9/11 - The Great Nose In Nose Out Hoax

Discussion of the most controversial 9/11 theories. Evidenced discussions over whether particular individuals are genuine 9/11 Truthers or moles and/or shills and other personal issues.

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
chek
Mega Poster
Mega Poster
Posts: 3889
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 2:52 pm
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

Post by chek »

fish5133 wrote:In relation to the collapse of the WTCs at what point would the cars in the parking lot have been affected by this "electromagnetic energy"
I ask this as I havent come across any eyewitness testimony of cars in car parks melting. I think it would have been fairly noticeable if the engine block of a car suddenly melted in front of you.
Obviously if it was happening as the tower collapsed then I can understand people wouldnt have been hanging around to watch a car engine block melting.
As far as I can tell, the reports of engine blocks melting on closer examination seems to break down from photographs to either the plastic components of engines being melted, or the illustrated 'missing' front mounted engines from vehicles which actually have rear mounted engines.

As for the 'toasted cars' themselves, where they originated from and where they were actually photographed in their burnt state, seems to be a very grey area. Jones has recently had unignited thermite confirmed independently as a component of the WTC dustclouds.
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=13734

Which doesn't stop the Wood Faction from groundlessly claiming all sorts.
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.

It's them or us.
User avatar
utopiated
Validated Poster
Validated Poster
Posts: 646
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2006 7:13 pm
Location: UK Midlands
Contact:

Post by utopiated »

John White wrote: My only concern with my role as admin is members behaviour to each other, not their views
[Cough! Splutter!]


Whoops... got something caught in my throat... teach me to not masticate enough each day.

:?
User avatar
utopiated
Validated Poster
Validated Poster
Posts: 646
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2006 7:13 pm
Location: UK Midlands
Contact:

Post by utopiated »

fish5133 wrote:In relation to the collapse of the WTCs at what point would the cars in the parking lot have been affected by this "electromagnetic energy"
I ask this as I havent come across any eyewitness testimony of cars in car parks melting. I think it would have been fairly noticeable if the engine block of a car suddenly melted in front of you.
Obviously if it was happening as the tower collapsed then I can understand people wouldnt have been hanging around to watch a car engine block melting.
I really don't think people were hanging about checking the weird car damage on the day under discussion...

The black ops boys were opping and Joe Public were thinking the world was ending.

Your logic is off here anyway - the engine blocks and other car body parts *were* melted in non-conventional ways - it's not a matter of "if".
User avatar
chek
Mega Poster
Mega Poster
Posts: 3889
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 2:52 pm
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

Post by chek »

utopiated wrote: Your logic is off here anyway - the engine blocks and other car body parts *were* melted in non-conventional ways - it's not a matter of "if".
There is no evidence of that insinuation that engine blocks were melted anywhere, although plastic body fittings certainly were - so where does that assertion originate from?
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.

It's them or us.
Micpsi
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster
Posts: 504
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 2:35 pm

Post by Micpsi »

chek wrote: As far as I can tell, the reports of engine blocks melting on closer examination seems to break down from photographs to either the plastic components of engines being melted, or the illustrated 'missing' front mounted engines from vehicles which actually have rear mounted engines.

As for the 'toasted cars' themselves, where they originated from and where they were actually photographed in their burnt state, seems to be a very grey area. Jones has recently had unignited thermite confirmed independently as a component of the WTC dustclouds.
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=13734

Which doesn't stop the Wood Faction from groundlessly claiming all sorts.
Of course it doesn't! Why should they accept Jones' word for it? In fact, why do you? How do you know the so-called 'confirmation' really was independent, as the analysis was done by a lab that Jones chose, not by a neutral party? Relying uncritically on faith and trust in the honesty of someone who has a vested interest in a controversial issue is not - I repeat - not how science is done, let me tell you. Moreover, it is very unwise when there is so much disinformation and deception going around in the 9/11 truth community. Scientists do not accept the claims of other scientists simply on their reputation or say-so.

