Are we sure it wasn't thermite?

[Fish]

Alex Jones interviews Steven Jones, a BYU physics professor, who has scientifically proven that a special mix of thermite and sulfur and some other chemicals, known as thermate, was used to cut the WTC steel backbones. Thermate is widely used by the military and demolition companies as the cutting charges.

Yes:


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2842384983834100001&q=steve+jones

No:

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

[Dowly]

In Finland, there´s a show called 'Silminnäkijä' (=Eyewitness). It is a concentrates on all the 'big' things happening in the world. 9/11, the Tsunami and so on.

Anyway, the host of the show went to States to interview some of the conspiracy nuts. In one point they show a video of the tower just before it collapses and it seems something molten is pouring out of the building, and there´s a lot of that stuff coming. That would suggest that the steel melted, but the pro´s say that the fire wasnt hot enough to melt the steel. Not saying that it was STEEL that poured out, but it was definitly some metal or steel. I get you a still shot in a few minutes.

Edit: Oh I can see there´s already pics of the stuff pouring out.

[Skybird]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/louie_cacchioli.html

http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/firefighter-tape-excerpts.htm

The first is a firefighter telling a magazine in brief how he and his group went upstairs in the tower and then heared something that he and his group believed to be a bomb explosion.

The second is more interesting, a transcript of the radio communication of the fire-brigades. Note that on 78th floor the reported only two small pockets of fire. How that should be enough to melt steel structures remains mystery: "Battalion Seven ... Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines. Radio that, 78th floor numerous 10-45 Code Ones."

[Dowly]

...numerous 10-45 Code Ones."

= fatalities :cry:

[Skybird]

Supplementing Fish's video, that guy talking there I already referred to:


http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=97846
post #12

http://worldtradecentertruth.com/volume/200609/WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletely Collapse.pdf (http://worldtradecentertruth.com/volume/200609/WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletely Collapse.pdf)

That author got fired from his mormon university for violating the taboos around 9/11 too often. He also did not serve his reputation well when having puplished this essay about Jesus visiting America back then:

http://www.physics.byu.edu/faculty/j...%20figures.htm (http://www.physics.byu.edu/faculty/jones/rel491/handstext%20and%20figures.htm)

The first report is giving the impression of a person that knows what he is talking of. The second clearly accieved the opposite effect for me.

[joea]

Sorry Fish, Alex Joens has no credibility and is a shyster, from the second link you posted:

n Steven Jones PDF "Answers to Objections and Questions", to support his claim for Sol-gels/Thermite he states: "One molecule, described by the EPA's Erik Swartz, was present at levels "that dwarfed all others": 1,3-diphenylpropane. "We've never observed it in any sampling we've ever done,"
However when you look at the link he uses
http://www.newsday.com/news/health/ny-hsair0911,0,471193.story?coll=ny-homepage-right-area (http://www.newsday.com/news/health/ny-hsair0911,0,471193.story?coll=ny-homepage-right-area)
You find out Mr. Jones edits out the VERY next line which states
"He said it was most likely produced by the plastic of tens of thousands of burning computers."
Apparently Jones felt this was not important enough for his readers to know.
Sloppy research or purposeful deception by the "scholars"? The evidence for one is growing...
Thanks to Shagster, ScottS and David B. Benson for their research.


Please.

[The Avon Lady]

Are we sure it wasn't termites?

[Torplexed]

It musta been termites! Mutant government termites. :rotfl:

It's more believable than huge teams of demolitions experts, who had no problem wiring one of the largest buildings in the world working every night for what had to be months (and that's only if they had a big enough crew) placing maybe 10,000 separate charges in each tower and another few thousand in WTC 7 (the smaller WTC tower that also collapsed, later in the day on 9/11).

And nobody noticed.

