Whats your take on this?

[Torpex752]

No doubt some may dismiss this as some sort of conspiracy mumbo-jumbo, however I find the evidence very interesting. Kinda hard to dispute science- Frank


Apr 23, 2009

640 Architects and Engineers Call for New 9/11 Investigation
(http://www.ae911truth.org/info/55)

Evidence of Explosives Found in Destruction of All 3 WTC High-Rises

AE911Truth to Display Evidence at National AIA Convention 4/30 — 5/2, Moscone Center
Press Conference/Speaking Engagement Saturday May 2 at 4 pm, Westin Market Street Hotel

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact Phone: 510-292-4710
Site: AE911Truth.org (http://www.ae911truth.org/)
Email: Contact rg-aia at ae911truth.org (http://about<b></b>:%20to%20email%20rg-aia%20at%20ae911truth.org)
Berkeley, CA, April 23, 2009 — More than 640 Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth) are calling for a new, independent investigation into the destruction of the World Trade Center high-rises. These building professionals cite evidence of explosive demolition at all three WTC high-rises on 9/11 and document the evidence at their website. Michael Heimbach, assistant director of the FBI's counterterrorism division, wrote (http://www.ae911truth.org/docs/other/FBI_Heimbach_Response_Saive.pdf) that their claims and conclusion were "backed by thorough research and analysis."
AE911Truth will host exhibitor's information booth #2609 (http://www.mapyourshow.com/shows/mys_vAIA09/mys_vAIA09.cfm?SHOW_ID=aia09) at this year's annual convention of the prestigious American Institute of Architects (AIA). The convention (http://www.ae911truth.org/events/aia-convention/), with more than 800 exhibitors and more than 20,000 participating architects, will take place in San Francisco's Moscone Center, April 30-May 2.
read more... (http://www.ae911truth.org/info/55)
Apr 22, 2009

Scientists Find Unignited Explosive Residues in WTC Dust
(http://www.ae911truth.org/info/57)
— Gregg Roberts

Red/Gray Chips Match Advanced Thermitic Materials Developed in US Government Labs

Berkeley, CA, April 23, 2009— A team of scientists that includes 9/11 luminaries Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan, and seven other authors from three countries announced this month the long-awaited publication of their 25-page article "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe."
http://www.ae911truth.org/images/other/nanothermite_w_caption.jpg (http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCIEJ/2008/00000002/00000001/35TOCIEJ.SGM)
The team analyzed dust samples that were collected from four locations near Ground Zero. One sample was collected ten minutes after the North Tower exploded, so it could not have been contaminated with particles from the cleanup efforts. All four samples contained the same unusual, tiny red/gray chips, which turned out to consist not only of the ingredients of conventional thermite but also carbon, silicon, and other elements.

The ingredients are all found in an ultra-fine-grained form that speeds the chemical reaction when the mixture is ignited. While conventional thermite is considered an incendiary, burning hot and fast at steel-melting 4500-degree temperatures, so-called "nano-thermite" or "super-thermite" mixtures can be explosive —
read more... (http://www.ae911truth.org/info/57)

[SteamWake]

Truth.org.. :nope:

[Kapitan_Phillips]

Interesting read

[SteamWake]

I dident see in their where the levels or concentration was mentioned.

Also wasent there a previous bombing attempt? Pretty sure there was. Possible residual traces? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_World_Trade_Center_bombing

Here is an interesting fact. Seawater has the same amount of trace elements in it no matter where the sample is taken. Be it the north pole or the south atlatic. These traces include nearly every base element and mineral found on earth. So without a good reference point it could be said that the seawater taken from Antartica came from Bermuda.

I read a news story last week about traces of cocaine and LSD found in the atmosphere in spain.

My point is if you look hard enough you can find a trace of just about anything, anywhere.

Had one more thought.

Now I dont know where the building materials for the WTC came from but that region was heavily contested in the 1700's many many battles were fought there with muskets, cannons and the likes. Could it be possible that the trace remains of all that black powder made it into the building materials?

[Torpex752]

Thats a thought I could see.

My problem is that the stuff they found matches the steel erosion that the 911 comission called unexplaned. Nanothermite is only used in construction demolition as it is man made. I find it very sad to find this actually, not overjoyed.

Combine that with the nearly free fall speed of all buildings and it lends merit to the probability that the planes & fire didnt bring the buildings down. Its not impossible, but I find it a little hard to believe that these engineers are completely wrong.

I dont support the govt did it theory, however I am curious why when I look at other catostrophic events involving steel structures failing, submarines not returning to the surface, ships hitting iceburgs, or airplanes crashing, the level of investigation and reconstruction to find out why was and remains much more intense and thorough then this event/situation.

I guess I feel it necessary to say that after serving in the US Submarine force for 20 years and having a "questioning attitude" instilled in me as a critical means of survival and proper way of conducting daily business, after looking at this event from both sides, I have a few unanswered questions. The questions I have are not rocket science, yet there is no sensible answer found to date in any "official" report. None that satifies my understandings.

Frank

[CaptainHaplo]

Carbon - naturally occuring element
Silicon - naturally occuring element

etc etc.

Now I am not saying don't ask questions, but sometimes people look too deeply for the answer when its laying in front of them.

Ever hear of a shistovite (sp)? Its a grain shaped material that is shock heated quartz. Usually only found in nuke craters.