So, stop accepting uncritically the claims of Jones as though he were an infallible Pope whom everyone should trust. You do so, it seems, because you believe his claim of thermate being used on 9/11, despite his evidence for its presence at the WTC having been debunked by Professor Fetzer:
http://67.15.255.19/~c911sch1/images/pr ... tioned.pdf
myself:
http://drjudywood.com/articles/a/Philli ... jones.html
and others:
http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm
and despite now the hypothesis even being redundant as an explanation of the molten metal pouring out of the 81st floor of the South Tower, because the more natural explanation favoured by Occam's Razor is that it was molten lead from banks of batteries stored by Fuji Bank on the very floor hit by Flight 175:
http://iamthewitness.com/Bollyn/Bollyn-Fuji-WTC.html

So, let Jones' samples be analysed by a lab appointed by a neutral party, not chosen by himself, and then let's see whether his interpretations and weak arguments against the possibility of contamination by sulphur from gypsum in burning wall board stand up to peer review by this new work (and his own, for that matter) being published by an academic journal instead of by his own self-serving, Micky Mouse journal - something he has conspicuously failed to achieve. The reason why Jones can get away with making unscientific, uncorroborated claims, based upon detection of elements which were found by scientists long before he appeared on the scene:
http://www.ehponline.org/members/2002/1 ... -full.html
but who found no scientific need to resort to his headline-grabbing claim of thermate is that there are few professional scientists in the 9/11 truth community willing to enter this controversial field and challenge his misconceived and uncorroborated findings lest it causes problems for their careers. You accuse the no-planers of being like sheep who accept naively and without discrimination any new, cobbled-together piece of video nonsense. I suggest you are doing the same in your uncritical acceptance of whatever Jones says. Science proceeds not on the trust of people's claims but on the truly independent replication and corroboration of their findings. Anything less than that standard becomes religion, which is what much of 9/11 research is becoming.

Finally, if you are willing to accept the words of a man who says he has found evidence of Jesus roaming America after his resurrection but is too brain-washed as a Mormon to realise his errors, fine. But then don't expect us to take your assertions seriously because I, for one, won't. It is partly why some of us have a really hard time taking seriously anything Jones says. After all, if he can make such scientific howlers in misinterpreting things, where does it end?!
User avatar
utopiated
Validated Poster
Validated Poster
Posts: 646
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2006 7:13 pm
Location: UK Midlands
Contact:

Post by utopiated »

Are you Phillip Stevens?? Micpsi??
You accuse the no-planers of being like sheep who accept naively and without discrimination any new, cobbled-together piece of video nonsense. I suggest you are doing the same in your uncritical acceptance of whatever Jones says. Science proceeds not on the trust of people's claims but on the truly independent replication and corroboration of their findings. Anything less than that standard becomes religion, which is what much of 9/11 research is becoming.
Well stated. The same for this rapid addition to the hi-grade imported substance "Jones" which some people are finding hard to withdraw from.

Anyway - this topic is dead really - the thermate only theory has more holes than the WTC complex had in 2001.

<Edit> I've just realised. Chek and the usual suspects haven't come back to respond within 23 hours!? This is a first and I hereby declare the death of the thermate-only theory now it's lost its core UK supporters.

:P
marky 54
Mega Poster
Mega Poster
Posts: 3293
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 7:57 am

Post by marky 54 »

the theorys surrounding cars are full of errors and assumptions. they try to pull the wool over your eyes and you fall for it.

there may well be a small portion of cars or 1 or 2 that are mysterious, but the vast majority are being used as evidence for something when debris falling on them and causing fire explain it, especially if they were in underground garages effected by fire and collapse. and the car one mile away claim is also misleading. especially when it is known cars were towed away from ground zero. where do you think they put them? in available spaces around new york would'nt be suprising.

no point telling others though, they don't want to listen, they don't want to look for that evidence. make your own mistakes and errors, but you cannot say you had no idea it may of been otherwise, you just could'nt bare to look or accept the vast majority of evidence where cars are concerned is misleading.

so i'll provide some information, why don't you go and check for yourselves if it is true.

http://www.thecarconnection.com/?article=4416
User avatar
utopiated
Validated Poster
Validated Poster
Posts: 646
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2006 7:13 pm
Location: UK Midlands
Contact:

Post by utopiated »

You're wrong on the car front. Most of the images used by Judy Wood and Ted [the Ex Nasa guy] Wotsit had not been moved before those images were taken.

Take for example this image:

Image

..you think a fork-lift placed all those cars nicely in rows like that given the time-scale they had on clear up?

This notion that the sort of damage we see to cars alone [forgetting the other artifacts] was caused by the [non-existant] heavy debris is just plain silly.

Anyway - the end-point of this thread isn't so much to discuss the minutia of evidence elements - it was to highlight the point that the thermate only theory is fatally flawed yet on this forum we have [or had] a dominating group of persons, including moderators, who refused to accept other alternatives.

