Joined: 20 Oct 2007 Posts: 592 Location: New York City
Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2007 10:07 am Post subject: Re: idiot
johndoraemi wrote:
The strongest evidence of demolition was the reported "explosions."
I disagree. As you point out, many (though not all) of these reports can be explained away, in various ways, in terms of the official story. In my opinion, the strongest evidence of demolition is:
1) For WTC 7: The straight-down vertical, symmetrical nature of the collapse.
2) For WTC 2: The mysterious yellow glowing liquid pouring out some of the windows just before it began to collapse, coupled with other evidence of molten steel and iron.
I agree with you that the evidence of demolition is not 100% conclusive, but I think it's pretty strong.
However, if you prefer to focus on other aspects of 9/11, no problem. We need people looking into all different kinds of evidence.
Quote:
There were also numerous vehicles with gasoline tanks in each tower. This would contribute to keeping the pile hot afterward, and was another source of fuel/energy/explosive potential.
Do you (or anyone else here) happen to have a source handy regarding gasoline tanks in WTC 1 and 2? I'm aware that there were plenty of gasoline tanks in WTC 7, but this is the first time I've heard about the gasoline tanks in WTC 1 and 2. _________________ Diane
Joined: 20 Oct 2007 Posts: 592 Location: New York City
Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2007 2:49 pm Post subject: Re: They were blown up
chrisc wrote:
[However I have a Physics and Architectural background so I don't feel uncomfortable about trying to work out what happened from the collapse videos alone.
Glad to hear that there's at least one regular here with a strong relevant technical background. (I myself took two years of physics in college. My degree was in electrical engineering, not anything mechanical, though I do retain a fairly strong grasp of basic physics.)
Anyhow, some commenters on my blog have challenged me to go through the following two recent papers by "debunkers":
1) Ryan Mackey, “On Debunking 9/11 Debunking: Examining Dr. David Ray Griffin’s Latest Criticism of the Nist World Trade Center Investigation,” September 2007
2) Bazant, Le, Greening, and Benson, “Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers: What Did and Did Not Cause It?” June 22, 2007
I've downloaded them an printed them out and plan to start going though them in a week or two, but it would be nice to have some help from a person with a stronger technical background than my own in evaluating various points. Have you read these papers? They can be found online here and here. (The latter link is directly to a PDF file.)
Is there anyone else here with a strong technical background?
To any such people: Have you read the above papers? _________________ Diane
The mysterious yellow glowing liquid is well described, especially the use of the word mysterious.
I don't know how anyone can look at this footage of sparks flying out of a large building on fire and conclude anything as to what material may have composed them. What a waste of time.
Joined: 20 Oct 2007 Posts: 592 Location: New York City
Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 4:25 am Post subject:
Nicholas wrote:
The mysterious yellow glowing liquid is well described, especially the use of the word mysterious.
I don't know how anyone can look at this footage of sparks flying out of a large building on fire and conclude anything as to what material may have composed them. What a waste of time.
Have you looked at Steven Jones's investigation of this matter? _________________ Diane
Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 10:44 pm Post subject: to reiterate
I do believe demolition is more likely than not. My response was to the forced dogmatism dogging this movement.
I shouldn't have to take a position on an unanswered question. And my responses to Keenan's attacks were quite justified -- to me anyway.
No one should be forcing others to take positions, or to make claims. _________________ The Crimes of the State Blog
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/
The iron globules are interesting - if they were generated prior to the pit fires, that is.
The fact is that NIST's attempts to explain this phenomenon have been nothing short of embarrassing, as explained by Dr. Jones. Molten aluminum from the plane? Aluminum is silvery when it melts and the observed colors are only possible with extremely high temperatures. When Judy Wood ridiculously attempts to support NIST by creating really absurd straw-man arguments to counter this evidence, you know it's a red flag.
