IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags 911 debunking , 911 debunking resources , ae911truth , controlled demolition , richard gage , world trade center , wtc 7

Closed Thread
Old 28th August 2011, 02:43 PM   #2361
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Hi Bill,

Your comments in italics:

1. To lever something upwards you must depress the other end of the lever over a fulcrum or pivot point. To lever something downwards you must raise the other end of the lever. Where is the fulcrum for the downwards leverage ?

Look again at my design in video 18 (hand-drawn by me). The pivot on the left is somewhere either inside the building or along a different wall, and is either holding still or falling more slowly than the north perimeter wall for a couple seconds. The beam or floor also is attached to the north perimeter wall. In between is some kind of weight. I don't have an art degree either so the weight looks like some kind of punching bag, but in reality probably looked like more beams, columns or floors. The weight of the collapsing "punching bag" is leveraged downwards by the piviot on the left holding steadier and the perimeter wall on the right being yanked down.

2. In WTC1 and WTC2 I think some selected hollow core columns were filled with nanothermite incendiary.In WTC7 I think that collars of thermate (which is just thermite with added sulphur for the enhanced burning of steel) were put on the core columns and thickly covered in fireproofing (which makes excellent lightproofing by the way)


Richard Gage said something like that too, and at first hiding the light would be possible because thermate is not particularly explosive. And yes, it can definitely melt through steel. The problem though, as I said, is that when the building undergoes its rapid and catastrophic collapse, the still-burning thermate would be exposed. Certainly once it burns THROUGH a hollow column and there is no hollow column any more, the light will shine for at least another 20 seconds after total collapse. It didn't.

3. Nanothermite ignites very quickly so I guess that nanothermate would not be much different.

Richard gage says (and the videos on YouTube confirm) that nanothermite burns quickly and can in fact be used as a low-to-medium grade explosive... as in VERY fast. Thermate, by contrast, does its work almost exclusively by heating up, and it works on steel beams slowly (six or seven seconds to work through even a small beam). Gage believes there was less lateral ejection and squibs as a result. No one has ever used the term nanothermate before, to my knowledge.

FEMA statement. and other info
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAndcg8MZaM

In a private email Jonathan Barnett listed possible sources of the sulfur, like acid rain, sulfur dioxide from burning gypsum, etc. He did not list thermitics. He would like to see more research on the sulfidized steel so that we can better understand then threat posed by sulfidation of steel in a normal office fire.
chrismohr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th August 2011, 03:06 PM   #2362
Clayton Moore
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 7,508
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
Clayton,

I'm sorry I don't have the 235 reasons except in the PowerPoint presentation used for the YouTube videos. If you just say video #1 reason 20 and quote it, we can get the idea. It would take many hours otherwise.


Sounds like the dreaded telephone tag times 235. U can 235 without me.


I don't understand the grocery store dominoes youtube's purpose, nor do I understand why discussing CD tech based on what is known is to the detriment of both sides.
Think about both. It seems most take a while to catch on and up.
Clayton Moore is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th August 2011, 03:32 PM   #2363
bill smith
Philosopher
 
bill smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
Hi Bill,

Your comments in italics:

1. To lever something upwards you must depress the other end of the lever over a fulcrum or pivot point. To lever something downwards you must raise the other end of the lever. Where is the fulcrum for the downwards leverage ?

Look again at my design in video 18 (hand-drawn by me). The pivot on the left is somewhere either inside the building or along a different wall, and is either holding still or falling more slowly than the north perimeter wall for a couple seconds. The beam or floor also is attached to the north perimeter wall. In between is some kind of weight. I don't have an art degree either so the weight looks like some kind of punching bag, but in reality probably looked like more beams, columns or floors. The weight of the collapsing "punching bag" is leveraged downwards by the piviot on the left holding steadier and the perimeter wall on the right being yanked down.

2. In WTC1 and WTC2 I think some selected hollow core columns were filled with nanothermite incendiary.In WTC7 I think that collars of thermate (which is just thermite with added sulphur for the enhanced burning of steel) were put on the core columns and thickly covered in fireproofing (which makes excellent lightproofing by the way)


Richard Gage said something like that too, and at first hiding the light would be possible because thermate is not particularly explosive. And yes, it can definitely melt through steel. The problem though, as I said, is that when the building undergoes its rapid and catastrophic collapse, the still-burning thermate would be exposed. Certainly once it burns THROUGH a hollow column and there is no hollow column any more, the light will shine for at least another 20 seconds after total collapse. It didn't.

3. Nanothermite ignites very quickly so I guess that nanothermate would not be much different.

Richard gage says (and the videos on YouTube confirm) that nanothermite burns quickly and can in fact be used as a low-to-medium grade explosive... as in VERY fast. Thermate, by contrast, does its work almost exclusively by heating up, and it works on steel beams slowly (six or seven seconds to work through even a small beam). Gage believes there was less lateral ejection and squibs as a result. No one has ever used the term nanothermate before, to my knowledge.

FEMA statement. and other info
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAndcg8MZaM

In a private email Jonathan Barnett listed possible sources of the sulfur, like acid rain, sulfur dioxide from burning gypsum, etc. He did not list thermitics. He would like to see more research on the sulfidized steel so that we can better understand then threat posed by sulfidation of steel in a normal office fire.
I am no expert in leverage so I will leave it to others to analyse your leverage system. Maybe MrKinnies could have a look if he wants to..
In WTC7 the core columns were not box columns as far as I know so the solid columns would not be filled with nanothermite. They would have had collars of thermate which would make clean cuts as in normal demolition or they could have melted larger sections of the columns in one go to bring the building down clean. They couldn't afford too much molten steel in WTC7 beacause there was a Con-Ed station under the building.
Nanothermite is an incendiary that is non-explosive in it's basic form. A pure incediary that produces no gas. But advanced polymers can be added to it that release a lot of gas very fast which turns the compound into an explosive.
Thermate is just thermite with added sulphur.
__________________
*Think WTC7 - You cannot make the four corners of a table fall together unless you cut the four legs together
*A kitchen table judgement on a world scale is enough
* To Citizens: 'There comes a time when silence is betrayal'

Last edited by bill smith; 28th August 2011 at 04:01 PM.
bill smith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th August 2011, 05:42 PM   #2364
Marokkaan
Graduate Poster
 