It's all OK - you don't have to create this solid identity around 9/11 theories. Far better to be open to everything at this point. So many movements got screwed up by dogmatism in the past. We need to learn.

That's me done on this one.
marky 54
Mega Poster
Mega Poster
Posts: 3293
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 7:57 am

Post by marky 54 »

..you think a fork-lift placed all those cars nicely in rows like that given the time-scale they had on clear up?
no not by a forklift, by a tow truck. time scale means nothing when you have hundreds of people volenteering to help and taking it in turns night and day. you make it sound like they only had a small workforce.

the point is there is information about cars being towed away and put in remote lots ready for owners to pick up or claim, something which was rubbished when i used simple logic with no information to back it up, well now ive found some information to confirm what i was saying. did you confirm this is untrue or confirm where they towed those cars to before jumping to conclusions about which cars are in question?

the dust around the cars and paper, only show they were not put there recently when the photo was taken. do you have a date for the photo that can be confirmed? the dust took weeks to settle and paper was everwhere and is easily blown about by wind or passing traffic etc.
User avatar
utopiated
Validated Poster
Validated Poster
Posts: 646
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2006 7:13 pm
Location: UK Midlands
Contact:

Post by utopiated »

There would be track marks from the wheels of the things used [fork lifts, trucks whatever...] to shift the vehicles. There are none.
User avatar
John White
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 3185
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2006 5:25 am
Location: Here to help!

Post by John White »

Anyway - this topic is dead really - the thermate only theory has more holes than the WTC complex had in 2001
This is a Lie

There never has been a "thermate only" theory from Steve Jones: that only exists as a smear campaign fronted by people like Wood

It has always been thermate as a precursor to explosives:

What should be dead on this thread is the parroting of deliberate misinformation
Free your Self and Free the World
User avatar
chek
Mega Poster
Mega Poster
Posts: 3889
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 2:52 pm
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

Post by chek »

utopiated wrote:<Edit> I've just realised. Chek and the usual suspects haven't come back to respond within 23 hours!?
I've still to read the links - which is a chore I'm delaying having read through the Fetzer one. Fetzer (not being a scientist) seems to be of the opinion that if you threw lorryloads of flour, eggs, milk and sugar down a burning liftshaft at the WTC you would find spongecake at the bottom.
I expect the other links to be equally tedious and fallacious hence the delay in getting round to them.
utopiated wrote:[This is a first and I hereby declare the death of the thermate-only theory now it's lost its core UK supporters. :P
As has already been pointed out, there never was a thermate-only theory, but straw man invention is typical of the Wood faction's disinformation tactics.
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.

It's them or us.
User avatar
gruts
Major Poster
Major Poster
Posts: 1048
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2007 8:43 pm

Post by gruts »

John White wrote:What should be dead on this thread is the parroting of deliberate misinformation
but then they'd have nothing to say....

tbh I'm quite missing the debates we used to have here in "9/11 controversies". trying to reason with holocaust deniers and putin-bootlickers isn't nearly as entertaining. :cry:
marky 54
Mega Poster
Mega Poster
Posts: 3293
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 7:57 am

Post by marky 54 »

utopiated wrote:There would be track marks from the wheels of the things used [fork lifts, trucks whatever...] to shift the vehicles. There are none.
what when dust settled on the floors for days and days after the event?, oh i see you think all the dust settled instantly and all at once on the day of 9/11?

why are you unable to grasp the following scenerio? putting cars in remote lots which then have dust settling around them or collecting from being blown around, and paper blowing about over time?

do you have a date for the photo? do you have a date for any photo? a date that can be confirmed? was it took 1 day or 3 months after 9/11?

the only reason you expect track marks is because you have'nt thought it through and your repeating what you have been told by judy wood.

i wouldnt expect to see track marks if i drove over snow and then the next day it snowed. if my tracks disappear does that prove i could'nt of been there?

infact there appears to be a darker area of dust, it looks compacted and seems to of created a crust due to cars driving over and over the same spots and compacting the dust to create a darker brown crust.
marky 54
Mega Poster
Mega Poster
Posts: 3293
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 7:57 am

Post by marky 54 »

i could'nt be bothered to do this before to explain my point in my last post on this thread. i have no idea how to imbed from my picture folder so i'll have to add attachments.