Arabesque wrote:
Wood and Reynolds continue with their often repeated molten aluminum straw-man fallacy. The authors proceed to discuss molten aluminum, but curiously fail to provide any context:
“He fails to account for what molten aluminum looks like if heated to the same temperatures as molten iron (1538°C).”24
Wood and Reynolds neglect to mention that the necessary temperatures needed are impossible to reach with jet fuel fires as seen in the World Trade Center.25 The maximum temperature of a jet fuel fire is 1000°C, far below the temperature that Wood and Reynolds say is required to get aluminum to turn orange. In fact, jet fuel fires are not even capable of melting steel.26 It is therefore very misleading to say that Steven Jones had not considered these temperatures (1538°C)—why would he when they are impossible to reach with temperatures from a jet fuel fire? As well, the NIST report indicates that the jet fuel fire temperatures were significantly lower than 1000°C—they did not record any evidence of jet fuel fire temperatures over 600°C.27 Wood and Reynolds also neglect to mention that a thermite reaction could reach the necessary temperatures to create the observed molten metal/steel that Steven Jones argues is falling outside of the South Tower just before its collapse as seen in video and photographs.28 Some have claimed that this metal was aluminum from a plane. Jet fuel fires can’t cause aluminum to reach the necessary temperatures to “turn orange.” A thermite reaction can reach the necessary temperatures, melt steel and account for this visual evidence. Not only has Steven Jones found traces of thermite in molten metal samples, there is visual evidence further confirming his hypothesis.
[...]
The authors fail to rely on physical evidence to discredit Steven Jones’ thermate analysis. Perhaps they should study some molten samples of their own to determine what could have caused “a phenomenon never before observed in building fires: eutectic reactions, which caused "intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese.”21 The New York Times described this as “perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation”.22
http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/ArabesqueReplyToWoodAndReynoldsThermite.pdf
One note: NIST has a reason for denying the existence of molten metal. It shatters the official story. Because of this, NIST can only talk about the jet fuel fires (hence the 600 max. they recorded), and deny that any steel melted, which is disproved by the FEMA report as I quoted.
Even the Scholars for 9/11 truth page--ever notice that everything that "disproves" the official story is considered ok (even blatant disinfo junk evidence like TV fakery and space beams), and the only evidence supporting an inside job they try to debunk is thermite? Another amusing sign.
Again, on its own I'm not saying this proves anything, but it's an interesting observation.
The problem with physical evidence arguments is that although they provide evidence of a crime, they do not always provide identifiable suspects. Certainly it narrows down the list of suspects, which in itself is useful, but we should also avoid the intentional diversionary straw-man arguments than invariably come up to discredit legitimate evidence. That's what the journal of 9/11 studies is for. _________________ Arabesque: 911 Truth 2008 Declaration: Standards and Strategies for 9/11 Truth A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog
Okay, I see a continual flow of large sparks flying out a window and cascading down the wall of the building. Who says this is metal at all? Even if NIST agrees it's metal, it's still only on video, we will never have any of it in hand. What makes it metal? And if so, how are we to judge its real color from the video (has anyone determined what the camera settings were) under the sunlight present?
I have to say, this seems like a wild goose chase compared to the "squibs."
(And what Wood/Reynolds say is entirely irrelevant to this or any other question except in further establishing their lack of credibility or honesty, as though that were necessary.)
Joined: 16 Feb 2007 Posts: 230 Location: Northeast US
Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 4:29 pm Post subject:
What else found in the towers would account for an orange/yellow glowing viscous material pouring out like that Nicholas? Just one possibility, if you can come up with it.
Firefighters and others have described seeing a similar substance, which they believed to be molten steel, in large quantities in the rubble piles. Orange, glowing, hot and flowing.
Your skepticism seems unfounded, but maybe we're missing something?
First, what's in the pile may have been made by the pile fires.
But as for this phenomenon: Can someone point out where this corner of the building is in a photo of the initial collapse of WTC 2? The top tips. Is this corner at the crux?
Joined: 20 Oct 2007 Posts: 592 Location: New York City
Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 3:10 pm Post subject:
Nicholas wrote:
First, what's in the pile may have been made by the pile fires.
which begs the question: What could have made the pile fires that hot? (An incendiary like thermite probably could have. But what else?)
Nicholas wrote:
But as for this phenomenon: Can someone point out where this corner of the building is in a photo of the initial collapse of WTC 2? The top tips. Is this corner at the crux?
The mysterious glowing yellow liquid that Steven Jones points to in his video presentation was on the 80th floor, east end of the north side. If I'm not mistaken, the top of WTC 2 tilted toward the southeast. (In your photo, that whole area is now concealed by a dust cloud.) Anyhow, the collapse did indeed begin at approximately the 80th floor. _________________ Diane
Joined: 20 Oct 2007 Posts: 592 Location: New York City
Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 3:50 pm Post subject:
Nicholas wrote:
I see it.
So what makes this metal?
Have you seen Steven Jones's video presentation? He rules out a number of other possibilities as to what it could possibly be. Of course this might not exhaust all the possibilities. It might be helpful to know who the tenant was at that particular office. But, given the appearance of thiis liquid just seconds before the collapse, it seems worth looking into. _________________ Diane
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