Marokkaan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,083
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
As I said in video 18, I used my journalistic skills to uncover the fallacies in 9/11 CD reasoning. 235 reasons. Everything I say is backed by experts. Trust me, Ozeco and Tri and Ryan Mackey and Oystein and the two Daves and tfk and countless others would tell me if I was reporting their side so inaccurately as to be useless. And I would drop the whole project if I got that kind of feedback from the experts I used to develop these videos. To say my lack of a physics degree means I should not be taken seriously is like saying a journalist who uncovers financial fraud in a small-town mayor's office should be ignored because he doesn't have a CPA. I've uncovered 235 serious problems with CD and very few have been answered with scientifically meaningful responses, just more question and demands. I've made mistakes and corrected them but I have no respect for anyone who says I am unqualified to present these rebuttals. Even Richard Gage himself totally disagrees with me but has never gone down that road. I'm honest, I know my limits, I'm no scientist but I'm a hell of a good journalist when I want to be. Argue my points but I'm not budging on the question of my worthiness to discuss these things. I am more than worthy, I've done a great job, I'm patient with my opponents and have interviewed them as well as my allies, I started out skeptical but open and could have been convinced of CD if there were just any credible science there, and I'm proud as hell of my work.
Tell me what do you think about TRi, he claims he has more respect for murderers than erik lawyer (firefighter)

I'm no scientist but I'm a hell of a good journalist when I want to be

Than use your expertise wisely, interview the people with expertise, or be the narrator of their researches/findings.

And i really dont understand why you dont reply at my quote....
Marokkaan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th August 2011, 06:04 PM   #2365
Marokkaan
Graduate Poster
 
Marokkaan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,083
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
Bill, you got the "system" wrong again, just like Chandler!

The "system" in the case of Building 7 is the roofline of Building 7, the only part of the Building whose collapse speed was precisely measured. In video 18 I suggested a hypothesis (which is unprovable because no one saw or videotaped the inside collapse sequence... which is why NIST calls it a likely collapse scenario): more than two forces acting on the collapsing building, not just gravity and resistance but ALSO localized leveraging from outside the north roofline "system." I tell you that is possible. Do you say leveraging is impossible?

I also tell you that CD is very very nearly impossible. As a few of my 235 reasons, after talking personally with Richard Gage, he believes nanothermites were used on the Twin Towers and thermate on Building 7.
yes you can prove it. By doing experiments and calculations.


Quote:
1) thermate burns very very bright for 45 seconds or so and hundreds of tons of it would have been blindlingly bright. Even if it could be covered at first, 20 seconds into the collapse the whole world would have seen a blindingly bright rubble pile for another 25 seconds or so. There is NO covering up that much burning thermate in an utterkly destroyed building.
Who said to you hundreds of tons? watch the experiment of jon cole.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g


Quote:
2) The chemical signature for burned thermate is not there.
Tell me whats the chemical signature for burned thermate. and why its not the chemical signature

Quote:
3) Thermate can burn through steel, as 9/11 truth researchers have proven on YouTube, but there is no way it can burn fast enough to create such a quick and relatively precise collapse.[/b]
Its very easy, but your lack of knowledge about controlled demolition is the problem. You dont know how they did it, so speculating is not the smartest thing to do.

But im glad you admit its a relatively precise collapse, so a natural collapse is almost impossible. Or at the lease not the first thing you would expect for the collapse of the wtc towers.

Last edited by Marokkaan; 28th August 2011 at 06:08 PM.
Marokkaan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th August 2011, 06:07 PM   #2366
triforcharity
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,961
Originally Posted by Marokkaan View Post
Tell me what do you think about TRi, he claims he has more respect for murderers than erik lawyer (firefighter)
I do. Very much so. He is a disgrace to firefighters everywhere. Even his own department doesn't stand by him. Feel free to email them.

He works for the Seattle Fire Department.

Originally Posted by Marokkaan View Post
I'm no scientist but I'm a hell of a good journalist when I want to be

Than use your expertise wisely, interview the people with expertise, or be the narrator of their researches/findings.
He did. Hence, why he interviewed physicists, firefighters, structural engineers, fire protection engineers, etc.

Unlike you, who spouts bull feces from Theologians. LOL!!

Oh, that's right, you've go me on ignore. Cool.
triforcharity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th August 2011, 09:23 PM   #2367
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Originally Posted by Marokkaan View Post
yes you can prove it. By doing experiments and calculations.




Who said to you hundreds of tons? watch the experiment of jon cole.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g




Tell me whats the chemical signature for burned thermate. and why its not the chemical signature


Its very easy, but your lack of knowledge about controlled demolition is the problem. You dont know how they did it, so speculating is not the smartest thing to do.

But im glad you admit its a relatively precise collapse, so a natural collapse is almost impossible. Or at the lease not the first thing you would expect for the collapse of the wtc towers.
I got the hundreds of tons of thermitics from the Harrit experiment which as I recall claimed 0.1% of the WTC dust was thermitic. That's hundreds of tons, unless I carried the decimal point wrong.

And you're right, the relatively clean collapse of Building 7 is not the first thing you would expect. But ultimately, I believe the evidence points to natural collapse.

Anyone want to review again what's missing from the Harrit spectograph that would have to be there if there were thermitics in the dust? It's late and I'm not goping to research it right now.

I'd lay low for awhile on my lack of knowledge please. Don't want to keep going down that road. Thermate burns slowly, that is a fact, it's not like an explosive that blows a column apart, and Ryan Mackey and others have explained to me that you need faster-acting explosives for a precise collapse.
chrismohr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th August 2011, 03:17 AM   #2368
Marokkaan
Graduate Poster
 
Marokkaan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,083
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
I got the hundreds of tons of thermitics from the Harrit experiment which as I recall claimed 0.1% of the WTC dust was thermitic. That's hundreds of tons, unless I carried the decimal point wrong.
Yes you are right, he said this.
Did you watched the experiment?


Quote:
And you're right, the relatively clean collapse of Building 7 is not the first thing you would expect. But ultimately, I believe the evidence points to natural collapse.
Than why they did not first looked to the cd theory, and searched for explosives. Even when they think they can not find evidence.