first of all no dust build up on the cars. so was they always placed in that spot? or were they moved to those spots?

see attachment.
Attachments
meltdd.jpg
marky 54
Mega Poster
Mega Poster
Posts: 3293
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 7:57 am

Post by marky 54 »

next, the floor shows signs of having something move over it, due to compacted dust debris.

see attachment
Attachments
123.jpg
marky 54
Mega Poster
Mega Poster
Posts: 3293
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 7:57 am

Post by marky 54 »

and the dust seems to of collected up against one side of the cars on the floor rather than on the bonnet, roof etc. this is simply dust carried by wind or blown about by near by traffic.

one car shields the other yet the sheilded car has the same amount of dust gathered up along the bottom edge, indicating one car was placed there before another.

see attachment.

and if any of this is wrong, point out why. this is just how i see it.
Attachments
124.jpg
User avatar
utopiated
Validated Poster
Validated Poster
Posts: 646
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2006 7:13 pm
Location: UK Midlands
Contact:

Post by utopiated »

Marky54

I can't do the dust argument without having a specimen car that we know has been recently moved into a set area for comparison.

The point is, we don't even need to go there - youe idea of mass movement of cars via fork-lift or pick-up is not supported by the images of the time. We'd see shots with cars on the back of trucks/lifts in the first few days and I've not seen any. I'm sure there are loads from event + several days but not in the immediate time frame.
chek wrote: As has already been pointed out, there never was a thermate-only theory, but straw man invention is typical of the Wood faction's disinformation tactics.
But you yourself Chek has said it was thermate combined with loads and loads of high explosive.

We'd see far more conventional fire and blast damage if this was the case and the images simply do not reflect this.

The thrust of this centres around Jones' "holey" [in pun there] and claimed "peer reviewed" evidence collection - which is the basis for the collective parroting and neutralising of debate historically on this and other platforms - outside of that evidence pool.

Anyway, John's here bringing this dark wizard like sense of foreboding so I'm off.

Be careful with that wand Eugene.

:shock: :shock: :shock:
marky 54
Mega Poster
Mega Poster
Posts: 3293
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 7:57 am

Post by marky 54 »

Marky54

I can't do the dust argument without having a specimen car that we know has been recently moved into a set area for comparison.

The point is, we don't even need to go there - youe idea of mass movement of cars via fork-lift or pick-up is not supported by the images of the time. We'd see shots with cars on the back of trucks/lifts in the first few days and I've not seen any. I'm sure there are loads from event + several days but not in the immediate time frame.
but you have failed to provide a date for the photo that can be proven. dust was around for months depending on the area, so were tow trucks.

no date saying when the photo was talken. why should i assume it was taken in the immediate days after 9/11?
User avatar
chek
Mega Poster
Mega Poster
Posts: 3889
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 2:52 pm
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

Post by chek »

utopiated wrote:Marky54
I can't do the dust argument without having a specimen car that we know has been recently moved into a set area for comparison.
The point is, we don't even need to go there - youe idea of mass movement of cars via fork-lift or pick-up is not supported by the images of the time. We'd see shots with cars on the back of trucks/lifts in the first few days and I've not seen any.
Which is very different to saying that it didn't happen, which is all your implication is based on. As they say, absence of evidence etc.
chek wrote: As has already been pointed out, there never was a thermate-only theory, but straw man invention is typical of the Wood faction's disinformation tactics.
utopiated wrote:But you yourself Chek has said it was thermate combined with loads and loads of high explosive.
Well quite - which patently isn't a 'thermate only' theory in any way, shape or form.
utopiated wrote:We'd see far more conventional fire and blast damage if this was the case and the images simply do not reflect this.
They don't? I tend to think that they do.
Image
To me, that photo above looks like a building being blown out to twice its area rather than it's internal steel supports turning to jelly or whatever. Explosives would seem to fit the bill quite well.
Image
Here we can see outer column assemblies (and if examined closely it can be seen that they are columns, not 'cladding' - another Wood faction disinfo campaign) hurled into the Bankers Trust Building. And below, blown 400 feet away into the World Financial Centre. It takes quite a lot of energy to move a multi-ton structure and spear it into a building at that distance. Not much evidence of "disappearing' or 'jellification' or 'dustification' or whatever this week's old toss of a story is. Once again, explosives would seem to be the most fitting culprit.
Image
utopiated wrote:The thrust of this centres around Jones' "holey" [in pun there] and claimed "peer reviewed" evidence collection - which is the basis for the collective parroting and neutralising of debate historically on this and other platforms - outside of that evidence pool.
Jones' analysis by far outweighs the Wood/Johnson 'ooooh spoooky' analysis, both in terms of plausibilty and matching the available data - only in my opinion, of course.
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.

