This made my head hurt.Stat Monitor Repairman said:
You cant have a town square and kick people out the town square because you don't like what they are talking about.
We 22 years later and we got a 30 page thread about the ****, then their obviously ain't a clear answer and people still got something to say.
Stat Monitor Repairman said:
You cant have a town square and kick people out the town square because you don't like what they are talking about.
We 22 years later and we got a 30 page thread about the ****, then their obviously ain't a clear answer and people still got something to say.
Stat Monitor Repairman said:
We 22 years later and we got a 30 page thread about the ****, then their obviously ain't a clear answer
Way to completely deflect the questions (again), which are all absolutely valid.AggiEE said:New World Ag said:
You're still not addressing my other questions
How do you find and hire a demo contractor to do this work...secretly?
How do you do the demo work....secretly?
How do you keep it a secret for 21 years?
Why demo 7? What was the purpose?
How do you convince an entire nation to wear masks?
Take an experimental vaccine?
Go to war with Iraq?
Completely shut down?
I've answered all these questions of yours plenty of times before. The physical evidence is where you'll find all of your truth, the rest is speculative appeals for emotion in a governmental system you consider to never have the capacity to perform heinous acts of atrocity, despite plenty of evidence to the contrary throughout history.
What does the EE in your handle stand for?IIIHorn said:AggiEE said:ATX_AG_08 said:
A high school physics teacher. Well thanks…I'm swayed now.
Cool, since you prefer to defer to authority rather than facts, I assume you are an engineer that graduated top of his class like me and not some basketweaver like 99% of this thread?
I can point you to thousands of credentialed scientists and engineers with fancy titles that agree with this "High school physics teacher" if you prefer
Prove this.
Eccentric Evidence.IIIHorn said:What does the EE in your handle stand for?IIIHorn said:AggiEE said:ATX_AG_08 said:
A high school physics teacher. Well thanks…I'm swayed now.
Cool, since you prefer to defer to authority rather than facts, I assume you are an engineer that graduated top of his class like me and not some basketweaver like 99% of this thread?
I can point you to thousands of credentialed scientists and engineers with fancy titles that agree with this "High school physics teacher" if you prefer
Prove this.
Show us the photos. The proof lies on you to prove it. Eyewitness accounts are nortoriously bad. I proved this early in the thread when you made claims of the janitor hearing bombs going off before the planes impacted the towers (how would he know when the planes hit when he was in the basement?)AggiEE said:New World Ag said:
The claims of physical evidence are all quite disputed, if not outright shown to be false.
Answer the other questions.
How is molten steel disputed? There's photos of it in the rubble. There's eyewitness reports of it by first responders.
I'm not sure by this one. Is it this FEMA report? They stated they have no clear explanation for the source of the sulfur. But they also surmise that it could have happened due to long term heating from materials in the rubble following the collapase.Quote:
The sulfidation is not disputed either, it was even in the FEMA report and they were perplexed by its presence.
That's not true at all. Can you show us how microspheres are generated if you think they don't show up in a collapse?Quote:
The WTC dust contains significant amounts of iron rich microspheres, a byproduct of thermate, should not be ANYWHERE in a natural collapse
Quote:
Time for you to give us answers and not rely on us to debunk shoddy talking points.So far the only inconsistent one I pointed out was the FBI interview of Johnson and earlier FBI reports on 9/11.Quote:
Quote:
but the data is inconsistent.Explain to me the AirFone system. What does disconnected mean? Did the phone system give the annoying beeping noise when a call was disconnected similar to a land line? Could the line still be open and an operator not know if a phone was disconnected? I read she kept the line open until she heard the plane had crashed from soneone else in the office.Quote:
Quote:
Why was Beamer's phone not disconnected upon impact?What are the issues?Quote:
Quote:
The line was left open. The official story regarding the cell phone calls has plenty of issues.Why does this matter? Who did this? What impact does it have on the outcome?Quote:
Quote:
When you call your mother do you introduce yourself as your first and last name?
New World Ag said:
You're still not addressing my other questions
How do you find and hire a demo contractor to do this work...secretly?
How do you do the demo work....secretly?
How do you keep it a secret for 21 years?
Why demo 7? What was the purpose?
TexasAggie_02 said:
He's the hardest working man in engineering.
