always..

kbreaker

09-29-2009, 05:13 PM

K breaker,

Your response is scatter brained.

I will only make a few comments/corrections.

You must be desperate to try to argue that Dr Jones engaged in lies and trickery. You are wrong. That did not happen.

Please spare me. Jones has been lying almost from the beginning. Here's a fine example of how he manipulated a photo (that he still uses to this day in his presentations) to make it look like there was 'molten steel'

2/3 of the way down on this page:

http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm

There is a continuous chain of custody with the WTC dust studied by Jones at al. In fact, Jones rejected one sample because the necessary protocol was not followed. This is not an issue.

Sorry, but it is. Its not even known when the samples were produced.

The slag "meteors" in the WTc basement were analyzed and found to be iron rich -- just like the iron rich spherules. BTW, every lab that studied the dust found the same thing.

First of all, let's make sure we are talking about the same thing. I am referring to Jones' 'meteorite' which he harped on as being 'cooled and melted steel' for ages. The one in this picture:

http://www.newsday.com/polopoly_fs/1.91810.1243468523!image/1183673905.jpg_gen/derivatives/display_600/1183673905.jpg

First of all, close-up photos show it is concrete. It has rebar sticking out of it (rebar has a lower melting point than steel) and if it is 'iron rich' that's because it was rebar reenforced concrete. But frankly, I think you are just making stuff up about the tests because Richard Gage was whining only a couple of months ago about how he needs to test the meteor!

The shape of the spherules is what you get when molten droplets of iron solidify. Since the WTC was primarily steel -- 90,000 tons -- with iron being the primary ingredient of steel -- one must consider the steel to be the most likely source.

There are hordes of other possibilities as well that are far more likely. Flyash used in structural concrete has such spherules. Why are you overlooking that in favor of a laughable scenario?

This view is reinforced by the analysis of the slag in the basement -- again -- it involved large amounts of iron -- which had been molten.

You are completely wrong.

Your assertion that the sulfur came from the gypsum is garbage. No way can such a transformation happen as through some magical process. We are talking about precise amounts of elemental sulfur -- an engineered substance.

Oh really?

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

"In nature, it can be found as the pure element and as sulfide and sulfate minerals."

Sulfur can be found from plenty of sources before you need to entertain fantasies like thermate. It can be as simple as sewage, diesel fuels,

But the simple fact is: You are wrong. The sulfur in question as mentioned by Jones et al is SO2, sulfur dioxide. I have no idea where you got the 'pure elemental sulfur' from.

Read Greening if you want to get an idea of the sources of SO2

http://www.911myths.com/Sulfur.pdf

Your claim that FEMA found evidence of pollution is twaddle. More garbage. The sulfur was embedded in the steel -- which had been melted by some intense heat source.

You might want to learn about what a Eutectic mix is. Sulfur compounds *did* penetrate the steel. That is what happens with pollutants. The result was a mix that has a lower melting point. Hence the damage to those pieces.

It was not Jones who found the evidence of boiled lead. It was an independent study done by RJ Lee Group -- a private lab -- commissioned by Deutsche Bank. RJ Lee found that lead oxide had condensed on fibers found in the dust. Lead had been vaporized -- which requires temperatures of 3180 F -- which is far far far above the highest temperature you can get in a carbon fire, i.e. around 1800 F.

OK. I found the RJ Lee report. Can't say I am impressed. They found lead that had been exposed to very high temperatures...in a building away from the WTC. Not impressive.

RJ Lee also found the iron rich spheres.

Several months after the collapse.

The persistence of extreme temperatures (along with eyewitness accounts and the other evidence) should have prompted a forensic analysis of the steel and dust. NIST refused.

Because there was no evidence of any explosives or thermite use on any of the pieces. A handful of microscopic anomolies with decent explanations does not make much evidence in the face of the actual cause.

Indeed, the unprecedented collapse of three steel high rise buildings on the same day should have occasioned the most thorough investigation ever done -- to locate the cause -- and insure that no similar structural failure would ever happen again. Instead of an investigation, the authorities responded with the wholesale destruction of evidence.

Maybe in your world, but in reality NIST did a thorough investigation and the sane engineers of the world are satisfied. Heck, most of them thought it was redundant as they already knew the cause. The Comcast building in Philadelphia was built with a concrete core precisely to prevent another such an attack from collapsing a skyscraper. They started building that before the NIST report was released.