Quote:
I'd lay low for awhile on my lack of knowledge please. Don't want to keep going down that road. Thermate burns slowly, that is a fact, it's not like an explosive that blows a column apart, and Ryan Mackey and others have explained to me that you need faster-acting explosives for a precise collapse.[/
Ryan Mackey is a research scientist at the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, specializing in vehicle autonomy and Integrated Systems Health Management for aircraft and spacecraft......
Marokkaan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th August 2011, 03:56 AM   #2369
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 17,193
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
...
Anyone want to review again what's missing from the Harrit spectograph that would have to be there if there were thermitics in the dust? It's late and I'm not goping to research it right now.
...
Maybe I am missing context here - I only read this post now. Here is the short answer:

Nothing is "missing from the Harrit spectograph that would have to be there if there were thermitics in the dust". At a minimum, you'd need to find the chemical elements iron, aluminium and oxygen in the spectra, and they are there.

One real problem is that there is plenty of other stuff that does not belong there, most notably as much silicium as there is aluminium. Silicium plays no role at all in any kind of thermite, and Harrit has no explanation for it.

Second real problem is that he really has not proven that aluminium is present in elemental form, rather than as oxide or aluminiumilicates. This is confounded by the clear presence of aluminiumsilicates: They show as stacks of platelike crystals - that's an aluminiumsilicate called Kaolinite. Kaolinite contains the same number of Al and Si atoms - exactly what Harrit's spectra showed.

Third real problem is that there is a lot of carbon in the mix, and no explanation for what the carbon is doing there. Harrit suspects, certainly correctly, that the minerals are in an organic matrix. Obviously, an organic matrix can burn in air (21% oxygen) if heated enough.

What could be missing? Well, some folks say that a variety of thermite was used that's called thermate. Thermate typically contains barium and sulfur, and those two are missing from Harrit's spectra.


Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
...
Thermate burns slowly, that is a fact, it's not like an explosive that blows a column apart, and Ryan Mackey and others have explained to me that you need faster-acting explosives for a precise collapse.
...
This is not entirely true. Harrit claims to have found nano-thermite. Having the ingredients of thermite (or thermate) in nano-sized particles can in fact greatly speed up the burn rate, even to orders of magnitude that compare with explosives. But that doesn't make it an explosive. Explosives generate gasses, which means a great increase of volume, which causes a shockwave, that does the cracking of hard stuff. The products of thermite are solids at room temp or liquids at the temperature generated by the reaction, hence you get no serious explosion. The purpose of fast-reacting nano-thermite is different from that of explosives.
The only way that thermite (or thermate) attacks steel structures is through the heat of reaction - softening or melting the steel. Nanothermite might do that faster than regular thermite, but it would still take time on the order of seconds, rather than milliseconds as in the case of explosions: Heat propagates much slower than shockwaves. And that's why nano doesnt help you to get the timing precision normally needed for controlled demos.
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th August 2011, 03:58 AM   #2370
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 17,193
Originally Posted by Marokkaan View Post
...
Ryan Mackey is a research scientist at the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, specializing in vehicle autonomy and Integrated Systems Health Management for aircraft and spacecraft......
Yes. If qualification of individuals beats the quality of their arguments, you should now tell us what you are.
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th August 2011, 04:47 AM   #2371
Reactor drone
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,194
Originally Posted by Marokkaan View Post

Quote:
And you're right, the relatively clean collapse of Building 7 is not the first thing you would expect. But ultimately, I believe the evidence points to natural collapse.
Than why they did not first looked to the cd theory, and searched for explosives. Even when they think they can not find evidence.
A clean collapse isn't the first thing you expect because the collapse of a tall building is a very, very rare occurence. Most people's only experience with seeing a tall building collapse is from demolitions.

They also knew the building was on fire and had collapsed after showing signs of structural damage over the course of several hours. They knew there were no sounds of explosives on any of the video recordings of the collapse. They knew that none of the steel removed during the clean up operations showed signs of blast damage or cutting. They knew that there were no recovered remains of blasting caps, det cord or any other suspicious materials.

Given all that why would their first thought be to look for explosives? There are some things you can find easily without specifically looking for them.
Reactor drone is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th August 2011, 05:45 AM   #2372
newton3376
The Truth Movement.....still not at 1%
 
newton3376's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,320
Originally Posted by Marokkaan View Post
Its very easy, but your lack of knowledge about controlled demolition is the problem.
Exactly Marokkaan! You are starting to figure out why the worlds CD experts think you truthers are nuts....Now...go research and see how many professional papers/journal articles there are by Engineers, Scientists, or CD experts claiming the WTCs were brought down by CD....

Don't worry....there aren't any real papers or journal articles claiming this...you won't have to search long


Originally Posted by Marokkaan View Post
You dont know how they did it, so speculating is not the smartest thing to do.
That's all you truthers DO is speculate..

Maybe it was mini nukes...

Maybe it was HAARP...

Maybe it was thermite...

Maybe it was super dooper secret nano thermite....

You claim it was "nano thermite" and that the material is some kind of classified substance....yet YOU know about it.

If something is CLASSIFIED then YOU wouldn't know about it...those of us who have to work with such material know this....

Also...you claim that Harrit and Jones found this stuff...yet their own paper doesn't properly test for it, doesn't identify the material, and doesn't properly explore other possible substances.

When we point out to you how the material in the paper EVEN IF IT IS NANO THERMITE cant be used in a practical sense to bring the buildings down you truthers say:

"BUT WE DONT KNOW WHAT KIND OF SOOPER SEKRIT TERMITE WAS USED!!! THERE COULD BE ENDLESS VARIANTS!!!!!!!!eleventy!!!!!!"


So here are the problems you are faced with....

1. You cant say it was a conventional CD due to the lack of huge explosions, baro trama det cord, etc

2. You can't say that it was normal thermite because normal thermite isn't capable of hurling large beams through the air.

3. You MUST claim it was "nano thermite" via the Jones paper and hope that no one critically examines the paper.

4. You can't answer the fact that the amount of "nano thermite" necessary using the results from the Jones paper is a ridiculous amount that would have proof all over the place so you must claim that there are "variants" of the material.

5. So you are left with some bizarre mixture of some "explosive" nano thermite.....some "slow burning" nano thermite......some thermate in some form....and who knows what else...


All you guys do is conjecture....no proof....no evidence....just fantasy.

Keep up the Investi-Googling...at least its entertaining
__________________
AE911 Truth....still failing to get 1%

Last edited by newton3376; 29th August 2011 at 05:47 AM.
newton3376 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th August 2011, 06:01 AM   #2373
Animal
Master Poster
 
Animal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 2,094
Originally Posted by newton3376 View Post
Exactly Marokkaan! You are starting to figure out why the worlds CD experts think you truthers are nuts....Now...go research and see how many professional papers/journal articles there are by Engineers, Scientists, or CD experts claiming the WTCs were brought down by CD....