Quote:
AggiEE said:
Cool, since you prefer to defer to authority rather than facts, I assume you are an engineer that graduated top of his class like me and not some basket weaver like 99% of this thread?
AggiEE said:New World Ag said:
You're still not addressing my other questions
How do you find and hire a demo contractor to do this work...secretly?
How do you do the demo work....secretly?
How do you keep it a secret for 21 years?
Why demo 7? What was the purpose?
How do you convince an entire nation to wear masks?
Take an experimental vaccine?
Go to war with Iraq?
Completely shut down?
I've answered all these questions of yours plenty of times before. The physical evidence is where you'll find all of your truth, the rest is speculative appeals for emotion in a governmental system you consider to never have the capacity to perform heinous acts of atrocity, despite plenty of evidence to the contrary throughout history.
Satellite of Love said:Show us the photos. The proof lies on you to prove it. Eyewitness accounts are nortoriously bad. I proved this early in the thread when you made claims of the janitor hearing bombs going off before the planes impacted the towers (how would he know when the planes hit when he was in the basement?)AggiEE said:New World Ag said:
The claims of physical evidence are all quite disputed, if not outright shown to be false.
Answer the other questions.
How is molten steel disputed? There's photos of it in the rubble. There's eyewitness reports of it by first responders.I'm not sure by this one. Is it this FEMA report? They stated they have no clear explanation for the source of the sulfur. But they also surmise that it could have happened due to long term heating from materials in the rubble following the collapase.Quote:
The sulfidation is not disputed either, it was even in the FEMA report and they were perplexed by its presence.
https://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdfThat's not true at all. Can you show us how microspheres are generated if you think they don't show up in a collapse?Quote:
The WTC dust contains significant amounts of iron rich microspheres, a byproduct of thermate, should not be ANYWHERE in a natural collapse
Someone already pointed you to this thread, but it should be repeated. Microspheres are very easy to make from a collapsing steel structure.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-iron-microspheres-in-9-11-wtc-dust-as-evidence-for-thermite.2523/
Quote:
Not only was molten metal seen pouring out of WTC 2, dozens of eyewitnesses observed it in the debris of all three buildings. A small selection is presented below (a comprehensive list of all eyewitness accounts to molten metal can be found in the article "Witnesses of Molten Metal at Ground Zero"):
- Leslie Robertson, a lead engineer in the design of WTC 1 and WTC 2, told an audience: "We were down at the B-1 level and one of the firefighters said, 'I think you'd be interested in this.' And they pulled up a big block of concrete, and there was like a little river of steel flowing." 5
- FDNY Captain Philip Ruvolo recalled with other firefighters seated next to him: "You'd get down below and you'd see molten steel, molten steel, running down the channel rails, like you're in a foundry, like lava." Other firefighters chimed in: "Like lava." "Like lava from a volcano." 6
- Ken Holden, the Commissioner of the NYC Department of Design and Construction, testified before the 9/11 Commission: "Underground it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from Building 6." 7
Quote:
In a New York Times article published in February 2002, James Glanz and Eric Lipton wrote:
"Perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation involves extremely thin bits of steel collected...from 7 World Trade Center.... The steel apparently melted away, but no fire in any of the buildings was believed to be hot enough to melt steel outright.... A preliminary analysis at Worcester Polytechnic Institute [WPI]...suggests that sulfur released during the firesno one knows from wheremay have combined with atoms in the steel to form compounds that melt at lower temperatures." 1
The WPI professors, who were "shocked" by the "Swiss cheese appearance" 2 of the steel, reported their analysis in Appendix C of the FEMA WTC Building Performance Study, making the following recommendation:
"The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified.... A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed...." 3
Quote:
In addition to the above-referenced paper by physicist Steven Jones, there is a 25-page peer-reviewed paper, "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe," authored by Jones, Harrit, et al., which documents the finding of red-gray chips of nano-thermite in all four independently collected samples of the WTC 7 dust. These chips, when ignited, produce molten iron microspheres with the same chemical signature as those found in the WTC dust. There is no reason for nano-thermite to have been in the WTC dust unless it was used to melt steel as part of a controlled demolition that most likely used a combination of nano-thermite and high explosives.