Truckloads of charges, dozens of mysterious workers, going in and out of the building, night after night. Security at the building doesn't catch them, Port Authority Police don't catch them, random eyewitnesses who stumble across the operation and call the cops don't catch them, maintenance workers who stumble across wet paint and repaired walls and bits of strange wire don't catch them, security cameras don't catch them. Dogs brought in to sniff for bombs (a standard procedure after the 1993 attack) don't catch them.

Had to be termites. Had to be. ;)

[The Avon Lady]

It is really pathetic that this still has to be said: Conspiracy Cranks - Creating Crazed '9/11 Truth' (http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/conspiracy_cranks_opedcolumnists_james_b__meigs.ht m).

[Smaragdadler]

...Aber wie, so fragt der Spiegel, hätte man die Gebäude mit Sprengstoff spicken sollen, ohne daß jemand plaudert? Nun, vielleicht hat bei der Verminung der Türme der Umstand geholfen, daß für die Sicherheit im World Trade Center eine Firma namens Stratesec zuständig war, in deren Vorstand ein gewisser Marvin Bush saß, ein Bruder des US-Präsidenten. Eine interessante Verbindung. Nur das FBI war nicht dieser Meinung. Bei ihm hätte sich kein Mensch vom FBI oder einer anderen Behörde nach den Aktivitäten der Firma im Zusammenhang mit dem 11.9. erkundigt, sagte Stratesec-Geschäftsführer Barry McDaniel. Das ist nicht weiter überraschend, denn nach Auskunft eines FBI-Sprechers werden die Ermittlungen in Sachen 11.9. seit Oktober 2001 »auf nationaler Ebene koordiniert« – »direkt aus dem Weißen Haus«. Also letztlich von Marvins Bruder George W. Bush.

Source: http://www.jungewelt.de/2006/09-11/004.php

summary:
The security of the WTC was done by a firm called Stratesec. One of the bosses of
Stratesec is Marvin Bush.
One other manager of Stratesec is called Barry McDaniel. He says the FBI, investigating 9/11, never had questions about the activities of his firm in the time before 9/11.
That is no suprise, because since October 2001 all investigation about 9/11 is "coordinated on national level" - "directly out of the White House".
This means in the end by Marvins brother George W. ...

[joea]

Right all those lines and wires and explosives would have been noticed by nobody.

[The Avon Lady]

...Aber wie, so fragt der Spiegel, hätte man die Gebäude mit Sprengstoff spicken sollen, ohne daß jemand plaudert? Nun, vielleicht hat bei der Verminung der Türme der Umstand geholfen, daß für die Sicherheit im World Trade Center eine Firma namens Stratesec zuständig war, in deren Vorstand ein gewisser Marvin Bush saß, ein Bruder des US-Präsidenten. Eine interessante Verbindung. Nur das FBI war nicht dieser Meinung. Bei ihm hätte sich kein Mensch vom FBI oder einer anderen Behörde nach den Aktivitäten der Firma im Zusammenhang mit dem 11.9. erkundigt, sagte Stratesec-Geschäftsführer Barry McDaniel. Das ist nicht weiter überraschend, denn nach Auskunft eines FBI-Sprechers werden die Ermittlungen in Sachen 11.9. seit Oktober 2001 »auf nationaler Ebene koordiniert« – »direkt aus dem Weißen Haus«. Also letztlich von Marvins Bruder George W. Bush.

Source: http://www.jungewelt.de/2006/09-11/004.php

summary:
The security of the WTC was done by a firm called Stratesec. One of the bosses of
Stratesec is Marvin Bush.
One other manager of Stratesec is called Barry McDaniel. He says the FBI, investigating 9/11, never had questions about the activities of his firm in the time before 9/11.
That is no suprise, because since October 2001 all investigation about 9/11 is "coordinated on national level" - "directly out of the White House".
This means in the end by Marvins brother George W. ...
Even the tin-foil hat loonies at the DU said enough is enough (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x113081).

When will the world grow up?!