Don't worry....there aren't any real papers or journal articles claiming this...you won't have to search long




That's all you truthers DO is speculate..

Maybe it was mini nukes...

Maybe it was HAARP...

Maybe it was thermite...

Maybe it was super dooper secret nano thermite....

You claim it was "nano thermite" and that the material is some kind of classified substance....yet YOU know about it.

If something is CLASSIFIED then YOU wouldn't know about it...those of us who have to work with such material know this....

Also...you claim that Harrit and Jones found this stuff...yet their own paper doesn't properly test for it, doesn't identify the material, and doesn't properly explore other possible substances.

When we point out to you how the material in the paper EVEN IF IT IS NANO THERMITE cant be used in a practical sense to bring the buildings down you truthers say:

"BUT WE DONT KNOW WHAT KIND OF SOOPER SEKRIT TERMITE WAS USED!!! THERE COULD BE ENDLESS VARIANTS!!!!!!!!eleventy!!!!!!"


So here are the problems you are faced with....

1. You cant say it was a conventional CD due to the lack of huge explosions, baro trama det cord, etc

2. You can't say that it was normal thermite because normal thermite isn't capable of hurling large beams through the air.

3. You MUST claim it was "nano thermite" via the Jones paper and hope that no one critically examines the paper.

4. You can't answer the fact that the amount of "nano thermite" necessary using the results from the Jones paper is a ridiculous amount that would have proof all over the place so you must claim that there are "variants" of the material.

5. So you are left with some bizarre mixture of some "explosive" nano thermite.....some "slow burning" nano thermite......some thermate in some form....and who knows what else...


All you guys do is conjecture....no proof....no evidence....just fantasy.

Keep up the Investi-Googling...at least its entertaining
Cue being put on "ignore" by marko for not being neutral in 5...4...3...2...1...
Animal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th August 2011, 06:45 AM   #2374
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Maybe I am missing context here - I only read this post now. Here is the short answer:

Nothing is "missing from the Harrit spectograph that would have to be there if there were thermitics in the dust". At a minimum, you'd need to find the chemical elements iron, aluminium and oxygen in the spectra, and they are there.

One real problem is that there is plenty of other stuff that does not belong there, most notably as much silicium as there is aluminium. Silicium plays no role at all in any kind of thermite, and Harrit has no explanation for it.

Second real problem is that he really has not proven that aluminium is present in elemental form, rather than as oxide or aluminiumilicates. This is confounded by the clear presence of aluminiumsilicates: They show as stacks of platelike crystals - that's an aluminiumsilicate called Kaolinite. Kaolinite contains the same number of Al and Si atoms - exactly what Harrit's spectra showed.

Third real problem is that there is a lot of carbon in the mix, and no explanation for what the carbon is doing there. Harrit suspects, certainly correctly, that the minerals are in an organic matrix. Obviously, an organic matrix can burn in air (21% oxygen) if heated enough.

What could be missing? Well, some folks say that a variety of thermite was used that's called thermate. Thermate typically contains barium and sulfur, and those two are missing from Harrit's spectra.



This is not entirely true. Harrit claims to have found nano-thermite. Having the ingredients of thermite (or thermate) in nano-sized particles can in fact greatly speed up the burn rate, even to orders of magnitude that compare with explosives. But that doesn't make it an explosive. Explosives generate gasses, which means a great increase of volume, which causes a shockwave, that does the cracking of hard stuff. The products of thermite are solids at room temp or liquids at the temperature generated by the reaction, hence you get no serious explosion. The purpose of fast-reacting nano-thermite is different from that of explosives.
The only way that thermite (or thermate) attacks steel structures is through the heat of reaction - softening or melting the steel. Nanothermite might do that faster than regular thermite, but it would still take time on the order of seconds, rather than milliseconds as in the case of explosions: Heat propagates much slower than shockwaves. And that's why nano doesnt help you to get the timing precision normally needed for controlled demos.
Thanks for the clarifications and corrections Oystein. I should have said "thermate burns through steel much more slowly than an explosive would blow it apart." Anyway, 9/11 truth researchers, please acknowledge the truth of what Oystein and Reactor Drone said so we don't have to go over this again and again.
chrismohr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th August 2011, 07:11 AM   #2375
Marokkaan
Graduate Poster
 
Marokkaan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,083
Originally Posted by newton3376 View Post
Exactly Marokkaan! You are starting to figure out why the worlds CD experts think you truthers are nuts....Now...go research and see how many professional papers/journal articles there are by Engineers, Scientists, or CD experts claiming the WTCs were brought down by CD....

Don't worry....there aren't any real papers or journal articles claiming this...you won't have to search long




That's all you truthers DO is speculate..

Maybe it was mini nukes...

Maybe it was HAARP...

Maybe it was thermite...

Maybe it was super dooper secret nano thermite....

You claim it was "nano thermite" and that the material is some kind of classified substance....yet YOU know about it.

If something is CLASSIFIED then YOU wouldn't know about it...those of us who have to work with such material know this....

Also...you claim that Harrit and Jones found this stuff...yet their own paper doesn't properly test for it, doesn't identify the material, and doesn't properly explore other possible substances.

When we point out to you how the material in the paper EVEN IF IT IS NANO THERMITE cant be used in a practical sense to bring the buildings down you truthers say:
"BUT WE DONT KNOW WHAT KIND OF SOOPER SEKRIT TERMITE WAS USED!!! THERE COULD BE ENDLESS VARIANTS!!!!!!!!eleventy!!!!!!"


So here are the problems you are faced with....

1. You cant say it was a conventional CD due to the lack of huge explosions, baro trama det cord, etc

2. You can't say that it was normal thermite because normal thermite isn't capable of hurling large beams through the air.

3. You MUST claim it was "nano thermite" via the Jones paper and hope that no one critically examines the paper.

4. You can't answer the fact that the amount of "nano thermite" necessary using the results from the Jones paper is a ridiculous amount that would have proof all over the place so you must claim that there are "variants" of the material.

5. So you are left with some bizarre mixture of some "explosive" nano thermite.....some "slow burning" nano thermite......some thermate in some form....and who knows what else...