It's them or us.
User avatar
utopiated
Validated Poster
Validated Poster
Posts: 646
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2006 7:13 pm
Location: UK Midlands
Contact:

Post by utopiated »

This is a good image - not seen one so clear...

Image

To get all of those chekkers shaped beams to do that ALL THE WAY down the vast towers would need thermate shape charges patched cosily on every foot of beam.

You're talking truck loads of material.

...and either way - flying/embedded chekkerboards or not, you still have to make a huge logic leap to the most definate UNCONVENTIONAL damage in the surrounding area to the WTC complex. An explosion may throw a beam but it doesn't cause the anomalies we see half a mile from the core action.
User avatar
chek
Mega Poster
Mega Poster
Posts: 3889
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 2:52 pm
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

Post by chek »

utopiated wrote:This is a good image - not seen one so clear...

Image

To get all of those chekkers shaped beams to do that ALL THE WAY down the vast towers would need thermate shape charges patched cosily on every foot of beam.
I don't suppose there's any evidence basis for that claim, other than of the 'it stands to reason' variety? I only ask because anecdotally I've heard that needn't be the case.
utopiated wrote:You're talking truck loads of material..
Funnily enough, if you're familiar with Gordon Ross's analysis, that's exactly what the freight elevators in the core were carrying.
utopiated wrote:...and either way - flying/embedded chekkerboards or not, you still have to make a huge logic leap to the most definate UNCONVENTIONAL damage in the surrounding area to the WTC complex. An explosion may throw a beam but it doesn't cause the anomalies we see half a mile from the core action.
We're not back to those 'toasted cars' (what is it with Wood and these quaint homely sounding descriptives) being burned and corroded in situ again are we? Otherwise you'll need to be less vague and mysterious to examine what phenomena exactly you're referring to.
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.

It's them or us.
User avatar
fish5133
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 2569
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2006 1:06 am
Location: One breath from Glory

Post by fish5133 »

Image
..you think a fork-lift placed all those cars nicely in rows like that given the time-scale they had on clear up?
Just an observation. no conclusions. All the cars against the fence are facing the same direction. If this was a car park I would have expected some drivers not to have bothered to take the time to reverse neatly into the space.
JO911B.
"for we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against principalities, against powers, against rulers of the darkness of this world, against wicked spirits in high places " Eph.6 v 12
sam
Wrecker
Wrecker
Posts: 343
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 10:09 pm

Post by sam »

chek wrote: To me, that photo above looks like a building being blown out to twice its area rather than it's internal steel supports turning to jelly or whatever. Explosives would seem to fit the bill quite well.
Given that these "explosions" of yours originated in the area where the aircraft impacted :

Can you name one explosive - and its typical detonation system - that would survice aircraft impact and the ensuing fires? You know - actually name the explosive, like "RDX" or whatever.
User avatar
chek
Mega Poster
Mega Poster
Posts: 3889
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 2:52 pm
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

Post by chek »

sam wrote:
chek wrote: To me, that photo above looks like a building being blown out to twice its area rather than it's internal steel supports turning to jelly or whatever. Explosives would seem to fit the bill quite well.
Given that these "explosions" of yours originated in the area where the aircraft impacted :

Can you name one explosive - and its typical detonation system - that would survice aircraft impact and the ensuing fires? You know - actually name the explosive, like "RDX" or whatever.
Equally, given that the explosions may not have originated in the actual crash zone, and that survivors were seen to have withstood the impact fires on those floors, then this handy product may fit the bill:

"HNS
Owing to its stability at high temperature and its excellent performance, HNS is used in perforating charges for completion of very hot oil & gas wells; HNS can withstand temperatures around 250-300°C for short times. A special quality coated with an high temperature resistant polymer is also produced. This quality is of interest for its improved flow characteristics and the improved mechanical stability for the charges.

