9/11 Conspiracy Theorists still subjected to ridicule

a reply to: skyeagle409

Let's just say their comments about molten steel are inaccurate.

Lets just say your "opinions" are inaccurate.

a reply to: Informer1958

That is your "opinion"

It is a fact. I have seen molten aluminum before after aircraft accidents and the molten flow from WTC2 is indicative of molten aluminum, not steel.

Do you have scientific proof it was nothing but aluminum? I didn't think so.

Of course I do and here is the photographic evidence. Do you see the silvery droplets in the lower portion of the following photo?

Photo: Molten Aluminum

a reply to: skyeagle409

It is a fact. I have seen molten aluminum before after aircraft accidents and the molten flow from WTC2 is indicative of molten aluminum, not steel.

No it is not a fact.

You have no evidence to support your "opinions".

a reply to: Informer1958

It is a fact and the laws of physics will back me up.

a reply to: skyeagle409

It is a fact and the laws of physics will back me up.

It is not a fact, perhaps it's "your" fact. The scientific community does not support your facts.
Now we can go at this all night if you like, but I will prove you wrong.

It seems to be a few bad eggs spoiling the bunch. There is a lot of truth to some of the 9/11 "conspiracy" claims, but there are a few loud voices that call attention to themselves by being too radical of too out of touch with reality.

If those people would tune it down a bit, the movement may get the credence it deserves rather than being mocked.

a reply to: Informer1958

t is not a fact, perhaps it's "your" fact.

The laws of physics and experts are not with you. The molten flow of aluminum was seen from the corner where most of the aluminum airframe of United 175 was piled up.

Wreckage Distribution Inside WTC1

Stephen D. Chastain of Metal Talk.

Several times over the last year I have been asked to comment on a photo of one of the Trade Center Towers. The photo shows a molten flow from one of the windows. The flow falls down along the building. It appears orange and turns to a gray color as it cools.

THEREFORE assuming that the flow consist of molten aluminum and considerable oxides, and assuming that the windows in the trade center were plate glass and also in a plastic state and that they were also likely entrained in the molten aluminum.

Summary: The flow is not steel because the structural steel would fail well below the melting temperature. The flow is likely to be a mixture of aluminum, aluminum oxides, molten glass and coals of whatever trash the aluminum flowed over as it reached the open window. Such a flow would appear orange and cool to a dark color.

Stephen D. Chastain

Molten Aluminum Droplets

a reply to: Informer1958

The scientific community does not support your facts.

Wrong again!

Molten Aluminum Flowing From WTC2

A photograph leaked from the ASCE-FEMA investigation shows a stream of what appears to be molten aluminum exiting from the northeast corner. This would indicate that what was left of the aircraft when it reached the north end of its travel was massive enough to have destroyed at least one floor.

NIST H-7-2
Molten Material

It has been reported in the FEMA report (McAllister 2002) as well as in the media that what appeared to be molten metal was observed pouring from the north face near the northeast corner. This is the area where the sustained fires were seen. Video records and photography indicate that the material first appeared at 9:51:52 am and continued to pour intermittently from the building until the time of the collapse. Some of that material can be seen falling in Fig. H-21. Close up video and photographs of the area where the material is pouring from have been examined and show that it is falling from near the top of window 80-256.

The most likely explanation for this observation is that the material had originally pooled on the floor above, that is 81, and that it was allowed to pour out of the building when this floor either pulled away from the outer spandrel or sank down to the point where the window was exposed. The fact that the material appears intermittently over a several minute period suggests that the floor was giving way bit by bit

The composition of the flowing material can only be the subject of speculation, but its behavior is consistent with it being molten aluminum. Visual evidence suggest that a significant wreckage from the plane passed thought the building and came to rest in the northeast corner of the tower in the vicinity of the location where the material is observed.