The point here is you had high temps, massive pressures, loads of a large variety of "ingredient" materials (concrete, steel, fiberglass,etc other metals and suchvarious ). Chemistry and physics often go hand in hand, so it is NOT suprising that under the circumstances there could be "trace" concoctions created. Diamonds are superheated and compressed coal - its not unreasonable to assume that the vast pressures and temps involved in building collapses such as this would cause all kinds of "unexplained" reactions. After all - when building are brought down normally - everyone expects that there could be "traces" of explosive elements found. But who is to say all the various things used to build buildings dont contribute to those elements?

I can personally think of a number of "potentially explosive" elements used in building. The key here is that they are elements of a potential explosive - not an explosive waiting to go off. In their molecular form, with the right combinations - BOOM. Our understand of the molecular processes that occur when something that size comes down is so incomplete its not even funny.

The website you pointed to has repeatedly claimed that the US Government was responsible for 9/11. Instead of looking into other possibilities, they find "elements" and traces of things that support their view (at first glance) and then run with it. Thats not science, thats a political agenda.

I am not knocking asking questions, but I have issues with those (not you OP) that pick and choose the facts they present to the public to create a sentiment for political purposes.

BTW - who had the "forethought" to take a SOIL sample 10 MINUTES after the North Tower went down? What human would say "Oh god - there musta been 2000 people in there - I better take a soil sample instead of going and trying to help out!"? That right there shows that they are NOT being entirely forthright.

[Torpex752]

Good points, cant argue.

There are certain events that do not lend themselves to the definitions, explanations provided to us/me.

For instance, specifically; Days and weeks after we heard of reports of 'fires continuing to burn in the rubble" Back when i heard that I was ok with it. Then add into the equation, a film clip of the excavator pulling up a clump of molten steel, the fire chief telling his crew not to hit it with water because it will flash/steam and the operator wont be able to see what he's doing. The crew was within 50 feet of the stuff, if there was a fire hot enough to melt steel in the rubble, they would not be able to be that close. Steel requires @2500degF to melt. I personally have used a torch to cut steel, it takes an enormous amount of fuel to do this. These were class 'A" buildings, the stuff in them does not combine to produce this type of fuel/fire. It does not, it never has in the numerous steel high rise structure fires before of after 9/11. That molten steel that was present in the basement of both towers and WTC 7 does not belong there based on my experience with steel for a number of years. The fire codes wont allow enough combustables, to melt steel.

So, lets go with the natural elements combining to form nano thermite, and somehow the stuff in the buildings combined into an element that could melt 5" thick steel (the thickness of the 47 steel colums in the base core of the towers), dont you think there would have been a nationwide revaluation/study to make sure that this stuff was not in every other high rise steel structure on the planet? I promise you I mean no malice in that statement, I am only going on the possibility you are right.
I was a facility manager for 5 years, and after 9/11 there were no changes at all to any of the national fire codes. So draw your own conclusions. As`I see it since every item is acceptable in an office high rise, its likelyhood of causing steel to melt is nil.

Now, the dust that was collected is suspect because it was collected within 10 min. I have to agree, seems odd. Maybe a better explanation is in order. Now, if we question that (logically) then should we not question the passport that survived the crash? it is equally odd dont you agree that a paper and plastic passport could survive the fireball/crash, but other things didnt. Not being argumentative, but I am willing to accept that piece of evidence on faith, then the dust deserves the same consideration, yes?

I certainly dont like the negative spin that the word conspiracy theory has. On one hand some of the groups immediately point the finger which leads us to look at them like nuts. However, if you dont like how they say it, then just look at what they are saying. The A/E group seems to be focusing on the premise that;
1-The towers were designed and built to withstand exactly what happened, yet the fell.
2-They are not saying who, just that whomever it was had to have access to the structural steel.

My feelings are that no theory of why/how those buildings fell should be chasticed. If someone came out and said the Titanic sank because the rivets were made of an inferior grade/mix of steel, people would listen, test, evaluate, and give an answer. They wouldnt call them names, conspiracy nuts, liars or anything else. Now if they came out and said that the rivets failed and we found out that White Star Lines bought them from a company in Germany, we might see things reacted to differently.

The debunking of the A/E I have seen is poorly done in my opinion and doesnt specifically adress the claims to a point in all cases.

Either way I can see facts that need better explanation. The truth lies somewhere in the middle as I see it now.

(I am a stickler for factual hard evidence) Taking the reports the news gave me vs what I have looked for myself with my own two eyes and seen, now makes me wonder.

Frank

[Tribesman]

So this dust , would that compound be like that you get from some printers which are in widespread use

[Raptor1]

shistovite (sp)?

I'm sure you mean Stishovite

[Torpex752]

Unfortunately no, its man made.

"Abstract We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in this paper. These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all four samples. One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later. The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains grains approximately 100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 °C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic."

Frank

[SteamWake]

The word 'exotherm' rang a bell.

Exothermic welding is actually quite common in use of electrical construction, espically in lightning protection systems and grounding systems.

http://www.exothermicwelds.com/index.php?p=productsList&iCategory=3

Its presence in such a large structure does not supprise me one bit.