[Fish]

It is really pathetic that this still has to be said: Conspiracy Cranks - Creating Crazed '9/11 Truth' (http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/conspiracy_cranks_opedcolumnists_james_b__meigs.ht m).

Thanks for the link, Avon.

[The Avon Lady]

It is really pathetic that this still has to be said: Conspiracy Cranks - Creating Crazed '9/11 Truth' (http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/conspiracy_cranks_opedcolumnists_james_b__meigs.ht m).
Thanks for the link, Avon.
Why are you still talking with such crackpots?

Are you a major in psychology? Is this for your doctorate? These people are just plain crackers! :damn:

[Immacolata]

It is probably easier than making real political work, you know. involve yourself in something that matters.

[Fish]

Right all those lines and wires and explosives would have been noticed by nobody.

Right as the working thermite should be seen just before the towers collapse (they say all colums on all floors are cut off with thermite)


This from someone who worked with thermite:

have a degree in mechanical engineering, and I have worked with structural steel, but in bridges rather than buildings. I am in no sense qualified to hold an opinion on the structural engineering aspects of the collapse. I have significantly more experience with explosives and demolitions, and I have used linear shaped charges and thermite. I have not done any work in controlled demolition of buildings, and I'm not qualified to evaluate Jones' work, except as a layman. His work does not have the ring of truth. Jones writes like someone who has read about, but never used, explosives. "I maintain that these observations are consistent with the use of high-temperature cutter-charges such as thermite, HDX or RDX or some combination thereof, routinely used to melt/cut/demolish steel." This is technobabble. In what sense is RDX a high-temperature cutter-charge? What does that even mean? Is he suggesting that linear shaped charges of RDX melted the steel? From what I've seen the results of shaped charges on steel are more like tearing. Later he refers to pools of molten metal weeks after the event. Certainly thermite will melt steel, but how much thermite are we talking about? Truckloads? (By the way, I think some back-of-the-envelope heat-transfer calculations are in order there.) Rigging a skyscraper for controlled demolition is a massive undertaking, and a disruptive one. You would need open access to the structural members for weeks, there would be detonating cord everywhere, other members would probably need to be protected from damage so they didn't fail at the wrong time, and the workers would probably tear up the drywall and trash the carpets. And then what about priming the whole thing? Is it going to be left for weeks or months with blasting caps installed in the high explosives? I don't think so. And where is all this thermite going to be? I don't see how it would be possible to do this secretly. I don't see any basis for concluding that these puffs of smoke are from 'squibs.' He seems to just say they must be, because squibs can make puffs of smoke. "See the puffs of smoke? Those are squibs. How do I know they're squibs? Because of the puffs of smoke." I read through his paper, and read through (parts of) the NIST and FEMA reports, and the Popular Mechanics article. Jones' work sounds like junk science; The NIST and FEMA reports are less exciting, but seem solid and workman-like. Sorry I can't be more helpful, but I'm not qualified to do a point-by-point debunking of Jones' work. It doesn't really matter what I think anyway. All we can do here is write, "This is what Jones says" and "This is what others say." Everyone with an interest has to read and make up his mind. Tom Harrison Talk 20:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Morton_devonshire/conspiracy_theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Morton_devonshire/conspiracy_theory)"

[Fish]

It is really pathetic that this still has to be said: Conspiracy Cranks - Creating Crazed '9/11 Truth' (http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/conspiracy_cranks_opedcolumnists_james_b__meigs.ht m).
Thanks for the link, Avon.
Why are you still talking with such crackpots?

Are you a major in psychology? Is this for your doctorate? These people are just plain crackers! :damn:

No, I just like to F*ck them up. :rotfl:

They are so serieus.