All you guys do is conjecture....no proof....no evidence....just fantasy.

Keep up the Investi-Googling...at least its entertaining
Ow my god this is mind blowing



1. You cant say it was a conventional CD due to the lack of huge explosions, baro trama det cord, etc

You dont know how a cd works. Stop speculating

2. You can't say that it was normal thermite because normal thermite isn't capable of hurling large beams through the air.

You dont know anything about thermite, stop speculating

3. You MUST claim it was "nano thermite" via the Jones paper and hope that no one critically examines the paper.

If we use the logic of NIST and debunkers, the paper proves a 100 % the truth its nanothermite. Peer review we dont need, and experiments and errors we ignore.


4. You can't answer the fact that the amount of "nano thermite" necessary using the results from the Jones paper is a ridiculous amount that would have proof all over the place so you must claim that there are "variants" of the material.

Watch the jon cole video on youtube: thermate debate.

5. So you are left with some bizarre mixture of some "explosive" nano thermite.....some "slow burning" nano thermite......some thermate in some form....and who knows what else...

You do know, in the most CD, to demolish the H-beams you need at least 2 different explosives.

But you dont know, ofcourse because you have not the expertise
Marokkaan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th August 2011, 07:23 AM   #2376
sheeplesnshills
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,706
Quote:
Who said to you hundreds of tons? watch the experiment of jon cole.

yes but you say that for there to be the freefall for eight floors then there has to be removal of all support over the whole width of the building for at least eight floors that's dozens of columns on each of the eight floors, each with its own charge, timers etc.......so yes hundreds of tons.........and somehow no-one spotted all that mess that would leave and not a single cut column.......

and thats not even counting the amount that would be necessary for the WTC towers........again with no evidence at all of it use......


Quote:
Its very easy, but your lack of knowledge about controlled demolition is the problem. You dont know how they did it, so speculating is not the smartest thing to do.



Quote:
But im glad you admit its a relatively precise collapse, so a natural collapse is almost impossible.
only "almost" now? we are making progress And I wouldn't describe it as remotely precise


Quote:
Or at the lease not the first thing you would expect for the collapse of the wtc towers.
I didn't expect them to fall at all. Once I knew how they were constructed then the collapse is exactly as I would expect.
sheeplesnshills is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th August 2011, 09:44 AM   #2377
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by Marokkaan View Post
Tell me what do you think about TRi, he claims he has more respect for murderers than erik lawyer (firefighter)

I'm no scientist but I'm a hell of a good journalist when I want to be

Than use your expertise wisely, interview the people with expertise, or be the narrator of their researches/findings.

And i really dont understand why you dont reply at my quote....
It's better to show your abilities than brag about them.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th August 2011, 09:57 AM   #2378
The Platypus
Graduate Poster
 
The Platypus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,883
Originally Posted by Marokkaan View Post
Ow my god this is mind blowing



1. You cant say it was a conventional CD due to the lack of huge explosions, baro trama det cord, etc

You dont know how a cd works. Stop speculating

2. You can't say that it was normal thermite because normal thermite isn't capable of hurling large beams through the air.

You dont know anything about thermite, stop speculating

3. You MUST claim it was "nano thermite" via the Jones paper and hope that no one critically examines the paper.

If we use the logic of NIST and debunkers, the paper proves a 100 % the truth its nanothermite. Peer review we dont need, and experiments and errors we ignore.


4. You can't answer the fact that the amount of "nano thermite" necessary using the results from the Jones paper is a ridiculous amount that would have proof all over the place so you must claim that there are "variants" of the material.

Watch the jon cole video on youtube: thermate debate.

5. So you are left with some bizarre mixture of some "explosive" nano thermite.....some "slow burning" nano thermite......some thermate in some form....and who knows what else...

You do know, in the most CD, to demolish the H-beams you need at least 2 different explosives.

But you dont know, ofcourse because you have not the expertise
You have a bad habit of trying to manipulate by flipping your own faults onto those that oppose your delusions.

Meanwhile you have no expertise, and all you do is recite the speculations of other 911 kooks...

No wonder 911 kooks are in the lunatic fringe of society.
__________________
I'll go with the qualified experts, over some ranting guy on the internet that claims he has "the truth".

Always beware of those that overuse, capitalize and blanket themselves in them word "truth". I may not always know the truth, but i do know when i'm being lied too.

Last edited by The Platypus; 29th August 2011 at 09:58 AM.
The Platypus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th August 2011, 10:05 AM   #2379
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
 
twinstead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,374
Marokkaan, so you are a CD expert?
__________________
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison
twinstead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th August 2011, 10:34 AM   #2380
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by Marokkaan View Post
Ow my god this is mind blowing



1. You cant say it was a conventional CD due to the lack of huge explosions, baro trama det cord, etc

You dont know how a cd works. Stop speculating

2. You can't say that it was normal thermite because normal thermite isn't capable of hurling large beams through the air.

You dont know anything about thermite, stop speculating

3. You MUST claim it was "nano thermite" via the Jones paper and hope that no one critically examines the paper.

If we use the logic of NIST and debunkers, the paper proves a 100 % the truth its nanothermite. Peer review we dont need, and experiments and errors we ignore.


4. You can't answer the fact that the amount of "nano thermite" necessary using the results from the Jones paper is a ridiculous amount that would have proof all over the place so you must claim that there are "variants" of the material.

Watch the jon cole video on youtube: thermate debate.

5. So you are left with some bizarre mixture of some "explosive" nano thermite.....some "slow burning" nano thermite......some thermate in some form....and who knows what else...

You do know, in the most CD, to demolish the H-beams you need at least 2 different explosives.

But you dont know, ofcourse because you have not the expertise
In CD's you hear explosions just before the collapse. They do not occur minutes before the collapse nor after the collapse.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th August 2011, 12:27 PM   #2381
Sam.I.Am
Illuminator
 
Sam.I.Am's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,627
Originally Posted by Marokkaan View Post
Ow my god this is mind blowing



1. You cant say it was a conventional CD due to the lack of huge explosions, baro trama det cord, etc

You dont know how a cd works. Stop speculating

2. You can't say that it was normal thermite because normal thermite isn't capable of hurling large beams through the air.

You dont know anything about thermite, stop speculating

3. You MUST claim it was "nano thermite" via the Jones paper and hope that no one critically examines the paper.

If we use the logic of NIST and debunkers, the paper proves a 100 % the truth its nanothermite. Peer review we dont need, and experiments and errors we ignore.