[Torpex752]

Because of the good electrical conductivity and high stability in the face of short-circuit pulses, exothermic welds are one of the options specified by §250.8 of the United States National Electrical Code (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Electrical_Code) for grounding conductors and bonding jumpers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonding_jumper).[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exothermic_welding#cite_note-Simmons-3) It is the preferred method of bonding, and indeed it is the only acceptable means of bonding copper to galvanized (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galvanization) cable.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exothermic_welding#cite_note-Whitaker-2)

Well, IMO, its possible, but not probable to find nano thermite material as a result of any exothermic welding. Not saying its inpossible, but the flux you are referring to would have to be cleaned up after the process was complete. The likelyhood of finding it nearly 30 years after the building was built is slim. Additionally, any bonding that required that level of connection would have been where the main power substation and transformers were, far below in the basement.

Frank

[SteamWake]

What level of concentration, or did I miss that?

[Torpex752]

They didnt list a specific concentration.

I think the issue is that nano or superthermite is not the same stuff.

Its in the "Thermite" family, but its specific applications are limited.

Thats what makes this pretty upsetting, its a specific type of thermite, not like what you mentioned, unfortunately. It very unique. Its production is even classified in some applications.

Frank

[AVGWarhawk]

Just a thought and I do not know if it was mentioned anywhere, the towers were attacked twice I believe and specifially in the parking garage. These are the known attacks. What about possible attacks that did not go off as planned. In other words, explosives placed but never detonated for whatever reason? This material now found after the tower clean up. I think it is a distinct possibility. People have been attempting to blow up the towers since Clinton. Do you think that is a plausible cause for finding this material at the site?

[Torpex752]

I think thats possible. If you view this video, and disregard the name of the video, it sheds some real thought along the lines of what you suggest.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_A9X_8flGeM



Hope that link works.

Frank

[AVGWarhawk]

Also another thought. What if the planners had placed these explosive devices prior to the actual aircraft attack? In other words, finish the job if the aircraft did not take the towers down. I really do not think there is any conspiracy theory on this attack.

[CaptainHaplo]

Torpex - good points as well. I agree on the passport point, though stranger things have happened. Still - its a valid point and the odds are quite slim.

With that said, I have to correct something. You wrote that the premise of this investigation is:

1-The towers were designed and built to withstand exactly what happened, yet the fell.

That can't be right. These towers were designed to withstand impacts from planes that were larger than any around at the time the towers were built? No way. They might have been designed to withstand a normal fire on a floor, or even multiple floors, but there is no way that they were designed to withstand impacts from such heavy, high speed objects.

The fires created on impact were NOT normal fires. The materials used to build aircraft are more "exotic" in nature than the steel used in buildings. Titanium alone can ignite at as low as 480 degrees as a powder in the air. When burning, the heat produced by it is MUCH higher than mere JP4 (jet fuel). Powder ignition would produce enough heat for the solid chunks of Titanium to ignite and burn, creating even more heat. The building materials were not designed to withstand those types of temperatures, thus the supporting structural frame gave way. The weight of that initial collapse then created a "daisy chain" effect, each level collapsing in on itself as the weight from above hit.

This alone would account for the extreme temperatures needed to cause the initial collapse, as well as the manner in which the towers themselves fell.

As for the residue - notice its primarily the standard building materials. Iron, Iron Oxide and Aluminum. But what gets me the most is this:

The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic.

Thermitic material? Cmon - all this science and you can't identify it any further than that? Heck - the filament of the light bulb can be considered "thermetic material" and "highly energetic" as it produces significant light and heat under certain conditions. Then again - so does C4 under different conditions. Either they don't know what it is, which given the claimed tests they used I find rather doubtful, or they intentionally being vague for some unknown reason, which I personally would suspect is because specificity would go against their intent or theory.

On the issue of the molten steel. Realize that they didn't KNOW what all could be in that mess. Not to mention you realize that a heat source, feeding on itself, and insulated by thousands of pounds of debris, would simply continue to heat until it hit the maximum tempature allowed by its fuel source. With all the various elements involved in that kind of heat and pressure, I would not be suprised that the temperature of some debris to be WELL above the nominal range of steel to liquify. Also remember that if there had been any oxidation in the support structure, that would contribute to a higher temperature.

[Dowly]

Also another thought. What if the planners had placed these explosive devices prior to the actual aircraft attack? In other words, finish the job if the aircraft did not take the towers down. I really do not think there is any conspiracy theory on this attack.

Werent the Al-Qaida dudes also surprised that the towers went down in the end? I remember bin Laden saying something like that.

[sharkbit]

One sample was collected ten minutes after the North Tower exploded, so it could not have been contaminated with particles from the cleanup efforts.

This statement seems odd to me.:06:

10 minutes after the collapse and someone has the mind to be there taking samples? Was there any chain of control on this sample or was it some guy scooping up dust?

Just seems to be an odd statement without any further details.
:)

[Spike88]

Evidence of Explosives Found in Destruction of All 3 WTC High-Rises

I thought there were only two towers.

[Dowly]

I thought there were only two towers.

WTC 7.

[AVGWarhawk]

Werent the Al-Qaida dudes also surprised that the towers went down in the end? I remember bin Laden saying something like that.

To be honest Dowly, I do not remember but my pea brain suspects you are correct.

[SteamWake]

Okay heres a conspiricy for you.

The towers when constructed were fitted secretly with explosives so that in the case of an emergency they could be brought down.

Kind of like Germany did with her bridges in WW2.

:woot:

[nikimcbee]

Unfortunately no, its man made.

"Abstract We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in this paper. These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all four samples. One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later. The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains grains approximately 100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 °C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic."