Must be my blackside. :)

[Skybird]

Does anyone know why the better part of the radio tapes that recorded the communication between the firefighter batallions still is kept secret? I can hardly imagine it is for respect for affected families or something like that. The NYT published some part and even has it up running as a media stream file, like the snippert I linked to, but the vast majority of comms still is kept secret. when a fuel-loaded airplane crashes into a building and is said to produce a fire hot enough to melt steel, I simply would expect a far hotter, and greater fire than those two limited pockets of fire the firefighters were reporting from just one floor below. Instead, the fuel of the airplane apparently had burned out within minutes. This is one of the things that needs to be answered in order to end conspiration theories.

Concerning Jones, just have a look at that report of his in which he argues on the basis of some ancient pictures engraved in stone that Jesus after he rose from the grave visited America. Reminds me of Erich von Däniken. Anyhow - has anyone cared to read his full pdf I linked? That is not Däniken-style.

What I also would like to know is why building No.7 collapsed so completely, although never having been hit by anything, and other building also surviving the vibrations of the tower's collapse.

[The Avon Lady]

Page down about the WTC 7 collapse (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=5&c=y).

You're a big boy, Skybird. You should be able to find this by yourself by now. You should also be thinking more level headedly. I'm sorry but I find this ratrap unbecoming of you, based on your numerous writings in the past.

Dumber and dumber, as this continues. :down:

[Skybird]

That'S not better or worse than this, little girl:


3. Near-Symmetrical Collapse of WTC 7



As you observed (link above), WTC 7 collapsed rapidly and nearly-straight-down



symmetrically -- even though fires were randomly scattered in the building. WTC 7 fell about
seven hours after the Towers collapsed, even though no major persistent fires were visible
(considerable dark smoke was seen). There were twenty-four huge steel support columns inside
WTC 7 as well as huge trusses, arranged non-symmetrically, along with some fifty-seven
perimeter columns, as indicated in the diagram below (FEMA, 2002, chapter 5; NIST, 2005).
Diagram showing steel-column arrangement in WTC 7, view looking down on the roof.
Circled columns were possibly damaged due to debris from WTC 1 collapse, some 350 feet
away (NIST, 2005) so the damage was clearly non-symmetrical, and evidently, none of the core
columns was severed by falling debris. WTC 7 was never hit by a plane.
A near-symmetrical collapse, as observed, evidently requires the simultaneous “pulling”
of many of the support columns (see below, particularly discussion of Bazant & Zhou paper).
The likelihood of complete and nearly-symmetrical collapse due to random fires as in the
“official” theory is small, since non-symmetrical failure is so much more likely. If one or a few
columns had failed, one might expect a portion of the building to crumble while leaving much of
the building standing. For example, major portions of WTC 5 remained standing on 9/11 despite
very significant impact damage and severe fires.



Journal of 9/11 Studies 21 September 2006/Volume 3






Non-symmetrical collapse of tall buildings when due to random causes. L'Ambiance Plaza



collapse (right) shows how pancaked concrete floor slabs are largely intact and clearly reveal
stacking effects with minimal fine dust, as expected from random progressive collapse. By
contrast, concrete floors in the Twin Towers and WTC 7 were pulverized to dust -- as is
common in controlled demolitions using explosives.
On the other hand, a major goal of controlled demolition using cutter-charges/explosives
is the complete and straight-down-symmetrical collapse of buildings. The reader may wish to

review controlled-demolition examples at


http://www.implosionworld.com/cinema.htm for




examples of complete symmetrical collapses due to carefully pre-positioned explosives. (The

videos of the Philips Building, Southwark Towers, and Schuylkill Falls Tower collapses are

particularly instructive.)






Journal of 9/11 Studies 22 September 2006/Volume 3






Concluding remarks in the FEMA report on the WTC 7 collapse lend support to these



arguments:
The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse
[“official theory”] remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the
premises contained massive potential energy,







the best hypothesis [fire/debris-damagecaused




collapse] has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research,

investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue





. (FEMA, 2002, chapter 5;




emphasis added.)

