Trying to resolve 9/11

a reply to: kwakakev

About the 2:50 mark.

So? A 500,000 ton building collapse pulverized concrete? Don’t say? And that warrants a new investigation?

You mean like a hydraulic jack initiated collapse?




About the 3:15 mark. The speaker talks about the media trying to take the truth movement apart?
No. The truth movement was discredited because it used false evidence like the picture that was used at the start of the video.

Falsehoods like posting pictures of columns cut during cleanup as being cut by thermite killed the credibility of the truth movement.

At the 4:40 mark, the speaker talks about the evidence they are presenting?


The only evidence the speaker had was pulverized concrete from a 500,000 ton building collapse? Where, above the foundations, there was no load bearing concrete columns. Only the light weight, low strength concrete in the steel backed floor pans?

a reply to: neutronflux

Speaker was WTC first responder David Miller, died 2010.

The only reason i posted him speaking was you, trying to play a despicable blame game on an ATS member.

exploiting the illnesses of WTC first responders

CYA (cover your ass) you did however, as always.

originally posted by: waypastvne

originally posted by: turbonium1

You can point to stacks of papers, and claim 'that shows you are wrong', all you want.

You can point at this photo and say that truss seat can not be broken, all you want. We know you are wrong. It has an ultimate strength, it is 94000 pounds. On 9/11 that limit was exceeded.

We have explained to you how the building collapsed.

Now, for a change, why don't you explain to us, why the building can't collapse, using physics.

Physics proves it cannot collapse like that, and if you could, you'd be able to demonstrate it in the real world, using real physics, and you cannot. It is cartoon physics, and nothing else.

The towers were physical structures, like any other physical structures, they abide by physical laws, and physical reality. They do not have any sort of flimsy excuses, or special, 'unique' physics, that others do not have.

A physical structure that fails in some way, to support the entire structure, is provable in real, physical demonstrations. NO exceptions. NO excuses. Do you not understand this?

originally posted by: turbonium1


Physics proves it cannot collapse like that,

How? Use physics. Be specific.

originally posted by: waypastvne

originally posted by: turbonium1


Physics proves it cannot collapse like that,

How? Use physics. Be specific.

Physics is proven by physical demonstration, words are meaningless alone.

When you claim a structure can lose all it's support, at once, when it is completely intact, your claim is physically impossible, and that's why nobody can physically demonstrate such a ridiculous claim. It is cartoon physics, which cannot work in the real world.

Perhaps you don't realize that this claim flies in the face of our known, proven, physical laws.

Even a child who builds a small structure of blocks knows it won't collapse through itself by dropping a mass of blocks on top of it, for crying out loud!

Your claim is about a mass falling on an intact structure, which loses all support at once, and that is completely impossible, and utterly absurd.

Show a structure that supports itself, then create a failure within the structure, and when it completely collapses, through itself, you'll prove cartoon physics work in the real world, for the first time in history!

originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: neutronflux

Speaker was WTC first responder David Miller, died 2010.

The only reason i posted him speaking was you, trying to play a despicable blame game on an ATS member.

exploiting the illnesses of WTC first responders

CYA (cover your ass) you did however, as always.

What does that have to do with the video discrediting itself?

originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: neutronflux

Exploiting who ecatly, some first responder?

"Avenge us" echous.

What was the individual being asked to be avenged from.

Now read the below in the avenge us context.

About the 2:50 mark.

So? A 500,000 ton building collapse pulverized concrete? Don’t say? And that warrants a new investigation?

You mean like a hydraulic jack initiated collapse?




About the 3:15 mark. The speaker talks about the media trying to take the truth movement apart?
No. The truth movement was discredited because it used false evidence like the picture that was used at the start of the video.

Falsehoods like posting pictures of columns cut during cleanup as being cut by thermite killed the credibility of the truth movement.

At the 4:40 mark, the speaker talks about the evidence they are presenting?


The only evidence the speaker had was pulverized concrete from a 500,000 ton building collapse? Where, above the foundations, there was no load bearing concrete columns. Only the light weight, low strength concrete in the steel backed floor pans?

The speaker wants to be avenged because a 500,000 ton building collapse pulverized light weight low strength concrete used in floor pans?

The speaker wants avenged from the truth movement killing its own credibility?

a reply to: neutronflux

Do you even notice how ludicrous you sound by trying to say an entire movement was discredited through a tiny piece of 5 second footage? And may I point out as well, there is absolutely NO evidence that this cut was made by those doing the clean up in the first place.

And you seem to be forgetting all those involved with the clean up who seen the molten metal in the debris, additionally, there is more footage of what looks like cut beams around somewhere, why would this be necessary during a clean up operation in the first place?