You see, the sane engineers and architects of the world understand what went on. You've bawled and bawled about how they won't study the events of 911, but you are wrong.

The destruction of evidence from a crime scene is a crime in and of itself -- and this should have raised red flags immediately.

Then it must suck for you that the Fresh Kills site was investigated to hell and back. It must suck indeed! (http://disaster.pandj.com/World%20Trade%20Center%20Forensic%20Recovery.pdf)

Apparently the knee jerks were too mesmerized by their rah rah fooball game at the time -- even to notice. But some people did notice -- back in 2002. This was the start of the 9/11 truth movement.

MHG

And you've been mired in ignorance, arrogance, and incompetence ever since. Nice job!

The Lone Bolt

09-29-2009, 05:22 PM

I've presented overwhelming evidence for explosives on this board. Let's summarize it, once again, in no particular order:

...

6. video taken from Hoboken by Rick Siegel with an audio documenting the sounds of explosions - thus confirming eyewitnesses who reported them

Once again, you have not addressed the issue that's been brought up numerous times on this thread: how do you explain the fact that those "massive" explosive detonations were recorded on the Siegel video but not by multiple other devices much closer to the collapses?

Amazingly, it continues to escape you that, in the case of the Siegel video, what you are suggesting is not just improbable, it is physically impossible.

There is ZERO possibility that a camera a mile away could record the sounds of explosive detonations without multiple (and much closer) devices in the area recording the same thing.

The fact that you are able to keep yourself in such deep denial illustrates the pathology of your beliefs.

DenverBrit

09-29-2009, 05:35 PM

Once again, you have not addressed the issue that's been brought up numerous times on this thread: how do you explain the fact that those "massive" explosive detonations were recorded on the Siegel video but not by multiple other devices much closer to the collapses?

Amazingly, it continues to escape you that, in the case of the Siegel video, what you are suggesting is not just improbable, it is physically impossible.

There is ZERO possibility that a camera a mile away could record the sounds of explosive detonations without multiple (and much closer) devices in the area recording the same thing.

The fact that you are able to keep yourself in such deep denial illustrates the pathology of your beliefs.

Gaffney is certifiably nuts......and really enjoys typing.

Not a good combination on the internetz.

Walks like a duck, talks like a............

http://www.readyayeready.com/badges/images/loon.jpg

W*GS

09-29-2009, 05:36 PM

W*gs the troglodyte comes out of his hole on cue -- as always..

I ain't the one living in der gaffobunker, ya ****ing Nazi.

mhgaffney

09-29-2009, 05:59 PM

Once again, you have not addressed the issue that's been brought up numerous times on this thread: how do you explain the fact that those "massive" explosive detonations were recorded on the Siegel video but not by multiple other devices much closer to the collapses?

Amazingly, it continues to escape you that, in the case of the Siegel video, what you are suggesting is not just improbable, it is physically impossible.

There is ZERO possibility that a camera a mile away could record the sounds of explosive detonations without multiple (and much closer) devices in the area recording the same thing.

The fact that you are able to keep yourself in such deep denial illustrates the pathology of your beliefs.

I've already told you. I don't agree with your conclusion. Other videos did capture some of these explosions.

It is the official story that is physically impossible.

You should be demanding a new investigation. Instead, you attack me. Incredible.

mhgaffney

09-29-2009, 06:09 PM

Lone Bolt,

I believe it was you who claimed that the 9/11 truthers cherry pick evidence. Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I recall this was you (among others).

What is amazing is how you get it backwards. In fact, I assembled evidence in my book that the official investigation should have examined --- but chose to ignore.

I personally interviewed key eyewitnesses from 9/11 whose testimony should have been considered by the official investigators -- but was not.

I spoke with the Freeway AP pilot Dan Conner who flew with Hani Hanjour. I also talked with Bernard Marcel, the lead instructor at Fre AP -- both of whom told me they flunked Hanjour after a flight test in a Cessna 172 because of general incompetence.

Both expected to be called before the 9/11 Commission -- but the call never came. Why not? Answer: Because their testimony conflicted with the official story which had already been agreed upon. So it was screened out.

Talk about cherry picking evidence!

Ditto in the case of Linda Brookhart, who caught an E-4B command and control plane on film as it flew over the White House just after the Pentagon hit. She even handed a copy of her photo to the FBI -- in person -- yet again - she never heard back.

This story was repeated time and again after 9/11. There are many other examples.

So when are you going to get it? The real cherry pickers were at FEMA, at NIST and on the 9/11 Commission.