Stat Monitor Repairman said:
You cant have a town square and kick people out the town square because you don't like what they are talking about.
We 22 years later and we got a 30 page thread about the ****, then their obviously ain't a clear answer and people still got something to say.
Old Army Ghost said:
youll never be satisfied until the evidence supports your conclusion
Quote:
Top NSA Whistleblower: We Need a New 9/11 Investigation Into the Destruction of the World Trade Center
Bill Binney is the NSA's former senior technical director, 32-year NSA veteran widely regarded as a "legend" within the agency, one of the world's top crypto-mathematicians, who managed thousands of employees at the agency.
Binney said:
They felt they had to have something drastic happen so they could get a lot more money and build up an empire and do the things they wanted to do.
Washington's Blog asked Binney what he meant by that statement, and he explained:
I had several reasons for saying that. First, Gen Minihan when he was Dirnsa [Director of the National Intelligence Agency] was internally in NSA quoted to say that we will have to have a drastic event occur before we could change the way we were doing things. Then Hayden took over as Dirnsa.
And, on 27 February 2001 he or someone from NSA approached the CEO of Quest requesting Quests' subscriber data meaning billing data. This is in court records. [Background here, here and here.]
This all smacked of waiting for something to happen so they could leverage it to do what they really wanted to do which was evidenced by the request to Quest.
Also, I would add that the 9/11 Commission left out data that Tom Drake passed to them showing vital data prior to 11 Sep giving warning of an attack. This should also not be acceptable. [Background.]
turn in your degree.AggiEE said:ATX_AG_08 said:
A high school physics teacher. Well thanks…I'm swayed now.
Cool, since you prefer to defer to authority rather than facts, I assume you are an engineer that graduated top of his class like me and not some basketweaver like 99% of this thread?
I can point you to thousands of credentialed scientists and engineers with fancy titles that agree with this "High school physics teacher" if you prefer
9/11 truther discourse in a nutshellAggiEE said:
It's 100% what happened in my mind
AggiEE said:
But instead, many will just ridicule or call everyone that asks questions some fringe group of non-scientific thinkers with no legitimate backing which couldn't be further from the truth
How were the charges planted with no one noticing, and most importantly, WHY was it demo'd? Also, B7 was damaged from debris from the towers falling down. It wasn't all fire.Stat Monitor Repairman said:
How do you watch that building 7 gif and conclude that's anything other than a controlled demolition?
How do you reach that conclusion?
That building was demoed.
What's the point of not coming right out and saying that?
Why are people arguing that that building wasn't demoed?
I can't wrap my head around that.
How can you watch that gif and think wasn't demoed?
Somebody explain their thought process.
Those pictures don't prove molten steel. You realize a 177,000 lb aircraft made of aluminum flew into the towers right? There are also various other metals found in the office environment with lower melting temperatures. More than likely you are seeing a mixture of alluminum and those other metals fall from the tower. Your 3rd picture is incredibly bad and just shows something that is really hot.AggiEE said:
Photos of Molten Steel:
Photos of steel in the rubble at extremely high temperatures not explained by jet fuel or office fires:
We don't only have these photos, we also have video evidence from where those photos were captured. In addition, the eyewitness testimony is definitive and clear cut - eyewitness accounts can be unreliable, but you have multiple firemen stating that ground zero had molten steel running down the channel rails like "lava" or something in a foundry. Very hard to misconstrue something so distinct and striking like molten steel as it has a very discernible image that isn't easily confused with anything else that can rationally be explained. It certainly looks nothing like molten aluminum.
Quotes from eye witnesses:Quote:
Not only was molten metal seen pouring out of WTC 2, dozens of eyewitnesses observed it in the debris of all three buildings. A small selection is presented below (a comprehensive list of all eyewitness accounts to molten metal can be found in the article "Witnesses of Molten Metal at Ground Zero"):
- Leslie Robertson, a lead engineer in the design of WTC 1 and WTC 2, told an audience: "We were down at the B-1 level and one of the firefighters said, 'I think you'd be interested in this.' And they pulled up a big block of concrete, and there was like a little river of steel flowing." 5
- FDNY Captain Philip Ruvolo recalled with other firefighters seated next to him: "You'd get down below and you'd see molten steel, molten steel, running down the channel rails, like you're in a foundry, like lava." Other firefighters chimed in: "Like lava." "Like lava from a volcano." 6
- Ken Holden, the Commissioner of the NYC Department of Design and Construction, testified before the 9/11 Commission: "Underground it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from Building 6." 7
As for William Rodriguez, the janitor of the WTC, he was in the basement when he heard the first explosion coming from below him. A few seconds later, he heard the impact of the plane because it was distinctly on top of where he was a good distance away. I don't see any reason why he would lie or make any of this up, but he wasn't alone in his statements either.