4. You can't answer the fact that the amount of "nano thermite" necessary using the results from the Jones paper is a ridiculous amount that would have proof all over the place so you must claim that there are "variants" of the material.

Watch the jon cole video on youtube: thermate debate.

5. So you are left with some bizarre mixture of some "explosive" nano thermite.....some "slow burning" nano thermite......some thermate in some form....and who knows what else...

You do know, in the most CD, to demolish the H-beams you need at least 2 different explosives.

But you dont know, ofcourse because you have not the expertise
1) You clearly don't have even basic knowledge of how explosives work. Explosives generate gasses at speeds substantially faster than the speed of sound. This virtually guarantees that effects such as baro trauma will be felt to varying degrees by people close to the explosion.

2) Clearly you don't know how therm*te works. Therm*te generates heat, not gasses, by design. Heat alone will not "Throw" anything.

3) All papers are not equal. I'm sure in your 4th grade class you see other students get an "A" with a gold star while you struggle along with an "F" and a pointy hat sitting on a stool waiting for you in the corner.

4) The therm*te "theory" necessitates large quantities of the material by design if for no other reason than it has to be used at so many locations all at once.

5) Therm*te is not an explosive. It has never been an explosive. It is an incendiary You can go online right now and purchase it and it will be delivered to your doorstep with no questions asked. You can't do that even with the most basic types of explosive, such black gunpowder. This is because at the end of the day therm*te (nano or otherwise) is nothing more than a mixture of powdered metals with no organic components.

Clearly you have zero expertise in these matters. I do. I was a board certified Conventional Weapons Handling Supervisor responsible for safely handling and storing tons of explosives and (to a lesser degree) pyrotechnic devices every day. I held that title at two different commands for several years. You should quit while you're behind.
__________________
"Swift, silent and deadly" was a part of my job description Upon hearing me say that my friend asked me "So you're a fart?"...

About my avatar.
Sam.I.Am is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th August 2011, 12:38 PM   #2382
bill smith
Philosopher
 
bill smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
Hey Sam. Do you believe that the four-ton chunk of the building was projected 600 feet away or do you think that it's just a red herring ?
__________________
*Think WTC7 - You cannot make the four corners of a table fall together unless you cut the four legs together
*A kitchen table judgement on a world scale is enough
* To Citizens: 'There comes a time when silence is betrayal'
bill smith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th August 2011, 12:41 PM   #2383
sheeplesnshills
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,706
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
Hey Sam. Do you believe that the four-ton chunk of the building was projected 600 feet away or do you think that it's just a red herring ?

First show us that one was and then we can discuss the colour of the fish.....
sheeplesnshills is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th August 2011, 01:23 PM   #2384
Sam.I.Am
Illuminator
 
Sam.I.Am's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,627
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
Hey Sam. Do you believe that the four-ton chunk of the building was projected 600 feet away or do you think that it's just a red herring ?
Believe means that one must take it as a matter of faith or opinion that something happened exactly as described. I don't "Believe" anything in this matter. What you asked is actually a series of questions with very specific answers. My questions to you in order to try and get you to clarify your ambiguous questions, are the obvious ones.

What was the established start location of that particular piece of "The building" (I'm going to assume that you actually meant steel here, correct me if I'm wrong)? In order for it to be "600 feet away" it must have an initial starting point to be "Away" from right?

Once you answer that then the next question must be where exactly is "Away". Where was it found and what were the conditions at the surrounding location at the time of its initial discovery? Try to be as specific as possible.

Then I have to ask you how it was established that the piece in question weighed four tons? Is that just an estimate and if so who made that estimate? If that's a hard number then who weighed and logged it?

The red herring part would of course be asking me for an opinion that I cannot possibly give until I have some facts to base my opinion on.
__________________
"Swift, silent and deadly" was a part of my job description Upon hearing me say that my friend asked me "So you're a fart?"...

About my avatar.
Sam.I.Am is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th August 2011, 01:56 PM   #2385
Marokkaan
Graduate Poster
 
Marokkaan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,083
Originally Posted by Sam.I.Am View Post
1) You clearly don't have even basic knowledge of how explosives work. Explosives generate gasses at speeds substantially faster than the speed of sound. This virtually guarantees that effects such as baro trauma will be felt to varying degrees by people close to the explosion.
Are you a explosive expert?

Quote:
2) Clearly you don't know how therm*te works. Therm*te generates heat, not gasses, by design. Heat alone will not "Throw" anything
.

Are you a thermite expert?

Quote:
3) All papers are not equal. I'm sure in your 4th grade class you see other students get an "A" with a gold star while you struggle along with an "F" and a pointy hat sitting on a stool waiting for you in the corner.
Can you tell me, why highscool kids knows about freefall and they have to explain and calculate the formula, and NIST dont know this.

Quote:
4) The therm*te "theory" necessitates large quantities of the material by design if for no other reason than it has to be used at so many locations all at once.
Are you a thermite expert?

Quote:
5) Therm*te is not an explosive. It has never been an explosive. It is an incendiary You can go online right now and purchase it and it will be delivered to your doorstep with no questions asked. You can't do that even with the most basic types of explosive, such black gunpowder. This is because at the end of the day therm*te (nano or otherwise) is nothing more than a mixture of powdered metals with no organic components.
Are you a thermite expert?

Quote:
Clearly you have zero expertise in these matters. I do. I was a board certified Conventional Weapons Handling Supervisor responsible for safely handling and storing tons of explosives and (to a lesser degree) pyrotechnic devices every day. I held that title at two different commands for several years. You should quit while you're behind
LOl should i spell the word i r o n y?

If you are an expert of explosives and pyrotechnic material like nano thermite. I will eat my shoes.
Marokkaan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th August 2011, 02:12 PM   #2386
Edx
Philosopher
 
Edx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
Originally Posted by Marokkaan View Post
Are you a explosive expert?

.


He JUST told you he was an explosives expert, apparently you dont care about reading peoples posts correctly
Quote:

I was a board certified Conventional Weapons Handling Supervisor responsible for safely handling and storing tons of explosives and (to a lesser degree) pyrotechnic devices every day. I held that title at two different commands for several years.
Edx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th August 2011, 02:35 PM   #2387
triforcharity
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,961
Originally Posted by Marokkaan View Post
You do know, in the most CD, to demolish the H-beams you need at least 2 different explosives.