Frank

Hey, that's what I do at work!:yeah:

[Torpex752]

With that said, I have to correct something. You wrote that the premise of this investigation is:



That can't be right. These towers were designed to withstand impacts from planes that were larger than any around at the time the towers were built? No way. They might have been designed to withstand a normal fire on a floor, or even multiple floors, but there is no way that they were designed to withstand impacts from such heavy, high speed objects.

The fires created on impact were NOT normal fires. The materials used to build aircraft are more "exotic" in nature than the steel used in buildings. Titanium alone can ignite at as low as 480 degrees as a powder in the air. When burning, the heat produced by it is MUCH higher than mere JP4 (jet fuel). Powder ignition would produce enough heat for the solid chunks of Titanium to ignite and burn, creating even more heat. The building materials were not designed to withstand those types of temperatures, thus the supporting structural frame gave way. The weight of that initial collapse then created a "daisy chain" effect, each level collapsing in on itself as the weight from above hit.

This alone would account for the extreme temperatures needed to cause the initial collapse, as well as the manner in which the towers themselves fell.

As for the residue - notice its primarily the standard building materials. Iron, Iron Oxide and Aluminum. But what gets me the most is this:



Thermitic material? Cmon - all this science and you can't identify it any further than that? Heck - the filament of the light bulb can be considered "thermetic material" and "highly energetic" as it produces significant light and heat under certain conditions. Then again - so does C4 under different conditions. Either they don't know what it is, which given the claimed tests they used I find rather doubtful, or they intentionally being vague for some unknown reason, which I personally would suspect is because specificity would go against their intent or theory.

On the issue of the molten steel. Realize that they didn't KNOW what all could be in that mess. Not to mention you realize that a heat source, feeding on itself, and insulated by thousands of pounds of debris, would simply continue to heat until it hit the maximum tempature allowed by its fuel source. With all the various elements involved in that kind of heat and pressure, I would not be suprised that the temperature of some debris to be WELL above the nominal range of steel to liquify. Also remember that if there had been any oxidation in the support structure, that would contribute to a higher temperature.

I agree, the point that your questions, and statements makes a few things thing very clear;

1- A thorough investigation wouldnt have so many unanswered questions. It would have a few arguable points, debates on somethings, but not like this. The disparity between the official report and these engineers is too far apart.

From what I have gathered, here is my response to the points you raise (good ones at that!)

I will qualify my responses-I am repeating what I heard, I did not actually physically investigate these facts, I am communicating what I heard;

1-From the architech- The planes that the towers were designed to withstand were 50 tons heavier and capable of flying 40mph faster then the ones that hit them. Yes the towere were designed to withstand Modern jet Liner Hits

2-Based on the black smoke (Black smoke indicates poor combustion of materials not burning at their peak temp) the temps in the towers didnt exceed 1200dF. The Fires in the South Tower were reported by the fire chief as under control, he needed one more hose...

Dont take my word..listen to some other more qualified people.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEQ7w3gR7QY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jze33vZCpwo

http://0x1a.com/#[[World%20Trade%20Center%20Hot%20Spots]]

The actual paper says;

"Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material."

Its pretty clear that funding is needed to do more thorough sampling..this type of stuff does not appear by accident and nano technology is not building materials as far as I can find. Its not in steel, cieling tiles, carpet, computers, seats, particians, asbestos insulation, paint, concrete, wiring, glass, or anything I have ever worked with in construction. Now if these were NASA buildings I might find it easier to believe.

"Even as the steel cooled, there was concern that the girders had become so hot that they could crumble when lifted by overhead cranes. As a result, additional safeguards were put in place to limit the dangers associated with
lifting the damaged steel and to protect the workers in the vicinity. Another danger involved the high temperature of twisted steel pulled from the rubble. Underground fires burned at temperatures up to 2,000 degrees. As the
huge cranes pulled steel beams from the pile, safety experts worried about the effects of the extreme heat on the crane rigging and the hazards of contact with the hot steel. And they were concerned that applying water to cool the steel could cause a steam explosion that would propel nearby objects with deadly force. Special expertise was needed. OSHA called in Mohammad Ayub and Scott Jin, structural engineers from its national office, to assess the situation. They recommended a special handling procedure, including the use of specialized rigging and instruments to reduce the hazards. (source_OSHA.gov) (http://www.osha.gov/Publications/osha3189.pdf)"

"The fires created on impact were NOT normal fires. The materials used to build aircraft are more "exotic" in nature than the steel used in buildings."

(not nitpicking, just answering) Actually combustables on a plane are mostly fireproofed, as far as the metals go, steel, stainless steel, and aluminum are the main metals used. The fires burning in the crash points were low enough in tempature that employees were seen within 25ft of the fires. Plus the black smoke is indicitative or a low temp fire, not one at its max. The Jet fuel ignited the office stuff, beyond that there was nothing else outrageous in those office spaces.

"Titanium alone can ignite at as low as 480 degrees as a powder in the air. When burning, the heat produced by it is MUCH higher than mere JP4 (jet fuel). Powder ignition would produce enough heat for the solid chunks of Titanium to ignite and burn, creating even more heat."

The only titanium on a jet that I know of is in the engines, and I dont believe they turned into powder. Smashed, I think they landed in the street?

"The building materials were not designed to withstand those types of temperatures, thus the supporting structural frame gave way. The weight of that initial collapse then created a "daisy chain" effect, each level collapsing in on itself as the weight from above hit."