Regarding FEMA's report, here's what they stated:Quote:
In a New York Times article published in February 2002, James Glanz and Eric Lipton wrote:
"Perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation involves extremely thin bits of steel collected...from 7 World Trade Center.... The steel apparently melted away, but no fire in any of the buildings was believed to be hot enough to melt steel outright.... A preliminary analysis at Worcester Polytechnic Institute [WPI]...suggests that sulfur released during the firesno one knows from wheremay have combined with atoms in the steel to form compounds that melt at lower temperatures." 1
The WPI professors, who were "shocked" by the "Swiss cheese appearance" 2 of the steel, reported their analysis in Appendix C of the FEMA WTC Building Performance Study, making the following recommendation:
"The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified.... A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed...." 3
Regarding the metalbunk claims, they are pretty clearly debunked in this article regarding the microspheres:
https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/technical-articles/articles-by-ae911truth/690-refuting-a-demolition-denier-s-false-claims-about-iron-microspheres
Of particular importance is the exact size and makeup of those microspheres, which have their own fingerprint and arise from the actual red-gray chips found in the dust that have undergone partial thermitic reactions:Quote:
In addition to the above-referenced paper by physicist Steven Jones, there is a 25-page peer-reviewed paper, "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe," authored by Jones, Harrit, et al., which documents the finding of red-gray chips of nano-thermite in all four independently collected samples of the WTC 7 dust. These chips, when ignited, produce molten iron microspheres with the same chemical signature as those found in the WTC dust. There is no reason for nano-thermite to have been in the WTC dust unless it was used to melt steel as part of a controlled demolition that most likely used a combination of nano-thermite and high explosives.
What's funny is Rodriguez's story embellished quite a bit over the years as his fame in the truther community grew....This is his first interview about the incedent:Quote:
As for William Rodriguez, the janitor of the WTC, he was in the basement when he heard the first explosion coming from below him. A few seconds later, he heard the impact of the plane because it was distinctly on top of where he was a good distance away. I don't see any reason why he would lie or make any of this up, but he wasn't alone in his statements either.
Satellite of Love said:Those pictures don't prove molten steel. You realize a 177,000 lb aircraft made of aluminum flew into the towers right? There are also various other metals found in the office environment with lower melting temperatures. More than likely you are seeing a mixture of alluminum and those other metals fall from the tower. Your 3rd picture is incredibly bad and just shows something that is really hot.AggiEE said:
Photos of Molten Steel:
Photos of steel in the rubble at extremely high temperatures not explained by jet fuel or office fires:
We don't only have these photos, we also have video evidence from where those photos were captured. In addition, the eyewitness testimony is definitive and clear cut - eyewitness accounts can be unreliable, but you have multiple firemen stating that ground zero had molten steel running down the channel rails like "lava" or something in a foundry. Very hard to misconstrue something so distinct and striking like molten steel as it has a very discernible image that isn't easily confused with anything else that can rationally be explained. It certainly looks nothing like molten aluminum.
Quotes from eye witnesses:Quote:
Not only was molten metal seen pouring out of WTC 2, dozens of eyewitnesses observed it in the debris of all three buildings. A small selection is presented below (a comprehensive list of all eyewitness accounts to molten metal can be found in the article "Witnesses of Molten Metal at Ground Zero"):
- Leslie Robertson, a lead engineer in the design of WTC 1 and WTC 2, told an audience: "We were down at the B-1 level and one of the firefighters said, 'I think you'd be interested in this.' And they pulled up a big block of concrete, and there was like a little river of steel flowing." 5
- FDNY Captain Philip Ruvolo recalled with other firefighters seated next to him: "You'd get down below and you'd see molten steel, molten steel, running down the channel rails, like you're in a foundry, like lava." Other firefighters chimed in: "Like lava." "Like lava from a volcano." 6
- Ken Holden, the Commissioner of the NYC Department of Design and Construction, testified before the 9/11 Commission: "Underground it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from Building 6." 7
As for William Rodriguez, the janitor of the WTC, he was in the basement when he heard the first explosion coming from below him. A few seconds later, he heard the impact of the plane because it was distinctly on top of where he was a good distance away. I don't see any reason why he would lie or make any of this up, but he wasn't alone in his statements either.