Much of the structure of the Boeing 767 is formed from two aluminum alloys that have been identified as 2024 and 7075 closely related alloys. These alloys do not melt at a single temp, but melt over a temp range from the lower end of the range to the upper as the fraction of the liquid increases. The Aluminum association handbook lists the melting point as roughly 500C to 638 C and 475 C to 635C for alloys 2024 and 7075 respectively. These temperatures are well below those characteristic of fully developed fires (ca 1000C ) and any aluminum present is likely to be at least partially melted by the intense fires in the area.

www.scieneeri...wtc..._update.html

The color of pure molten aluminum is silver, It has an emissivity of .12. Steel has an emissivity of .4 and appears orange in the temperature range of molten aluminum.

a reply to: skyeagle409

The laws of physics and experts are not with you. The molten flow of aluminum was seen from the corner where most of the aluminum airframe of United 175 was piled up.

Opinion not a proven fact yet.

a reply to: Informer1958

Opinion not a proven fact yet.

Challenge time!! Prove me wrong.

a reply to: skyeagle409

Challenge time!! Prove me wrong.

I already have.

Take the time and read all my post I sent you, it proves you wrong in ALL your assumptions, and opinions.

I rest my case.

a reply to: Informer1958

I see. So, the transcripts of ATC communications are disinformation.

The flight manifests are disinformation.

Videos of the events that day are disinformation.

Copies of the investigative documents from the FBI are disinformation.

Links to websites that examine the day from both sides are disinformation.

Interviews with the first responders are disinformation....according to you.

a reply to: Informer1958

I already have.

I didn't see where you posted that the silvery droplets were not evidence of molten aluminum. So once again, you are challenged to prove me wrong.

a reply to: skyeagle409

I didn't see where you posted that the silvery droplets were not evidence of molten aluminum. So once again, you are challenged to prove me wrong.

You have been debunk my friend, when are you going to throw in the towel?

You are all over the place, and changing the topics as I continue to debunk you repeatedly. Had you bother to read any of my post your aluminum conspiracy was debunked several post up.

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

I see. So, the transcripts of ATC communications are disinformation.

The flight manifests are disinformation.

Videos of the events that day are disinformation.

Copies of the investigative documents from the FBI are disinformation.

Links to websites that examine the day from both sides are disinformation.

Interviews with the first responders are disinformation....according to you.

LOL, I never made those claims.

Only you made those claims.

a reply to: Informer1958

You have been debunk my friend,

Your disinformation does't cut it. Now, when I can expect you to accept my challenge with evidence?

a reply to: skyeagle409

Your disinformation does't cut it. Now, when I can expect you to accept my challenge with evidence?

This my friend is getting a little to personal for me.

Now you just claimed that I posted disinformation! Would you care to Prove to all the ATS casual readers to what disinformation I have posted?

And if you cant you need to walk away.

You and I have been on here for over 8 hours today going back and forth. I am taking a break, enough for tonight.

a reply to: Informer1958

Now you just claimed that I posted disinformation!

Let's put it this way. You made the claim that jet fuel cannot weaken steel, but I had to post a video to prove you incorrect, even though I knew from experience that you can weaken steel at 1000 degrees F., because it was part of my job as an airframe technician to do so in order to rework steel and aluminum into complex shapes and then, heat-treat them back to their original condition.

I knew from experience that what you posted about jet fuel inability to burn hot enough to weaken steel was obviously false.

a reply to: Informer1958

Opinion not a proven fact yet.

We can take a look here because even the demolition industry has been debunking claims that explosives were used to demolish WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7.

'A Critical Analysis of the Collapse of WTC Towers, 1, 2 & 7 From an Explosives and Demolition Industry Viewpoint'

www.implosionworld.com...


Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy theories and Controlled Demolition Myths

Photographic evidence proves beyond a doubt that floors sagged, pulling perimeter columns in. An event some conspiracy sites suggest never happened.

www.debunking911.com...


Towers Weakened by Planes; Brought Down by Fire

Analysis by a team of 25 of the nation's leading structural and fire protection engineers suggests that the World Trade Center Towers could have remained standing indefinitely if fire had not overwhelmed the weakened structures, according to a report presented today at a hearing of the House Science Committee.