That is precisely the point: further investigation and analyses are indeed needed, including

serious consideration of the controlled-demolition hypothesis which is neglected in all of the
government reports (FEMA, NIST and 9-11 Commission reports). Note that the 9-11
Commission report does not even mention the collapse of WTC 7 on 9-11-01. (Commission,
2004) This is a striking omission of data highly relevant to the question of what really happened
on 9-11.








The pdf has more material on it, but you could read it yourself.


I said repeatedly now that I do not necessarily support this or that conspiration theory, but that I see - from my novice point of view - many questions not adressed or inadequately answered. Too many peiople having witnessed the event, having been envolved on a professional basis, bringing in their own expertise and professional experience, have shown iup and expressed their doubts about the official answers, becasue of these and those details of the event they have focussed on or were experiencing themselves. Never has a skyscraper being brought down by fire anywhere, but hundreds of them survived such fires. The fuel of the planes burnes at temperatures that are not siuffieicnt to melt steel. The fuel also must have burned out after several minutes, as often is pointed out. And the way the towers collapsed, time and again is described as being untypical for accident-related (non-systematical, random) damage to the structure, whereas it is very typical for the way professional explosioons would bring down such buildings.


None of this is a proof in itself, AL, but all of that are questions that need to find answers. Preferravly coming from sources that are beyond reach of Bush and his people's influence and interfering.

[Dowly]

Skybird, which tape you mean? The one you quoted? That´s the only one I´ve heard.

Edit: Here´s a few tapes, I havent heard before.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8926416/

[Skybird]

Skybird, which tape you mean? The one you quoted? That´s the only one I´ve heard.
Which tape I mean - with what? The NYT has released some material like this, but by far not all, most are locked away. This has been reported in several medias and sources, and often. just days ago I even had a website of a civil movement in NY that demands the release of the plenty of other tapes.

So , let people listen to them. If their is no sensitive information to be hidden, there is no argument to keep them locked. releasing them then appears to be the easiest and most direct way to bust one more 9/11 myth, isn't it like that?

as the transcript says on top:

For well over a year, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey refused to release the audiotape of firefighters' communications from the World Trade Center during the September 11 attacks. In early November 2002, the tape was released to the New York Times, then to other unspecified "news outlets" (according to the Associated Press). To my knowledge, the NYT is the only outlet to post excerpts from the tape; no one has yet posted the entire thing.
Below are transcripts of all portions that have been released. You can listen to them at the NYT's site by going to this page (http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/09/nyregion/09TAPE.html?ex=1037509200&en=db3da91ae96b5769&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE). In the right hand column is a box labeled "Multimedia." Inside it, click on "Interactive Feature: The Tale of the Tape."

[read "9/11 Tape Raised Added Questions on Radio Failures (http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/09/nyregion/09TAPE.html?ex=1037509200&en=db3da91ae96b5769&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE)" and "Fire Department Tape Reveals No Awareness of Imminent Doom (http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/09/nyregion/09TOWE.html?ex=1037509200&en=46fc4538a058ba4b&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE)"]

You need access (subscription) for those NYT pages.

[Immacolata]

Perhaps the port authorities do not wish that people gorge themselves in emo porn, revelling in other people's desperate struggles. They also might fear that conspiracy crackjobs might miles and miles of yarn on this. Just look at the warping that happens to actual research done. I'd probably sit on those tapes as well.

[Skybird]

Then why releasing an apperitif that only could help to feed the demand for release of more? another way could be to open the tapes to selected committees, and choosen representatives of civil movements, etc.

Anyhow, that all is "if" and "maybe" only. The questions remain as long as the tapes are not counter-checked.

[Dowly]

I´ve heard one tape that came from inside the WTC few minutes before it collapsed. I really dont know if it is real or a fake, but sure sounded a real 911 call. The tape ended to the man screaming that the building is shaking and then nothing. Real or fake, that was propably the most disturbing thing I´ve ever heard. :nope:

Edit: Here it is, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLW0jKKRXMo

[Fish]

Can you help me to uderstand this "testimony".

http://youtube.com/watch?v=V7Vs7KNlpXU

PS: Never mind, I found the printed version.