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum
a reply to: neutronflux

Do you even notice how ludicrous you sound by trying to say an entire movement was discredited through a tiny piece of 5 second footage? And may I point out as well, there is absolutely NO evidence that this cut was made by those doing the clean up in the first place.

And you seem to be forgetting all those involved with the clean up who seen the molten metal in the debris, additionally, there is more footage of what looks like cut beams around somewhere, why would this be necessary during a clean up operation in the first place?

This discredited photo of fictitious proof of thermite was used by the leader of the most prominent truth movement groups for years. This photo was used by Richard Gage for years.

www.metabunk.org/debunked-the-wtc-9-11-angle-cut-column-not-thermite-cut-later.t9469/page-4
www.metabunk.org...
www.metabunk.org...


I have seen this picture posted in many threads as false proof of thermite.
The argument is usually something like this. No thermite huh. Then explain this photo

a reply to: Zcustosmorum

Same questions that I ask that I bet you will not answer like everyone else.

There wouldn’t be pure molten anything in a building full of materials with lower melting points.

And your ignoring:

No. It’s truth movement mythology. There is no evidence the WTC Pile was hot enough to support liquid steel. There was no reported violent steam releases when the pile was being sprayed with water from water encountering liquid steel. There was no frozen pools of steel found during cleanup.

a reply to: Zcustosmorum

Out of curiosity. What is the leading truth movement group, Architects and Engineers evidence of actual liquid steel?

a reply to: neutronflux

There wouldn’t be pure molten anything in a building full of materials with lower melting points.

Save the programmed talk, there's video of molten metal pouring from one of the towers even before collapse:

There was no reported violent steam releases when the pile was being sprayed with water

And as I've said, there ARE numerous witness reports of them seeing molten steel in the debris:



The point you're trying to make is not discounting what these people say, which unless you want to call them all liars, well that's on you

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Zcustosmorum

Out of curiosity. What is the leading truth movement group, Architects and Engineers evidence of actual liquid steel?

No idea, but I think even you yourself must realize the desperate nitpicking you are guilty of, instead of contemplating the things being said and witnessed by those who were there.

And here's something else for you to contemplate:

a reply to: Zcustosmorum

Where was all this molten steel when the core columns were visible after the collapse of the floor system?



You

Save the programmed talk, there's video of molten metal pouring from one of the towers even before collapse:

Like coper and led mixed with burning plastic from the battery room below the jet impact?


Molten metal doesn’t mean steel.

You didn’t address what I posted.

This discredited photo of fictitious proof of thermite was used by the leader of the most prominent truth movement groups for years. This photo was used by Richard Gage for years.

www.metabunk.org/debunked-the-wtc-9-11-angle-cut-column-not-thermite-cut-later.t9469/page-4
www.metabunk.org...
www.metabunk.org...


I have seen this picture posted in many threads as false proof of thermite.
The argument is usually something like this. No thermite huh. Then explain this photo


Same questions that I ask that I bet you will not answer like everyone else.

There wouldn’t be pure molten anything in a building full of materials with lower melting points.

And your ignoring:

No. It’s truth movement mythology. There is no evidence the WTC Pile was hot enough to support liquid steel. There was no reported violent steam releases when the pile was being sprayed with water from water encountering liquid steel. There was no frozen pools of steel found during cleanup.

a reply to: Zcustosmorum

You want to argue thermite?

Cripes. Have you been reading this thread?

An analysis of the DSC data in the Herrit-Jones paper

By pteridine

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Based on this figure, we may approximate the following theoretical and measured energies:

Not measured in this experiment:
HMX = 5.5 kJ/g
TNT = 4.5 kJ/g
TATB = 4.1kJ/g
Thermite = 3.9 kJ/g
Measured in this experiment:
Chip #1 = 1.5 kJ/g
Chip #2 = 2.5 kJ/g
Chip #3 = 7.5 kJ/g
Chip #4 = 5.9 kJ/g