That finding is significant, said W. Gene Corley, Ph.D., team lead for the ASCE/FEMA Building Performance Study Team, because extreme events of this type, resulting in such substantial damage, are generally not considered in building design, and the fact that these structures were able to successfully withstand such damage is noteworthy.

911-engineers.blogspot.com...


Did experts on the scene think WTC 7 was a controlled demolition?

Whom should we ask to find out if WTC 7’s collapse resembled an explosive demolition? How about asking the explosive demolition experts who were on the scene on 9/11? Brent Blanchard of Protec:

"Several demolition teams had reached Ground Zero by 3:00 pm on 9/11, and these individuals witnessed the collapse of WTC 7 from within a few hundred feet of the event.

We have spoken with several who possess extensive experience in explosive demolition, and all reported seeing or hearing nothing to indicate an explosive detonation precipitating the collapse.


American Society of Civil Engineers

Towers Weakened by Planes; Brought Down by Fire

911-engineers.blogspot.com...

a reply to: Informer1958

It is not a fact, perhaps it's "your" fact. The scientific community does not support your facts.

Let's take a look at the numbers.

There are 123,000 members of ASCE(American Society of Civil Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 80,000 members of AIA(American Institute of Architects) who do not question the NIST Report.

There are 120,000 members of ASME(American Society of Mechanical Engineers) who do not question the NIST report. There are also 370,000 members of IEEE(Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) who do not question the NIST report.

There are also 40,000 members of AIChE(American Institute of Chemical Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 35,000 members of AIAA (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics) who do not question the NIST report.

911-engineers.blogspot.com...

Now, let's take a look here.

Architects Shy From Truther 9/11 Conspiracy Theory

Architects didn't show up for a 9/11-architecture-conspiracy documentary screening—and the AIA doesn't want its name associated with Trutherism.

breakfornews....opic.php...


ARCHITECT Magazine
The Magzine of the American Institute of Architects

All of Gage’s so-called evidence has been rebutted in peer-reviewed papers, by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, by the National Institute for Standards and Technology, by the American Society of Civil Engineers, by the 9/11 Commission Report, and, perhaps most memorably, by the 110-year-old engineering journal Popular Mechanics.

breakfornews.com...


Letter to the Editor
April 09, 2006

I find Professor Jones' thesis that planted explosives (rather than fire from the planes) caused the collapse of the Towers, very unreliable.

Before one (especially students) supports such a conspiracy theory, they should investigate all details of the theory. To me a practicing structural engineer of 57 continuous years (1941-1998), Professor Jones' presentations are very disturbing.

D. Allan Firmage

www.debunking911.com...


WTC Pre-Collapse Bowing Debunks 9/11 "Controlled Demolition" Theory

Indications of the Imminent Collapse of the World Trade Center Buildings Disprove Explosives Theory

Scientists investigating the Sept. 11, 2001 collapse of the twin towers said, "the World Trade Center towers showed telltale signs they were about to collapse several minutes before each crumbled to the ground." There would not be telltale signs if it was explosives (Controlled Demolition) that caused the buildings to collapse.

"In the case of the north tower, police chopper pilots reported seeing the warning signs - an inward bowing of the building facade - at least eight minutes before it collapsed at 10:29 a.m." New York Daily News reporter Paul Shin wrote in his June 19th, 2004 article 9/11 cops saw collapse coming.

www.representativepress.org...


BYW Does Not Support the Claims of Steven Jones

A few department chairmen at Jones' university have issued critical statements, though none of these has yet addressed any of the points which Jones made in his paper and at his presentation at BYU. Chairman of the BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Dr. Miller, is on record stating in an e-mail, "I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims".

The BYU physics department has also issued a statement: "The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones' hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones' department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review." The College of Engineering and Technology department has also added, "The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones."

On other words, the overwhelming majority of experts in the field of demolitions, architects, civil and structure engineers, firefighters, and other experts and investigators, do not agree with the Truth Movement.