I can only suggest looking at the actual blue prints from the WTC. The 9/11 Comission report stated that the center of the towers were a hollow shaft. If you look, the center core was built better then the Empire state building. The center core box beams;
1- at the base were 5" thick 54" x 36" + 3" thick center web
2- mid way 3" thick 42" x 17" + 3" thick center web
3- rest up were 2" thick 36" x 16" no center web.

Thats some substantial steel, not to mention all the interlocking steel between these 47 colums! I think it was within a day, same day maybe that they spoke to the architech on the phone and he said, they never should have fallen from what those 2 planes did. Personally I believe him. I dont believe that the center core gave out, or that an aluminum plane could damage those center colums enough, plus fire to cause it fall the way the whole building did. Steel is alot tougher then that.


These are the guys who put the paper together I presume...

The nine co-authors are Niels H. Harrit, Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, Denmark, Jeffrey Farrer, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young University, Steven E. Jones, S&J Scientific Co., Provo, UT, Kevin R. Ryan, 9/11 Working Group of Bloomington, Bloomington, IN, Frank M. Legge, Logical Systems Consulting, Perth, Western Australia, Daniel Farnsworth, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young University, Gregg Roberts, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Berkeley, CA, James R. Gourley, International Center for 9/11 Studies, Dallas, TX, and Bradley R. Larsen, S&J Scientific Co., Provo, UT.

Now some might say that they have political angle...its possible I'd never rule that out. But some of these are regular family people who have alot to lose, and personally minimal to gain if they are right. They arent rambling buffons, so I am inclined to find what they say at least worth considering.

Did I answer everything? LOL

Frank

[Monica Lewinsky]

The ingredients are all found in an ultra-fine-grained form that speeds the chemical reaction when the mixture is ignited. While conventional thermite is considered an incendiary, burning hot and fast at steel-melting 4500-degree temperatures, so-called "nano-thermite" or "super-thermite" mixtures can be explosive —
read more... (http://www.ae911truth.org/info/57)

Picture of lead investigator found here:

http://learnabit.homeserver.com/lab/tinfoil-hat.jpg

He's safe after the collapse. Plenty of aluminum wrapped around his head. He's A-o.k, don't worry. He survived - - - no one was hurt while he investigated this informative story. Should be in the National Enquirer next week as the main cover page story.

[Aramike]

I personally think these conspiracy theorists are nuts. Isn't part of any investigation "motive"?

If someone wanted to blow up the WTC, and was able to strategically place explosives in areas that would achieve this effect, why the hell bother to fly planes into the buildings?

In any case, here's a great site that goes in depth at the flaws in the "science" of these wackos: http://www.debunking911.com/

Here's my favorite part, lifted from this page: http://www.debunking911.com/massivect.htm The Bush Administration, who failed at everything they ever did. Yet all of them and the people below are helping him cover up the largest mass murder in US history...

[Aramike]

Here's another good piece: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html

[RickC Sniper]

You have done alot of research Frank, and sure there are a lot of experts who disagree with each other.

The most troubling thing to me is how both of the Twin towers collapsed in the same way, just a short time apart. One plane, hitting a tower, everything happening just perfectly so it brings the tower down. Ok, I see how that might happen....once.
But both towers got hit by planes and both collapsed in the same timely manner. Very lucky for the terrorists? Possible, and my conscience accepts this because the alternative is too unsettling.

I don't believe in the conspiracy theories but the sad fact is we will never know more than we know now......so we must all believe what\who we choose to.

Aramike you make a great point.

[Aramike]

You have done alot of research Frank, and sure there are a lot of experts who disagree with each other.

The most troubling thing to me is how both of the Twin towers collapsed in the same way, just a short time apart. One plane, hitting a tower, everything happening just perfectly so it brings the tower down. Ok, I see how that might happen....once.
But both towers got hit by planes and both collapsed in the same timely manner. Very lucky for the terrorists? Possible, and my conscience accepts this because the alternative is too unsettling.

I don't believe in the conspiracy theories but the sad fact is we will never know more than we know now......so we must all believe what\who we choose to.

Aramike you make a great point.Thanks ... but you should put your mind at ease. Two massive buildings, each hit by airplanes, each of the same design, are likely to see the same result - especially considering that the collapse of the first building is likely to cause additional foundation damage to the other.

[Torpex752]

Hey Aramike & Monica, I assure you I am not motivated by conspiracies....I can look at things critically with my own 2 eyes, that’s why I say look at what is said, not who.

I do find it sad that they get called nuts, wackos, idiots, conspiracy theorists, and a host of other names by the people we are "respecting to give us the truth". I find that strange. I mean, it really strikes me as odd to call someone with a different angle, or idea a wacko. But then again the men who said we could put a man on the moon were called wackos by quite a few......years later..........The Eagle has landed. So name calling serves no useful purpose.

All I suggest it to be open minded to the possibility that there were other elements at work. I know if I built those towers I'd be fired up if someone told me that they fell from the very thing I designed them to withstand. I'd be all sorts of pi$$in mad. I know how it is when I do maintenance to something mechanical, and it fails and someone says its because I didn’t do the maintenance. And don’t forget 3 towers fell that day...the 3rd a 47 story that was never hit by a plane.

Foundation damage, seems unlikely since they fell from the top down..of if you agree they did fall from the bottom up, then what foundation fails on a perfect perimeter to allow the building to fall in its own footprint. If it fell over, that would fit that theory. In any event 3 perfect foundation failures in one day..