DADNPO
The new high explosive DADNPO can tolerate about 40°C higher temperatures than HNS with the same degree of degradation. This means that this explosive can be used in hotter wells than HNS. EURENCO can provide sample quantities of this compound through small-scale production.

http://www.eurenco.com/en/high_explosiv ... sives.html

Note that NIST's paint deformation tests found that to be about the highest temperature they found evidence for, and also that I'm not overjoyed researching "explosives" even on the internet in our current post-911 Orwell theme park of a world. So given that the brand above is a commercially available product, let's also take it as a given that there are high explosives available, heat resistant to three or even four hundred degrees C.

Now, understanding your scepticism, can you suggest some other mechanism that might explain for instance the line of bright flashes and light grey smoke that immediately precedes initiation of collapse?

There are innumerable videos available, but also a sequence of stills at Gordon Ross' site which illustrate the event.
http://gordonssite.com/index.html
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.

It's them or us.
Micpsi
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster
Posts: 504
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 2:35 pm

Post by Micpsi »

Why does anyone still want to persist in believing that both high-explosives and thermate were used on 9/11, when the former could have done the job of demolition on its own and when there is no hard evidence (just distinctly dodgy interpretations) that the latter was used? The notion that thermate was used to cut the columns to size so that they would fit trucks is a silly, old chestnut, in view of the photographic evidence that such cutting by oxyacetylene torches and oxygen cutters was actually going on at Ground Zero. Also, let's remember the original reason why Steven Jones hypothesized that thermite/thermate was used together with explosives to destroy the twin towers. He interpreted the molten metal pouring out of the corner of the 81st floor of the South Tower as iron, which had to have been heated by thermite/thermate. However, the more natural explanation is that it was lead from the batteries housed by Fuji Bank on that floor, according to what an ex-employee of that bank told Christopher Bollyn:
http://iamthewitness.com/Bollyn/Bollyn-Fuji-WTC.html
This individual, Stanley Praimnath
http://iamthewitness.com/Bollyn/Bollyn- ... mnath.html
website:
http://stanleypraimnath.com/1.htm
says that Fuji Bank had a large computer room (estimated 40' x 40') with an adjacent UPS backup power room along the south side of the 81st floor. According to Praimnath, the computer room is exactly where the nose of the plane entered the tower. Praimnath's office was located at the corner of the building near the arrow showing North:
http://www.usatoday.com/graphics/news/g ... /frame.htm
The airplane crashed into the east side of the tower, where the computers and backup batteries were located. It is now reasonably clear (if not certain) that the molten metal was lead, not iron, which means that Jones' hypothesis is redundant. This in turn means that the molten metal leaking from the South Tower cannot be regarded as evidence that thermite/thermate was used to destroy the towers, as it is no longer needed to explain why the metal was in a molten state.

Another reason why supporters of Jones' redundant hypothesis still cling to it is that they point towards all the anecedotal reports of pools of molten metal that persisted for weeks during the clean-up of the WTC. They argue that only thermite/thermate could provide the source of heating of iron debris. But is this true? Would not all the unused material have been expended long before this time elapsed?! Perhaps, instead, some (if not all) of the pools were created by molten slag accumulating from the use of oxygen cutters to cut down still standing steel columns and slice them to a convenient size for transport away? Here is photographic evidence debunking the claim that steel columns with angled cuts are evidence of thermite charges being used:
http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm
http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/0 ... ermal.html
Here is photographic evidence that pools of molten metal were formed by slag dripping from girders cut by oxygen cutters:
http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/1 ... imple.html
As there is no photographic evidence of the pools mentioned in the anecdotal reports that indicates they could not have been created by the clean-up workers themselves, it is perfectly plausible that these pools were merely caused by molten metal from the steel cutting operations carried out all over the site running down into holes, the pools being fed and maintained in a hot state for the weeks and months this clean-up operation persisted. We don't need thermite/thermate/nukes/exotic weapons to explain such pools.

These reports and the molten metal that poured out of the South Tower shortly before it fell do not constitute unambiguous evidence for the use of thermite/thermate. Instead, they have a more plausible, down-to-earth explanation.

Finally, Jones' claim that his lab analysis of dust samples shows the signature of elements found in thermate is pure spin. These elements were detected in the atmosphere and in dust shortly after 9/11
http://www.ehponline.org/members/2003/5930/5930.html
and have a conventional explanation in terms of the burning of gypsum in the wall-board used in the towers. His latest claim that another lab has detected unused thermate is similar spin. When someone such as Jones seriously asks why elements like chromium, magnesium, manganese, aluminium and barium should have been found at Ground Zero and is blissfully ignorant of the fact that these elements are used in building materials, e.g., barium is used in the coating of filaments inside fluorescent lights:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barium
one has to take his uncorroborated claims and inaccurate statements with a huge pinch of salt. Not all professors of physics are good scientists.