Regarding FEMA's report, here's what they stated:Quote:
In a New York Times article published in February 2002, James Glanz and Eric Lipton wrote:
"Perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation involves extremely thin bits of steel collected...from 7 World Trade Center.... The steel apparently melted away, but no fire in any of the buildings was believed to be hot enough to melt steel outright.... A preliminary analysis at Worcester Polytechnic Institute [WPI]...suggests that sulfur released during the firesno one knows from wheremay have combined with atoms in the steel to form compounds that melt at lower temperatures." 1
The WPI professors, who were "shocked" by the "Swiss cheese appearance" 2 of the steel, reported their analysis in Appendix C of the FEMA WTC Building Performance Study, making the following recommendation:
"The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified.... A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed...." 3
Regarding the metalbunk claims, they are pretty clearly debunked in this article regarding the microspheres:
https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/technical-articles/articles-by-ae911truth/690-refuting-a-demolition-denier-s-false-claims-about-iron-microspheres
Of particular importance is the exact size and makeup of those microspheres, which have their own fingerprint and arise from the actual red-gray chips found in the dust that have undergone partial thermitic reactions:Quote:
In addition to the above-referenced paper by physicist Steven Jones, there is a 25-page peer-reviewed paper, "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe," authored by Jones, Harrit, et al., which documents the finding of red-gray chips of nano-thermite in all four independently collected samples of the WTC 7 dust. These chips, when ignited, produce molten iron microspheres with the same chemical signature as those found in the WTC dust. There is no reason for nano-thermite to have been in the WTC dust unless it was used to melt steel as part of a controlled demolition that most likely used a combination of nano-thermite and high explosives.
Again, eyewitness accounts are hardly credible. Your last point contradicts your first two. They saw molten METAL. That does not mean it was molten steel. Again think about all of the metals found in your typical office setting.
Dude we've been over this one before:
https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/technical-articles/articles-by-ae911truth/690-refuting-a-demolition-denier-s-false-claims-about-iron-microspheres
Chris Sarns up front argument is misinterpreting the RJ Lee Group report. As I explained it many pages ago, the RJ Lee report comes from an analysis of a building near the WTC that was damaged on one side from falling debris. The samples were taken months after 9/11 AND AFTER clean up of damaged steel memebers of the building. The use of acetylene torches cutting the steel during clean up would produce iron microsphere (hint tons of them during the process). Even the RJ Lee Group stated that finding large amounts of microsphreres in a building collapse would not be surprising. In truther fashion Chris Sarns is cherry picking something and leaving out key details to make his aregument.What's funny is Rodriguez's story embellished quite a bit over the years as his fame in the truther community grew....This is his first interview about the incedent:Quote:
As for William Rodriguez, the janitor of the WTC, he was in the basement when he heard the first explosion coming from below him. A few seconds later, he heard the impact of the plane because it was distinctly on top of where he was a good distance away. I don't see any reason why he would lie or make any of this up, but he wasn't alone in his statements either.
Notice he does not mention any explosions. Just a rumbling like furnature moving around and not a plane impact. He had a coworker run in the office "with skin melting off" He talks about moving around the building but has zero idea of what's going on. No mention of an aircraft hitting the building. Again, another bad eyewitness
Ah yes the red chips that are unreacted thermite....you mean the same red chips that could be easily explained as chipped paint off of the steel structures that collapsed? You know that the steel was painted red prior to being installed during construction right?
Also, wouldn't the fires within the buildings post impact and post collapse set off the thermite? According to the paper you trust, the reaction happened ~800 F.