But you dont know, ofcourse because you have not the expertise
Most of us know that. One is called the cutter charge, and one is the kicker. The first one cuts it by superheating copper and then literally shooting it into the steel at high speed. Like, super-sonic speeds.

But, the problem with doing that, is if you didn't have the kicker charge, it would just shorten the building by 1/2". The kicker charge kicks the beam out of square, causing the beam to be able to fall.

Yeah, keep running your ignorant mouth like you know what we do know, or don't know.
triforcharity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th August 2011, 03:43 PM   #2388
Sam.I.Am
Illuminator
 
Sam.I.Am's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,627
So aside from not having anything to counter any of those points other than your own ignorance of well known facts regarding explosives and incendiary in general, especially facts available to the public at large, you doubt that I have in fact had years of experience handling conventional explosives and pyrotechnic devices?

My DD214 (with stuff that's none of your business) showing my rate (Torpedoman 1st Class (submarines)) and some of the classes I took at my last command. Submarine Torpedo Supervisor and Ammunition Administration. That is as much of my service record that I'm willing to show here.

http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/449/214lg.jpg

It's too large to put here in the thread but go ahead and take a peek...

Will you need some condiments with those shoes or will you be eating them dry?
__________________
"Swift, silent and deadly" was a part of my job description Upon hearing me say that my friend asked me "So you're a fart?"...

About my avatar.
Sam.I.Am is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th August 2011, 04:09 PM   #2389
sheeplesnshills
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,706
Originally Posted by Marokkaan View Post

If you are an expert of explosives and pyrotechnic material like nano thermite. I will eat my shoes.
I don't recall he claimed to be one, other than perhaps relative to your lamentable ignorance.

I suggest you boil the shoes for a while to soften them............
sheeplesnshills is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th August 2011, 04:55 PM   #2390
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
One encouraging thing... There are many "Likes" and almost as many "dislikes" on many of my YouTube videos. That means people on both sides are watching, by the thousands. My ideal "target audience" is people who just walked out of a Gage presentation or just watched Blueprint for Truth. If they're impressed with him and then they watch my YouTube videos, maybe they can wake up from what Richard Gage calls "the nightmare of 9/11."
chrismohr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th August 2011, 05:02 PM   #2391
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,578
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
One encouraging thing... There are many "Likes" and almost as many "dislikes" on many of my YouTube videos. That means people on both sides are watching, by the thousands. My ideal "target audience" is people who just walked out of a Gage presentation or just watched Blueprint for Truth. If they're impressed with him and then they watch my YouTube videos, maybe they can wake up from what Richard Gage calls "the nightmare of 9/11."
That sort of result is as good as you could achieve given the medium and choice of audience. Well done.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th August 2011, 11:05 PM   #2392
tfk
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,454
Originally Posted by Marokkaan View Post
Are you a explosive expert?

Are you a thermite expert?

Can you tell me, why highscool kids knows about freefall and they have to explain and calculate the formula, and NIST dont know this.

Are you a thermite expert?

Are you a thermite expert?


If you are an expert of explosives and pyrotechnic material like nano thermite. I will eat my shoes.
It truly bewilders me that you guys are wasting time interacting with anyone who would offer this pathetic caliber of "debate".

At some point, it stops being sport & turns into making fun of the handicapped kid.

PS. Enjoy the shoes, Maro. Be sure to take a walk in a dog park first. "Seasoning", don't you know.
tfk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th August 2011, 07:27 AM   #2393
Gamolon
Master Poster
 
Gamolon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,549
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
Hey Sam. Do you believe that the four-ton chunk of the building was projected 600 feet away or do you think that it's just a red herring ?
Are you saying that this four ton piece was "ejected" with force horizontally to land 600 feet away?

Do you have a photo or picture of this piece you are speaking of?
Gamolon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th August 2011, 09:31 AM   #2394
Clayton Moore
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 7,508
Originally Posted by Gamolon View Post
Are you saying that this four ton piece was "ejected" with force horizontally to land 600 feet away?

Do you have a photo or picture of this piece you are speaking of?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSApOavkHg8
Clayton Moore is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th August 2011, 09:39 AM   #2395
Gamolon
Master Poster
 
Gamolon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,549
Originally Posted by Clayton Moore View Post
So you mean to tell me that it's not possible for one of the 1300' tall perimeter walls to fall in a parabolic trajectory and have debris fall 600 feet away? It had to have been EJECTED with the force of an explosion?

I see perimeter columns peeling away like banana peels as the internal debris block descends and shears/severs the floor connections to said perimeter columns, thus pushing the perimeter sections outward.

Are you telling me that my explanation above is impossible and that it had to be explosives?

Do you see all the aluminum cladding pieces "fluttering" as they fall? Or are you telling me that those are the 4 ton pieces?
Gamolon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th August 2011, 10:04 AM   #2396
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by twinstead View Post
Marokkaan, so you are a CD expert?
Answer please Marokkan.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th August 2011, 10:06 AM   #2397
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA! USA!
Posts: 23,600
Originally Posted by Gamolon View Post
So you mean to tell me that it's not possible for one of the 1300' tall perimeter walls to fall in a parabolic trajectory and have debris fall 600 feet away? It had to have been EJECTED with the force of an explosion?
Clear visual evidence for how the perimeter walls fell "600 feet away" in this post:
Originally Posted by ref View Post
Hi! It's me, Winter Garden speaking. They elected me as the spokesperson for the entire World Financial Center (WFC) New York complex. It's ok with me. I probably know more stuff than the tall guys anyway.

Here is a map of the WFC complex
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...58597e198e.gif

Well, let's get straight to the point. The World Financial Center, which is located at the forefront of Lower Manhattan, encompasses over eight million square feet including the four unique, 34 to 51-story towers and me, the 45,000-square foot 10-story Winter Garden, all designed by architect Cesar Pelli.

Here are the four towers
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...5857436def.jpg


And here are WFC 2, 3, 4, and me the glass roofed Winter Garden
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...5857488e57.jpg


Each tower is defined by geometrically shaped copper roofs. The four towers have large floor plans, and are steel-framed structures with granite-clad curtain wall facades. The office towers house the world headquarters of international corporations, including American Express, Merrill Lynch, Dow Jones, and Deloitte. Public spaces connecting the office towers include myself and the Courtyard. We have provided venues for many notable events. The World Financial Center nowadays features over 30 specialty shops, restaurants and services.