9/11 truthers ask believers in the official story of 9/11 to question their beliefs, however hard this may be. Perhaps they should look to themselves, for some of them, too, find it hard to give up their cherished beliefs in equally mythical accounts of what really happened on 9/11. They, too, prefer to believe in their own false scenarios, rather than accept that sometimes photographic or video evidence can have down-to-earth explanations that do not require conspiracy, merely additional information plus a little intelligence that does not jump easily to false conclusions.
User avatar
John White
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 3185
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2006 5:25 am
Location: Here to help!

Post by John White »

utopiated wrote:This is a good image - not seen one so clear...

Image

To get all of those chekkers shaped beams to do that ALL THE WAY down the vast towers would need thermate shape charges patched cosily on every foot of beam.

You're talking truck loads of material.

...and either way - flying/embedded chekkerboards or not, you still have to make a huge logic leap to the most definate UNCONVENTIONAL damage in the surrounding area to the WTC complex. An explosion may throw a beam but it doesn't cause the anomalies we see half a mile from the core action.
What is it with you that you simply can't get that Jones theory has always been thermite AND explosives

So how does a photograph indicating explosives refute that?

Is it simply becuase it means you would have to concede, both to us and to yourself, that you are parroting stuff without realising you are being lied to?

Whats your motivation mate?

Wheres the Truth, huh?
Free your Self and Free the World
sam
Wrecker
Wrecker
Posts: 343
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 10:09 pm

Post by sam »

chek wrote: Equally, given that the explosions may not have originated in the actual crash zone, and that survivors were seen to have withstood the impact fires on those floors, then this handy product may fit the bill:

"HNS
Owing to its stability at high temperature and its excellent performance, HNS is used in perforating charges for completion of very hot oil & gas wells; HNS can withstand temperatures around 250-300°C for short times. A special quality coated with an high temperature resistant polymer is also produced. This quality is of interest for its improved flow characteristics and the improved mechanical stability for the charges.

DADNPO
The new high explosive DADNPO can tolerate about 40°C higher temperatures than HNS with the same degree of degradation. This means that this explosive can be used in hotter wells than HNS. EURENCO can provide sample quantities of this compound through small-scale production.

http://www.eurenco.com/en/high_explosiv ... sives.html

Note that NIST's paint deformation tests found that to be about the highest temperature they found evidence for, and also that I'm not overjoyed researching "explosives" even on the internet in our current post-911 Orwell theme park of a world. So given that the brand above is a commercially available product, let's also take it as a given that there are high explosives available, heat resistant to three or even four hundred degrees C.

Now, understanding your scepticism, can you suggest some other mechanism that might explain for instance the line of bright flashes and light grey smoke that immediately precedes initiation of collapse?

There are innumerable videos available, but also a sequence of stills at Gordon Ross' site which illustrate the event.
http://gordonssite.com/index.html
Despite a number of requests for clarification of the forum posting rules I'm still somewhat in the dark about whether I should be responding here (Bushwacker was banned for posting 'out of place' but that seemed related to his denial of the need for a re-investigation. I, on the other hand, would welcome a re-investigation as long as the "Truth" movement pays for it. But I'm definitely a '9/11 "Truth" critic' in this forum's terms..)

Anyhow - to play safe - I'll reply over at "our place" ... Critic's Corner.
Damn nuisance, as I have to start a whole new thread just to address your points :(
Cryin' won't help you, prayin' won't do you no good.
Stefan
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1220
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2006 10:52 am

Post by Stefan »

Why does anyone still want to persist in believing that both high-explosives and thermate were used on 9/11, when the former could have done the job of demolition on its own and when there is no hard evidence (just distinctly dodgy interpretations) that the latter was used?
The temperatures recorded on the surface of debris at ground zero suggest something very hot beneath, and the multiple and credible reports of molten metal below the three skyscrapers' debris seem to allude to just what was creating that heat. Something similar to thermate seems to fit the bill. Some of Dr Jones studies on the dust and molten iron remnants seem to add further weight to the idea.

In Gordon Ross' theory, which I believe is a very well worked out one which matches all the empirical evidence available, we have powerful explosive devices placed at the welds of the corner (strongest) core column assemblies - these occurred every three floors - and indeed we see the building is blown apart three floors at a time.