Satellite of Love said:Those pictures don't prove molten steel. You realize a 177,000 lb aircraft made of aluminum flew into the towers right? There are also various other metals found in the office environment with lower melting temperatures. More than likely you are seeing a mixture of alluminum and those other metals fall from the tower. Your 3rd picture is incredibly bad and just shows something that is really hot.AggiEE said:
Photos of Molten Steel:
Photos of steel in the rubble at extremely high temperatures not explained by jet fuel or office fires:
We don't only have these photos, we also have video evidence from where those photos were captured. In addition, the eyewitness testimony is definitive and clear cut - eyewitness accounts can be unreliable, but you have multiple firemen stating that ground zero had molten steel running down the channel rails like "lava" or something in a foundry. Very hard to misconstrue something so distinct and striking like molten steel as it has a very discernible image that isn't easily confused with anything else that can rationally be explained. It certainly looks nothing like molten aluminum.
Quotes from eye witnesses:Quote:
Not only was molten metal seen pouring out of WTC 2, dozens of eyewitnesses observed it in the debris of all three buildings. A small selection is presented below (a comprehensive list of all eyewitness accounts to molten metal can be found in the article "Witnesses of Molten Metal at Ground Zero"):
- Leslie Robertson, a lead engineer in the design of WTC 1 and WTC 2, told an audience: "We were down at the B-1 level and one of the firefighters said, 'I think you'd be interested in this.' And they pulled up a big block of concrete, and there was like a little river of steel flowing." 5
- FDNY Captain Philip Ruvolo recalled with other firefighters seated next to him: "You'd get down below and you'd see molten steel, molten steel, running down the channel rails, like you're in a foundry, like lava." Other firefighters chimed in: "Like lava." "Like lava from a volcano." 6
- Ken Holden, the Commissioner of the NYC Department of Design and Construction, testified before the 9/11 Commission: "Underground it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from Building 6." 7
As for William Rodriguez, the janitor of the WTC, he was in the basement when he heard the first explosion coming from below him. A few seconds later, he heard the impact of the plane because it was distinctly on top of where he was a good distance away. I don't see any reason why he would lie or make any of this up, but he wasn't alone in his statements either.
Regarding FEMA's report, here's what they stated:Quote:
In a New York Times article published in February 2002, James Glanz and Eric Lipton wrote:
"Perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation involves extremely thin bits of steel collected...from 7 World Trade Center.... The steel apparently melted away, but no fire in any of the buildings was believed to be hot enough to melt steel outright.... A preliminary analysis at Worcester Polytechnic Institute [WPI]...suggests that sulfur released during the firesno one knows from wheremay have combined with atoms in the steel to form compounds that melt at lower temperatures." 1
The WPI professors, who were "shocked" by the "Swiss cheese appearance" 2 of the steel, reported their analysis in Appendix C of the FEMA WTC Building Performance Study, making the following recommendation:
"The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified.... A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed...." 3
Regarding the metalbunk claims, they are pretty clearly debunked in this article regarding the microspheres:
https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/technical-articles/articles-by-ae911truth/690-refuting-a-demolition-denier-s-false-claims-about-iron-microspheres
Of particular importance is the exact size and makeup of those microspheres, which have their own fingerprint and arise from the actual red-gray chips found in the dust that have undergone partial thermitic reactions:Quote:
In addition to the above-referenced paper by physicist Steven Jones, there is a 25-page peer-reviewed paper, "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe," authored by Jones, Harrit, et al., which documents the finding of red-gray chips of nano-thermite in all four independently collected samples of the WTC 7 dust. These chips, when ignited, produce molten iron microspheres with the same chemical signature as those found in the WTC dust. There is no reason for nano-thermite to have been in the WTC dust unless it was used to melt steel as part of a controlled demolition that most likely used a combination of nano-thermite and high explosives.
Again, eyewitness accounts are hardly credible. Your last point contradicts your first two. They saw molten METAL. That does not mean it was molten steel. Again think about all of the metals found in your typical office setting.