Rohirrim

09-29-2009, 06:09 PM

Ro,
Sorry, but at times your stupidity is stupifying.

Everything has to be spelled out for you. I've already stated this on the mane a hundred times. But OK, I'll do again. Here goes.

Because jihadists could never have gained access to the WTC -- the explosives could only have been planted by insiders. Duh..

That's as simple as I can make it. 9/11 was an inside job.

Being called stupid by you is like being called primitive by an aborigine.

Next question, now that you have admitted you believe it to be an "inside job" tell us how many people were involved.

The Lone Bolt

09-29-2009, 06:20 PM

I've already told you. I don't agree with your conclusion. Other videos did capture some of these explosions.

Where are they? Produce them.

And remember, if there were explosive detonations virtually every recording device in the area should have captured them. Anything short is a physical impossibility. So you have to explain how the vast majority did not capture such explosions.

kbreaker

09-29-2009, 06:20 PM

This is starting to go round and round in circles. There's no way that a truther with a financial interest can be convinced he is wrong. Indeed, the only reason I post is to show lurkers and others the sheer bankruptcy of the truther scenarios. I don't know if this really has any purpose anymore as I can't see this truther having any real effect around here. I was invited from JREF forums, where I am but a minor player. I was able to walk in here and destroy his arguments, and he is too afraid to even come near the JREF forums. Resorting instead to cheap, unfounded jabs at it.

This might be my last post. I just don't see any percentage here, but I will leave you with this: the reason why the truther demolition scenarios are so idiotic.

EXPLOSIVE DEMOLITION

Let's ignore the thermite scenarios for the moment and concentrate on explosive demolition (truthers waffle conveniently back and forth between the two). First problem is the noise. Here is a demolition of a building much smaller than the WTC towers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ng5qwtR59A

You will notice it is very, very loud. Now I am not going to link to any videos of the towers collpasing, you can find them on your own. Plenty of them right at the base of the tower. No such sounds were heard on the video. Had there been such charges, much of lower Manhatten would have been deafened.

Then there is the physical evidence. Truthers invariably gloss over the detritus of demolition and the preparation buildings need. Buildings set for demolition need months of preparation and its not just a matter of slapping charges onto columns. First they must clear away the drywall, then the demo crews partially cut the columns. The charges are placed in the cuts to 'finish off' the columns. The charges have the detcord attached and carpet (yes, carpet) sections are placed around the charges. Copper bands are placed around the carpet and charge. Finally, a plywood box is built around the whole charge.

Can you imagine someone doing this in your office building and NOBODY NOTICES?

When the charges are ready, there are miles of detcord leading to the detonator. Much timing of the charges is involved in a proper implosion and you could cut a lot of corners if you weren't concerned about safety, but you could not avoid all the issues.

So the charges are set off. The building collapses - and with the destruction of the building all evidence of demolition is gone, right? Wrong.

First of all, steel columns cut with demoliton charges show some very distinct features. Here is a picture one from the demolition of the old Pennsylvania Convention Hall.

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g157/kookbreaker/CopperDepositweb.jpg

Note the color change on the cut edge of the column and how distinct it is from the semi-ciruclar 'cut' make with other methods. This, along with the texture are very distinct and would stand out to anybody with even a modest experience in building demolitions. No such features were found.

Also not the used detcord in the corner. This stuff was everywhere at the demosite. It was very noticeable. Not something you miss.

"But" whine our clueless truthers "they coulda used radio or remote control to set off the demolitions!". Not really. Almost no demolitions of buildings have used remote control and the idea of someone using it in the part of the world that probably has more radio traffic than anywhere else seems a bit....unlikely.

Also at that same demotion site you would find lots of these:

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g157/kookbreaker/Scraps.jpg

Can anyone guess what they are? They are those copper bands I mentioned going around the demo charges. That is not a photoshop trick, those are the colors they turn when exposed to the plasma levels from the charges. Again these copper pieces are everywhere and are very distinct at a site that underwent demolition via explosives.

The reason for those copper bands is to help 'focus' the demolition charges. This is not a simple task of slapping charges on the columns as the truthers would have you believe. It is a very involved process.

So what next? Ah yes, the other side of the flip-flop truther coin:

THERMITE...ERRR...THERMATE...ERRR..NANO-THERMITE!!

Let's get right to the point with this: For truthers, thermite(ate-nano-whatever) might as well be magic.