[monkee]

A building does not necesarily collapse after being hit by an airplane

This one was hit by a 747 with full tank not long after take off.

http://img174.imageshack.us/img174/9394/bijlmerrampnw1.jpg

[Dowly]

Well, IIRC, the official claim was that the towers collapsed due to fires inside the building. Both of them. And WTC7. Also there are the other steel structured buildings that have collapsed because of the fire, like the..... the.... :hmm: wait a minute! :lol:

[Fish]

Well, IIRC, the official claim was that the towers collapsed due to fires inside the building. Both of them. And WTC7. Also there are the other steel structured buildings that have collapsed because of the fire, like the..... the.... :hmm: wait a minute! :lol:

This one is realy puzzling me. What the h*ll is that, melting steel, how??:-?

http://video.google.nl/videoplay?docid=545886459853896774&q=molten+steel+ wtc (http://video.google.nl/videoplay?docid=545886459853896774&q=molten+steel+wtc)

[Yahoshua]

Melting point of 1030 Mild Carbon Steel: 2740*F

The Temperature at which steel will lose Half the tensile strength and nearly triple the amount of carbon in the steel is 1320*F

Melting point of Aluminum: 1221*F

Thermite burns at around 4000*F, but due to it's explosive nature (and extreme vaporization), the temperature reaches only as far as 1221*F. Thermite will be ignited by fire, but it would be a HUGE explosion if that were the case, and the second aircraft hitting the towers (the most widely available video) would've cause it to collapse almost immediatly instead of 104 minutes after it struck the building.

White Phosphorous burns at 531*F, nowhere near high enough to bring 1030 Steel to lose tensile strength.

Paper burns at 451*F, Plastic burns at 251*F.

You would need a LONG and prolonged exposure to high temperatures (at LEAST 1320*F) in order to cause the collapse of the steel supports in the WTC.

Aviation fuel burns between 800*F and 1500*F. And 35 tons of it, along with burning paper, plasitc, fibers, etc. will certainly expose the steel to a high temperature long enough for it to lose tensile strength and then collapse. So I believe that what we're seeing there is melted aluminum from the remains of the aircraft, wires, office chairs, etc. The aircraft were certainly carrying enough and moving fast enough to spread the aviation fuel throughout the building as well.

Here's a website that will explain the same in a bit of detail:

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml

[CCIP]

I'm a skeptic by nature.

Strangely, that's why I don't believe in conspiracy theories. Statistically, few of them turn out to have any truth to them. This one I'm about as skeptical with as I can be :hmm:

If there was a conspiracy, I'm certain it would be a little bit more low-key than using thermite to bring two towers down in the middle of America's largest city with thousands and thousands of cameras obviously catching every detail of it.

Certainly we'd be dealing with a remarkable combination of genius and intricate covert planning and retarded [lack of] foresight and caution which, I think, is unlikely to say the least.

[Sldghammer]

My shares in Alcoa are doing nicely. :D

[Dowly]

I refuse to believe it was a conspiracy, but everytime I think of it, it almost feels like someone pointed the Pandora´s box towards America and opened it. When everything is added together it really is sickening.

- The first three steel structured buildings in the history collapsed because of fire on 9/11

- The terrorist´s ability to hit to their targets with a commercial jet (on the Pentagon video, the plane is flying no more than 10m off the land, hard to understand how the pilot could do that with so limited experience)

- The side that Pentagon was hit, happened to be the one that was under maintenance (First thing to come in mind is to try and minimize high ranking military personnel deaths)

- The quick clean-up of Ground Zero (Only a handfull of the parts from WTCs were actually given for research)

- The complete halt in the US airforce and intelligence agencies when the planes were hijacked