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"

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

They are so serieus.

Must be my blackside. :)

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.

Page down about the WTC 7 collapse.

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:

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

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.

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/

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. 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" and "Fire Department Tape Reveals No Awareness of Imminent Doom"]

You need access (subscription) for those NYT pages.

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.

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.

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

Can you help me to uderstand this "testimony".

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

PS: Never mind, I found the printed version.

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/img174/9...merrampnw1.jpg

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

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