Aramike, you mention motive. But Yet I cant give a motive without getting branded a conspiracy theorist. If I give a couple possible options, other then the ones mentioned in the past years will I get branded a conspiracy theorist? So if I do refrain from making any guestimations because of threats of name calling, who benefits? In any event, if you look at the 3 elements of a crime, means, motive and opportunity, that’s how you look at a crime scene regardless of who the criminals are.

My beef is that anyone who disagrees with the official story is branded a nut, a wacko simply because they believe in something other then the advertised story. So if we close the door and say that the planes were the cause, how have other current high rise sky scrapers been corrected to prevent this? Absolutely nothing has changed. In other words, follow the official story like a different type of disaster or problem. Auto recalls, jet liner malfunctions, bridges collapsing, trains colliding. they get analyzed down to the absolute root cause leaving not one bolt, poprivit, or weld left unexamined. And thats usually for 2-300 deaths. Not one weld, bolt, or pin was examined or analyzed. And then the steel that the NIST team did look at that was showing signs of erosion (melting by an external source) they called unexplained. Yet they state that the fire caused the steel to fail.

I listened to the audio files that recorded the explosions before the towers fell. The video of a car shredded before the towers fell. There are some strange things that were never explained, and I honestly believe that they deserved to be explained .
Listen to the firefighters;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXD3bAbZCow (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXD3bAbZCow)


I can tell you my motive is that I know steel..not in the scientific sense, but in the practical application sense. I am not supporting the theorists; however I am supporting the factualists. the guys who build the tallest buildings out of steel, a substance that is tough, durable and very resistant to shock. They guys who say those towers shouldn’t have fallen from plane hits and fires have a leg to stand on, have some good practical information and facts, yet are called kooks. Sad day in America.

Lets play devils advocate...since this group of Engineers has only one other idea, the govt doesn’t have to spend loads of time disproving a dozen other theories, there’s only one other possible scenario being proposed (and its not aliens LOL), why not allow it to be openly discussed? Give it its day in court/hearing/whatever. If these guys are nuts, they ruin their jobs and all the 9/11 truth .orgs fizzle away. We do still live in a free and open society? I hope.

I also hope no one gets emotionally twisted thinking that because I posted this stuff that there is any shred of belief in me that those who perished that day deserve any less reverence then they have. I was active duty that day, and their loss brought a stream of revenge out in everyone I was with that day. Nor would any discovery of anything change how we feel about them, the victims.

Frank

[Monica Lewinsky]

Hey Aramike & Monica, I assure you I am not motivated by conspiracies....I can look at things critically with my own 2 eyes, that’s why I say look at what is said, not who.

I think you are in need of oxygen - vast amounts. Get some soon.

Live long, prosper, propagate, and forget that the Nation Enquirer is a source of news.

ps:
Wrap your head in aluminum foil [twice - just in case].

The Aliens will leave you alone [only if you wear aluminum foil around your head] to go about doing "your thing".

What's your read on John F. Kennedy? 3 bullets or 6?

jeez ... wacky torpedoes are being launched. :(

[Torpex752]

I think you are in need of oxygen - vast amounts. Get some soon.

Live long, prosper, propagate, and forget that the Nation Enquirer is a source of news.

ps:
Wrap your head in aluminum foil [twice - just in case].

The Aliens will leave you alone to go about posting other useless things.

What's your read on John F. Kennedy?

jeez ... wacky.


Give someone enough light and they show who they are. :)

ps-why edit?

[Spike88]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_OIXfkXEj0&NR=1

[Aramike]

My beef is that anyone who disagrees with the official story is branded a nut, a wacko simply because they believe in something other then the advertised story. It's not that someone who believes in something other than the official story is a "wacko", it's moreso that someone who believes in something other than the official story, and supports that belief through junk science, is a "wacko" (not saying that's you; just saying).

To go to one of my old favorite standbys, wouldn't we all agree that the followers of the Flat Earth Society are a bunch of nutjobs?

Look, we KNOW what happened on 9/11 - the proof was there for all to see, live on practically every TV station in America. Then, come investigation time, the forensics completely add up, as do common sense. Following that, a few nutjobs here and there take quotes out of context and/or write papers attempting to explain how forensically things do not add up, despite not using science to support their claims.

For instance, my personal favorite, was how steel doesn't melt at the temperature jetfuel burns at, and therefore this proves there was a demolition. It's a funny premise considering any idiot with half a brain could have researched to see that, while the temperature of jetfuel indeed doesn't melt steel, it DOES weaken it DRAMATICALLY, more than enough to contribute to a collapse. Oh, and there was undoubtedly other substances that caught fire and burned...

My point is that the truth is always the truth. The wacko stuff comes in when people attempt to redefine the truth in support of their predispositions. Doing so about the tragedy of 9/11 is intellectual dishonesty at its worst, in my opinion.

[Tribesman]

2-Based on the black smoke (Black smoke indicates poor combustion of materials not burning at their peak temp) the temps in the towers didnt exceed 1200dF.
Yeah right , lots of different fires with lots of different materials under lots of constantly differing conditions .
So if you take a wholly controlled situation with one material , very high temperatures and boosted oxygen feed like a cement kiln ,why would they have to fit secondary burners in the stack to further reduce black smoke ?

The Fires in the South Tower were reported by the fire chief as under control, he needed one more hose...