So why the Thermate-like-substance? Gordon Ross shows that the direction force of these eposives would have destroyed the perimiter columns and the outer circle of core core columns but not the heavy duty corner sections, or the weaker inner two rows or core columns.

And what do we see regarding these two elements of the structure?

We see that the corner sections were not involved in the collapse front and were left behind somewhat - then break apart in bigger sections behind the front. This has led Ross to comment that they were attacked with an incendiary substance which would have had no problem breaking apart the thick, thick steel they were made of, which the explosives could not have done. As for frequency - I always forget what he speculates - I think it was every 10 floors where they were welded - check the WAC UK Radio interview with Ross which you can find on the WAC UK website to be sure.

I personally speculate that these were meant to be set off by the collapse front itself - that's just me - and the molten metal we see pouring from the South Tower was accidental and caused by the plane hitting off centre, meaning they had to detonate the second tower hit first in a change of plan.

As for the centre core columns - well again the evidence matches Ross' theory - most conspicuously with the North Tower but also on closer inspection with the South Tower the central core columns in the lower section of the towers fall last.

Now I'm not saying Gordon Ross is 100% right - but unlike Woods and Co he has offered a completly plausible collapse scenario that actually matches all the evidence we have.

There has, as of yet, been no attempt to explain exactly how a DEW would create the collapse we saw - that doesn't seem important to Woods - instead the diciples harp on about "toasted cars" and "disappearing steel" as the central components of their case - both of which are flimsy and in the latter case completly untrue.
Image

Peace and Truth
Micpsi
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster
Posts: 504
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 2:35 pm

Post by Micpsi »

Stefan wrote:
Why does anyone still want to persist in believing that both high-explosives and thermate were used on 9/11, when the former could have done the job of demolition on its own and when there is no hard evidence (just distinctly dodgy interpretations) that the latter was used?
The temperatures recorded on the surface of debris at ground zero suggest something very hot beneath, and the multiple and credible reports of molten metal below the three skyscrapers' debris seem to allude to just what was creating that heat. Something similar to thermate seems to fit the bill. Some of Dr Jones studies on the dust and molten iron remnants seem to add further weight to the idea.
Only if you believe him. I don't. He has misinterpreted the implications of his data because he needs to find support for his thermite hypothesis and therefore made an ad hoc interpretation of what he wanted his data to prove. No other scientist has replicated and corroborated his 'findings'. Therefore, they are unsupported. Why do you accept unsupported claims? No one in the scientific community would! But I guess the 9/11 truth movement is not a scientific community (sigh!). People believe because they want to believe, not because there is any objective evidence provided by people independent of Jones. All he has found are iron spherules created by the blasting of steel girders, the very high temperatures very briefly caused by the high-explosives causing the fine particles to melt, absorb contaminant elements in the air, such as sulphur from the sulphur dioxide released by burning gypsum, then to cool and solidify, trapping the elements in the solid metal. The thermate explanation is refuted at:
http://drjudywood.com/articles/a/Philli ... jones.html

As for the hot spots, why should they have been caused only by thermate? There are a host of other possibilities. The notion of thermate being used by the plotters is nonsensical, as far as I am concerned. Why would there be thermate UNDERGROUND, when according to Jones, it was needed to weaken the skyscrapers ABOVE the ground!!! They did not need to use it. And why was molten metal found under WTC7? Because of thermate? Why would it be needed in a controlled demolition? Again, people invoke something whose purpose was unnecessary to the task. And just because they rely on the hypothesis of a second-rate scientist that has outlived its usefulness! Amazing!

The truth is, some of you people have - without an iota of real evidence - latched onto just one explanation (and a relatively improbable one) of the hot spots that originated in the problem of the molten metal pouring out of the South Tower. This explanation became an article of faith for 9/11 truthers that they are now loath to recant, even when evidence is presented to them that discredits Jones' original motivation for making the hypothesis! LOL! The molten metal was not iron but lead from racks of batteries housed on the very floor hit by the plane, as we now know from Christopher Bollyn's interview with an employee of Fuji Bank, which occupied the 89th-92nd floors of the South Tower. Do you really believe that was mere coincidence? Do you still believe in improbable miracles of chance, just on the authority of a single scientist who happens also to believe that he has found evidence of Jesus walking in America after he was resurrected? (sigh!)
Post Reply