I'm sure the others won't mind if I take a little time telling more about myself and the courtyard. I, Winter Garden, am a 10-story enclosed glass atrium structure with a glass and steel telescopic barrel vault roof, featuring an enormous indoor sanctuary with a cascading marble semicircular staircase, fashioned of Italian marble, leading to a grove of 45-foot palm trees.


http://www.internationalskeptics.com...5859819296.jpg


The Courtyard, with restaurants and bars designed to look like they occupy an outdoor courtyard, have "open-air" seating that protrudes beyond the restaurants' awnings. The perimeter of the second floor overlooks the Courtyard and hosts exhibits in a gallery space. Our facilities are a known venue for exhibitions, festivals and free performances and also have one of the largest public spaces in New York. Here is the schedule for you, ladies and gentlemen.
http://www.worldfinancialcenter.com/calendar/

Well, ok then. Enough about me, I will move on.

One World Financial Center is the southernmost office tower at the World Financial Center complex. The building consists of over one and a half million square feet of office and retail space, along with interior and exterior public amenities. Completed in 1986, this tower has 40 floors.

Two World Financial Center is a domed-topped tower, which was completed in 1987 and has 44 floors.

Three World Financial Center is the tallest of the towers and is located at the north end of the complex. Completed in 1985, this tower has 51 floors.

Four World Financial Center is the westernmost office tower. Completed in 1986, this tower has 34 floors.

There has been one sad episode during our existence. You all know what it was, so I will get straight to the point. Here is how the episode affected us.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...58574e143f.jpg

Columns from WTC 1 hit the east end of my precious Winter Garden structure, particularly the area directly adjacent to the North Bridge which used to link myself to the WTC complex. I experienced severe collapse of the eastern end framing. Several other semicircular trusses and parts of the dome were also badly damaged. The western two bays of the roof structure remained intact, but were covered with debris. Inspectors estimated that 60 percent of the roofing glass panels of my structure had collapsed. Additional structural collapse occurred on parts of the 2nd and 3rd floor framing adjacent to WFC 2 and WFC 3, the North Bridge connection extension, the ceremonial stair above the circular landing, and the 4th and 5th floors at the eastern end. Localized structural collapse occurred in various other areas of the barrel roof. I was shocked.

But I was not the only one hit. WFC 3 was the most damaged of the WFC towers. Exterior column trees from WTC 1 were found hanging from the southeast corner of WFC 3 and on the setback roof.


http://www.internationalskeptics.com...58552413ec.jpg


Debris from WTC 1 caused a collapse of the top 8 stories of the 10-story octagonal extension located at the southeast side of the building. The main WFC 3 building suffered damage from floors 17 to 26. At floors 17 through 26, the corner column had been removed by the impact of debris, and the floors cantilevered from adjacent columns to the north and west. Smaller column debris penetrated floor 17. The damage did not extend past the corner bay, which had to be shored and was later demolished.

WFC 3 interior damage
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...5855288866.jpg


WFC 1 & 2 suffered glazing and façade damage. Debris and dust penetrated WFC 2 at several levels. WFC 4 was the only undamaged building.

The collapse of the twin towers closed the WFC buildings for several months, and myself for a year. The atrium underwent a $50 million reconstruction, which included replacing 60,000 square feet of marble and 2,000 panes of glass or nearly 70% of the arched ceiling, half of the grand staircase and the marble flooring, and all 16 of the 40-foot Washingtonia robusta palm trees. A new eastern entrance was built where there formerly had been a pedestrian bridge (North Bridge) to the World Trade Center. I was the first major building damaged in the attacks to be completely restored. The original architect, Cesar Pelli, and his son Rafael of Cesar Pelli & Associates designed the reconstructed facility.

That's about it, really. I'm not much of a speaker, but I always get these little engagements. But it wasn't all too bad. You're nice folks. Maybe if I told more about the marble? Ok, fine.

One more detail. Look at those photos, and see how many windows are still intact. If there were powerful explosives used so close to us, most of those still intact windows would have been broken to pieces. A small but important detail and useful if someone makes silly accusations.


Earlier stories:
90 West Street
130 Cedar Street
30 West Broadway aka Fiterman Hall
or
http://911guide.googlepages.com/damages


World Financial Center related links:
http://www.worldfinancialcenter.com/
http://nymag.com/listings/attraction/world_financial_center/
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch7.pdf
http://newyork.construction.com/projects/02_TopForty/02_TopProjects35_WinterGardenRestoration.asp
carlitos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th August 2011, 10:19 AM   #2398
alienentity
Illuminator
 
alienentity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,325
Originally Posted by Clayton Moore View Post
Chandler is as clueless (and manipulative) as Judy Wood when it comes to interpreting the collapses. I'm saddened that you would reference one of his videos as some kind of evidence of anything....

However, pictures of the famous pieces of steel embedded in buildings (and thus claimed to be explosively 'ejected' by truthers) also show that the rest of the tower also landed there.
ie the towers FELL directly on those spots. Why wouldn't pieces of steel be there as well??!?

Here's an example:


This is not a hi-res pic, but shows the pieces of steel embedded fairly high up an office tower. Below you can see the huge amount of tower debris which fell onto the Winter Garden.



Below is the image from AE911Truth's presentation of the same damage. You can see that some of the tower debris has already been cleared to make way for equipment, but the AE911Truth hypothesis completely ignores the fact that a huge portion of the tower fell directly on this area. This is supposed to be 'ejection'??? It's clueless.
__________________
Heiwa - 'Anyone suggesting that part C structure can one-way crush down part A structure is complicit to mass murder!'
000063 - 'Problem with the Truthers' theories is that anyone with enough power to pull it off doesn't need to in the first place.'
mrkinnies 'I'm not a no-planer' 'I don't believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon'

Last edited by alienentity; 30th August 2011 at 10:26 AM.
alienentity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th August 2011, 10:43 AM   #2399
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Donating to JREF

Hi all,

I just got a request to donate to JREF, and considering all the work they do to keep all these incredible threads open, how can I refuse? My church has agreed to make a donation, one of a very few they will get this year from a church I would think!
chrismohr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th August 2011, 10:50 AM   #2400
sheeplesnshills
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,706
deleted

Last edited by sheeplesnshills; 30th August 2011 at 10:54 AM. Reason: already debunked
sheeplesnshills is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:06 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.