First of all thermite has never, ever been used in a building demolition. Yet truthers would have us believe that the inside jobbers set this whole process up without any testing of any kind. Even without this fact, however, thermite consistently falls on its face

Thermite, as you may have noticed, tends to burn down. It can melt materials it sits on but it really doesn't cut very well. It certainly can't burn horizontal columns.

Truthburn (http://911truthburn.blogspot.com/2007/05/truthburn-art-project-at-burning-man.html) was the truthers sad attempt to prove otherwise at the Burning Man festival. It was a dismal failure, with the truthers just burning thermite under the sign, most likely due to them being unable to figure out how to do it.

But one simple detail is that thermite really doesn't 'cut' very well. The Mythbusters used 1/2 on a car...just a car and it didn't really 'cut' so much as...well see for yourself:

(sorry about the dumb intro on this one...couldn't find another version)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPAYZMzGMwQ

In conclusion, truther arguments don't even begin to hold water. Which is why they start resorting to all kinds of Special Pleading such as illdefined "oh...it was an UNconventional demolition" -huh? or "That's why it was SUPER nano-thermite they used" - huh?

I hope that at least some of us have learned something today, I know one person on this board won't, but that is insanity for you!

Bye!

The Lone Bolt

09-29-2009, 06:29 PM

Thanks for dropping in kbreaker. It's been enlightening for (almost) all of us here.:thumbsup:

Brainters

09-30-2009, 02:30 PM

Lone Bolt,

I believe it was you who claimed that the 9/11 truthers cherry pick evidence. Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I recall this was you (among others).

What is amazing is how you get it backwards. In fact, I assembled evidence in my book that the official investigation should have examined --- but chose to ignore.

I personally interviewed key eyewitnesses from 9/11 whose testimony should have been considered by the official investigators -- but was not.

I spoke with the Freeway AP pilot Dan Conner who flew with Hani Hanjour. I also talked with Bernard Marcel, the lead instructor at Fre AP -- both of whom told me they flunked Hanjour after a flight test in a Cessna 172 because of general incompetence.

This report might be a whole lot more convincing if you knew that the lead instructor at Freeway Airport was named Marcel Bernard, not Bernard Marcel. Do you remember how Marcel Bernard characterized Hani Hanjour to Dylan Avery? He said that Hani was an average to below-average pilot. He was not flunked because of general piloting skills, he was flunked because he demonstrated a very poor understanding of English.

W*GS

09-30-2009, 02:54 PM

gaff-o thinks everyone who thinks he's a nutcase is in on it.

mhgaffney

09-30-2009, 11:51 PM

This report might be a whole lot more convincing if you knew that the lead instructor at Freeway Airport was named Marcel Bernard, not Bernard Marcel. Do you remember how Marcel Bernard characterized Hani Hanjour to Dylan Avery? He said that Hani was an average to below-average pilot. He was not flunked because of general piloting skills, he was flunked because he demonstrated a very poor understanding of English.

Brainters,

Yes, thanks for the correction.

When I spoke with Bernard he was the typical jaded American. He was not happy that Dylan Avery included the interview in Loose Change. He told me that if he had known the taped interview was going to be used like that he would not have agreed to it.

At the same time, he stood by everything he told Avery.

When I spoke with Bernard he made it clear that he had done no research himself on 9/11. He did not even known about Eddy Shalev (until I told him), the other pilot from Congressional Air Charters (just down the road from Freeway AP) who passed Hanjour in a Cessna 172 (the same plane that Bernard refused to rent to Hanjour) and who told the 9/11 Commission that Hanjour was a good pilot.

Marcel Bernard stands by everything he told Dylan Avery. He and Ben Connor both told me they flunked Hanjour because of general incompetence.

So why did the commission take testimony from Shalev -- yet refuse to take it from Connor and Bernard? This is the key question - that the crew on this board does not have the integrity to pursue.

MHG

mhgaffney

09-30-2009, 11:59 PM

Kbreaker,

You are posting misinformation about thermite. It is more than capable of cutting steel columns.

Check this out.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200701/Answers-to-Frequently-Asked-Questions-Regarding-Thermite-by-Robert-Moore.pdf

mhgaffney

10-01-2009, 12:02 AM

Jim Marrs on 9/11

Marrs is Mr conspiracy theorist.

He the author of CROSSFIRE, among other books, one of the landmark books about the JFK assassination.

Here's what he thinks about 9/11:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6H0X-7sDwZE