Bollox , for starters he asked for two more hoses and he didn't say the fires in the South Tower were under control . He said that the two existing fires that he could access from the stairwell on one floor of the building could be brought under control.

Sorry Torpex but that conspiracy theory website you are using is absolute fruitcake territory:down:

[Dowly]

Sorry for hijacking the thread, but I think we have enough of 'conspiracy' threads already to make a new one. If the original posted wants, he can contact moderators to separate this post and any following posts that this might cause on this particular issue.

Right, Waco. You know, the tragic event on 1993 where the Branch Davidians were holed on their 'compound' on Mt. Carmel which eventually, after 51 days, was brought to an end with the whole compound being burned down completely by either the Davidians themselves or by CS gas grenades that were fired by FBI/ATF/Delta operators (or observers as it's mentioned in official papers).

Ok, at first, I'd want to say that I really cant decide who is to blame about it. I'm neutral. But I'd like to know what everyone thinks about it?

Meanwhile, I just write here few of my questions that I have about it (mind you, these are questions that were brought up in the congressional hearings):

1: Why FBI lied about not firing a single shot, when there has been supposedly found fired cartridges at one of the sniper points (Sierra one, I believe it was).

2: Why there is key evidence missing? Namely the front door, that was a metal door(Would show if shots are fired by David Koresh thru the door as ATF says). ATF/FBI agents clearly said in the earlier hearings that the door is missing. They had it, but it's missing. Same goes for the video tapes that were made of the initial ATF 'assault' at the front door. All three tapes at the initial point that would show who fired first(Davidians say that Mr. Koresh went to the door and after a brief talk, a SINGLE shot was fired from outside) are blank (again, admitted in the hearings).

3: Charles Schumer. Was the hearing neutral? I think everyone who has seen the tapes about the hearings agree that Mr. Schumer wasnt neutral in any point. He even tried to argue that flashbang (or flashpack as he called them) arent lethal with an officer of an USMC reserve!

4: FBI used no explosive ordnance. Yet, unexpended flashbangs and expended CS grenades were found from the scene.

5: The crime scene was completely destroyed without investigation (that comes from the Texas Rangers that were there).

6: Bulletholes in the bodies + the FLIR tapes that the supposed (I havent looked up if the guy really invented FLIR, that' why I say 'supposed.) FLIR inventer looked and confirmed that there was automatic fire fired to the only remaining exit after the fire had erupted.

7: Choppers didnt shoot. Yet, there was lots of bulletholes in the roof. And there is some photos that show a mounted machinegun on the chopper (which shouldnt be there according to FBI). Also, the FLIR footage apparently shows shots fired from an hovering chopper.

And there's much more that I cant remember atm. But like I said, I just want to hear what ppl here think about it? Was it a revenge from the government part for the 4 agents killed? Was it the Davidians that torched themselves? Was it one gun-ho agent that fired first and started the whole siege?

[Aramike]

I think Waco was a result of a gross mishandling by the Justice Department. I think they did indeed torch themselves but it was unneccessary.

I don't believe there was any real cover-up. The problem with large scale cover-ups is that they are damned-near impossible to perpetuate. Besides, if they were able to successfully do so, why then make it obvious that the government was incompetent? Why not just make it so the Feds come out smelling like roses?

As far as the evidence you're presenting, I'd like to see sources on some of it, to be honest. Conspiracy theorists often present "evidence" that is either taken out of context, spun, or simply non-existant. A great example to this is (going back to 9/11) the suggestion that non-commercial aircraft hit the towers due to windows not being visible in video or photographs taken of the planes approaching. This claim ignores the fact that distance and velocity would be too great for most cameras to be able to resolve the windows - oh, and the fact that pieces of the plane's fuselage were found ... windows and all.

[Dowly]

As far as the evidence you're presenting, I'd like to see sources on some of it, to be honest. Conspiracy theorists often present "evidence" that is either taken out of context, spun, or simply non-existant. A great example to this is (going back to 9/11) the suggestion that non-commercial aircraft hit the towers due to windows not being visible in video or photographs taken of the planes approaching. This claim ignores the fact that distance and velocity would be too great for most cameras to be able to resolve the windows - oh, and the fact that pieces of the plane's fuselage were found ... windows and all.

Watch the documentaries Waco: The Rules of Engagement and WACO: New revelations (both on Youtube). Both have footage from the hearings where FBI/ATF say they have lost evidence or that they dont know what happened to said evidence.

Honestly, I was one of the 9/11 Government did it guys in the past, but I figured it was just too big of an operation to be made without anyone noticing. Thats when I ordered both WACO documentaries.

But just to note, the chopper photo with MG mounted is one photo. It doesnt show anything that would be recognised as if the chopped would be one that was used at Waco, but then again, we never know.

Also, the flashbangs being found isnt (AFAIK) 100% confirmed on the documentaries, but the person who brought up there being flashbangs did say that he could've brought live FB's to show, but he though it would've been too dangerous (using common sense, these would've been Fb's with pin's pulled off, just not detonated).

[Highbury]

If someone wanted to blow up the WTC, and was able to strategically place explosives in areas that would achieve this effect, why the hell bother to fly planes into the buildings?

Hard statement to argue, but maybe because they wanted a bigger "show". The conspiracy theorists always point to the document "Project for the New American Century" which was written by several people in the Bush administration. It contained the passage: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor" (sources 1 (http://www.newamericancentury.org/) 2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Pearl_Harbor)) which conspiracy theorists claim is the seed of a self inflicted attack to empower the Government to make the changes they desired...