Dude we've been over this one before:
https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/technical-articles/articles-by-ae911truth/690-refuting-a-demolition-denier-s-false-claims-about-iron-microspheres
Chris Sarns up front argument is misinterpreting the RJ Lee Group report. As I explained it many pages ago, the RJ Lee report comes from an analysis of a building near the WTC that was damaged on one side from falling debris. The samples were taken months after 9/11 AND AFTER clean up of damaged steel memebers of the building. The use of acetylene torches cutting the steel during clean up would produce iron microsphere (hint tons of them during the process). Even the RJ Lee Group stated that finding large amounts of microsphreres in a building collapse would not be surprising. In truther fashion Chris Sarns is cherry picking something and leaving out key details to make his aregument.What's funny is Rodriguez's story embellished quite a bit over the years as his fame in the truther community grew....This is his first interview about the incedent:Quote:
As for William Rodriguez, the janitor of the WTC, he was in the basement when he heard the first explosion coming from below him. A few seconds later, he heard the impact of the plane because it was distinctly on top of where he was a good distance away. I don't see any reason why he would lie or make any of this up, but he wasn't alone in his statements either.
Notice he does not mention any explosions. Just a rumbling like furnature moving around and not a plane impact. He had a coworker run in the office "with skin melting off" He talks about moving around the building but has zero idea of what's going on. No mention of an aircraft hitting the building. Again, another bad eyewitness
Ah yes the red chips that are unreacted thermite....you mean the same red chips that could be easily explained as chipped paint off of the steel structures that collapsed? You know that the steel was painted red prior to being installed during construction right?
Also, wouldn't the fires within the buildings post impact and post collapse set off the thermite? According to the paper you trust, the reaction happened ~800 F.
Quote:
Molten steel was encountered primarily during excavation of debris around the South Tower when large hydraulic excavators were digging trenches 2 to 4 meters deep into the compacted/burning debris pile. There are both video tape and still photos of the molten steel being "dipped" out by the buckets of excavators. I'm not sure where you can get a copy.
Sorry I cannot provide personal confirmation.
Regards,
Mark Loizeaux, President
CONTROLLED DEMOLITION, INC.
2737 Merryman's Mill Road
Phoenix, Maryland USA 21131
Tel: 1-410-667-XXXX
Fax: 1-410-667-XXXX
www.controlled-demolition.com
Quote:
"In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel."
Quote:
"Feeling the heat, seeing the molten steel, the layers upon layers of ash, like lava, it reminded me of Mt. St. Helen's and the thousands who fled that disaster."
Quote:
Some defenders of the official 9/11 story have claimed that the red-gray chips of thermitic material identified in the World Trade Center dust by chemist Dr. Niels Harrit, Ph.D., Dr Steven Jones, Ph.D., and other scientists are simply remnants of the rust-proofing primer paint that was applied to the steel structure of the WTC skyscrapers during their construction. However, scientific evidence gathered by both the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and Harrit's team of scientists clearly shows that this claim is false, since the properties of the primer paint are strikingly different from those of the red-gray chips.
First of all, several key ingredients of the primer paint are not present in the composition of the red-gray chips. According to NIST, the type of primer paint used on the WTC steel columns contains substantial levels of zinc, chromium, and magnesium. However, the X-ray Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy (XEDS) analysis of the red-gray chips performed by Harrit and others showed no significant amounts of zinc, chromium, or magnesium.
Quote:
Conversely, the documented chemical and thermal properties of the red-gray chips confirm that they are thermitic material. The chemical composition of these chips includes sizeable quantities of the key elements of thermite (iron, oxygen, and aluminum), and the high-temperature reactions that occurred when the chips were ignited verifies that they are indeed thermitic in nature.
Stat Monitor Repairman said:
I don't know the answer to any of those questions man.
What I do know is that people had questions from day one.
All these issues have been debated and studied by experts for the past 22-years though.
And that's what surprises me most from this thread. It seems like people are hearing these issues raised for the first time and don't know how to react.
Which you lack.AggiEE said:
Our resident official story conspiracy theorists ignore the most plausible explanation for those collapses, which is controlled demolition, and is corroborated by the physical evidence and basic common sense. We have controlled demolition experts saying within certainty that WTC7 is 100% a controlled demolition, and yet to believe NIST you have to run through all sorts of mental gymnastics to think that one column alone expanded and brought the entire structure to the point of collapse (yet global collapse was never studied).
They should have made the buildings out of passports instead of steel, given that a passport from one of the alleged hijacker's is sturdy enough to survive the plane impact, fire, and land pretty well in tact at ground level and yet you can only find the tiniest of bone fragments for the vast majority of those in the towers.