I am on NEITHER side. I see some merit in what some of the conspiracy theorists say. They do have too many fruitcakes on their side which hurts credibility badly. But at the same time there are some things that simply can't be explained to me.

I have watched all of the video. Yes they do 100% look like controlled detonations. None more so then WTC7. But even the towers, you certainly see what looks like detonations etc. This then begs the question, even with the state of technology in 2001, did they really think such a huge, televised event would not be scrutinized? That in itself makes it seem absurd.. but damaged buildings simply don't fall that way..

All I can say is I have no idea what really happened. I suspect very few really do. Certainly nobody posting on the internet about is has all of the answers and is just guessing, or at worst making crap up to support what they truly believe. That goes for people on both sides.

[Torpex752]

Well at least the name calling stopped...:salute:

Great post Highbury!

All I was doing was showing that there was new evidence, period. There are over 600 engineers who agree as I do that an independent investigation is deserved. But Why? Well.......

I love my country, and my fellow Americans. We have a great place here. I'll wave the American flag at my house, and I'll never let anyone put her down. Unfortunately, the distance between 'her" and the govt is gettin wider.
My Federal goverment....my sweet sweet educated, well managed, bullet proof integrity, honest to a fault, frugal, works for the people, never accepts a handout govt....They Claim they dont want inflation, recessions, wars, homeless, disease, and an american dream for everyone. They swear to uphold the constitution....Well....I'll say it again...I am for everey American citizen who pays taxes, and I'll tell ya..its getting more obvious every day that our govt isnt working for us the people.

I do not believe the GOVT did it. Could they? Absolutely. They kept the Manhatten project and the stealth bomber projects secret and there were thousands of people involved in a cross layered fashion in order to ensure secrecy. Its nothing new. But again I dont believe the Govt did it. I ask myself why then wont they look at the evidence? Fear, contraversey, riots, loss of faith in the govt, I dont know. But I do know if you look at how forensics are done, real world forensics, that was never done. I'll say it again, if there is nothing to fear, then why not? Answer that-because I cant find a single reason why not to allow these engineers access to the same evidence that the 9/11 comission used. What makes the US govt agencies that investigated this so infallible? When it comes to a federal project to build something federally funded, the feds set standards, but they leave the "HOW-TO" to the civilian industry! Its nothing earth shocking to do this, and in an investigation that now has received over 40% of the American people to doubt the answer, I say let someone else look at this. If they come to the same conclusion as the 9/11 comission then so be it. So I guess I'm different, I question things like this of a mechanical nature. I am curious about things like this that have 2 different angles, and possible outcomes. On top of it i worked for the US GOVT for 20 years, I dont believe that our govt is infallable.


Who did it? I have my own personal beliefs. But you need to understand how the world economy, the federal reserve, and the whole mechanism on this planet is working. Proof? The end results are the proof, we are living in the proof right now. So I can see some things that are messed up, and that there is one common thread. Its indisputable, iron clad, and anyone who doesnt believe it is out of touch and needs something....Money. Anyone who believes that money doesnt rule the world, (hope I dont offend anyone, sorry if I do) but you need to wake up. Without it you can die, its a life giving thing.

So if I were to speculate who did it, I'd say group "A" financed it in conjunction with Group "B" the front guys, did it, and had several smaller groups subcontracted possibly oblivious to the end result. Its not that far from how corporations work. Its just bussiness.

But back to my first post...Its just information..why let it rattle your cage?
Why so defensive? Does a different belief crack your concrete so easily?
It doesnt rattle mine, I am sitting back watching and learning. I can see logic on both sides, believe it or not. Yet on my own front I am planning my future, fixing my 1970 K-20. :D

Frank

[Aramike]

I do not believe the GOVT did it. Could they? Absolutely. They kept the Manhatten project and the stealth bomber projects secret and there were thousands of people involved in a cross layered fashion in order to ensure secrecy. I seriously doubt they could pull it off.

There's a huge difference in keeping under wraps secret developments which involve a very controlled group of people versus a completely public, national disaster.

Also, I doubt that, in today's world, a project on the scale of the Manhatten project could be kept under wraps.

[Torplexed]

I've searched for any references to this in this thread but haven't seen it. My apologies if I missed it. How do you rig up three HUGE buildings for detonation with nobody noticing? As far as I know it's a fairly intrusive act.

To set up buildings for demolition, the following needs to be done:

1. Selected structural members are pre-weakened.

2. Charges are mounted on the selected structural members.

3. Detonators are wired to the charges so that when they detonate in the proper sequence the structure collapses in such a way that debris is confined to a relatively small area.

This cannot be done overnight, nor can it be done without leaving traces that people using the buildings notice, whether it be damage to walls or that the carpet has been replaced.

I've read some wild theories that the charges were planted when the WTC was built in the early 1970s. That's some incredible foresight on somebody's part, not to mention they went unnoticed and unmaintained for almost 30 years and worked like a charm.

[Torpex752]

Hey Torplexed!

I read official reports, and testamonies from people who worked in the towers that they were being "renovated" floor by floor on different floors for months before 9/11. More information, like a huge puzzle with its pieces scattered all over the place, it takes time to gather it and a clear mind, no preconceived notions.

I thought I'd add this link to a site I just found...glad I'm not the only X-Military who finds this mess a mess.

http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/

Frank