The first thing we notice is the wide disparity of values for the “highly engineered” material. This should raise doubts as to sample collection and preparation and even if the materials are the same thing. By other analyses, they appear similar.
Now we note that two of the chips, #3 and #4 have far more energy than if they were 100% thermite. They also have more energy than any of the high explosives or any combination of thermite and any high explosive as a composite. Arithmetically, if we have a 50:50 mix of thermite and HMX we should have an energy of about 4.7 kJ/g -- below that of chips #3 and #4. How can this be?
To explain this, we must understand what is being measured and how. The explosives and thermite have, internal to them, their own oxidants. We include their oxygen in the weight we measured. If we measure heat from a burning hydrocarbon, for example, we DON’T include the weight of the oxygen in the air we use to burn it. Candle wax burning in air has about 10 times the energy/gram of thermite using this convention. What does this mean? It means that some, if not all, of the energy from the red chips is due to burning of the carbonaceous paint matrix in air.
Jones is vague about this problem and says on p27. “We suggest that the organic material in evidence in the red/gray chips is also highly energetic, most likely producing gas to provide explosive pressure.” What might that energetic material be? Jones has no clue. His team lacks the chemical knowledge to postulate a reasonable composition. It has no nitrogen, so it is not one of the explosives shown. It is energetic when burning in air. So is candle wax. Volatilized, it will produce gas but it does not seem to be otherwise energetic. How can this problem be resolved? What experiment must be done to show the possibility of thermite or some composite?
As I have stated above, thermite and explosives have their own oxidants built in. burning hydrocarbons do not. How can Jones discriminate between explosives, thermite and plain old burning paint?
He can re-run the DSC under an argon atmosphere. What a simple and elegant solution. Under argon, all the energy coming out will be from the thermite and its energetic additives. If there is no energy coming out, there is no thermite and all those contortions and obfuscations are for naught. Why wouldn’t Jones do this obvious experiment? Maybe he did and didn’t like the results.

By Oystein

The most basic debunking points are as followed:
They ignited 4 similar looking "chips" and measured the energy release per weight unit. The results ranged from 1.5 to 7.5 kiloJoules per gram, a wide spread that makes "high-tech nano-stuff" an unlikely explanation. More importantly, 2 of the sample released more than 4kJ/g of energy, which is the maximum energy thermite could possibly release due to the basic laws of this universe. This data alone disproves unequivocally that the material cannot possibly be the kind of thermite they claim to have found (aluminium + Fe2O3)
They claim to have found elemental Aluminium, one key ingredient to thermite, in a fifth chip. However, this fifth chip is of a different material than the four others, as is proven by their own data presented in figures 6 and 14. They did NOT dind free aluminium in any of the material that they igited and claimed to be or contain thermite
They compared the exothermic behaviour of their 4 ignition samples with that of real (nano-?) thermite found in literature, and claimed that the graphs are very similar. They are not: Compare figure 19 with figure 29 and note how the position of the peak differs significantly both on the X-axis (by more than 100°C) and the Y-axis (by a factor of 2 to 4.5). This result proves that their samples are not the kind of thermite known to science. (Note too how in figure 29 they only repeat the lowest of the 4 peaks from fig. 19 to make it not quite so apparent that their samples released waaay too much energy/power.)
Sunstealer has identified in insightful posts back in april 2009 that the crystaline structures we see in figures 8-10 resemble kaolinite (aluminiumsilicate) and hematite (iron oxide, Fe2O3). Their elemental composition as per the Harrit paper too points to kaolinite (Al, So Edit: Si, O) and hematite (Fe, O). Since Harrit found all of this embedded in an organic matrix, and since both kaolinite and hematite have been used throughout the ages and still used today as key ingredients to red paint, there can be no dount that the 4 red-grey chips from the ignition experiments is simply a red paint.
Sunstealer just the other day found that in a newer presentation, co-author Steven Jones showed XEDS spectra of primer paint they had scratched from original WTC structural steel. This spectrum resembles the spectrum in figure 14 nearly to a t! Hence, the fifth chip (which they soaked in MEK to find elemental Al) is thus proven to be primer paint from WTC steel

These are the main points where Harrit. Jones e.al. debunk themselves.

Much earned criticism also goes to the choice of Bentham as publishing house (zero impact in the scientific community, bad reputation for accepting even total junk as long as the pay-to-publish 800$ check clears. It has been establiched that not the journal and its editor-in-chief controlled the peer-review process, but instead the authors themselves were in control of their own "peer-review".

www.internationalskeptics.com...

Analysis of Red/Gray Chips in WTC Dust

Dr. James Millette
MVA Scientific Consultants
www.MVAinc.com

February 20-25 2012
American Academy of Forensic Science
www.AAFS.org
2012 Annual Meeting
Atlanta, Georgia
www.mvainc.com...

Conclusions

The red/gray chips found in the WTC dust at four sites in New York City are consistent with a carbon steel coated with an epoxy resin that contains primarily iron oxide and kaolin clay pigments.

There is no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles of any size in the red/gray chips, therefore the red layer of the red/gray chips is not thermite or nano-thermite.

originally posted by: waypastvne

originally posted by: Hulseyreport

 With it being a Nano AI+ Nano Si Iron Oxide with Carbon mixture-

That is exactly what we have been telling you. It's a paint chip.

If it has all the ingredients of a paint chip, then it is a paint chip.

a reply to: Zcustosmorum

There is not even proof the columns were cut.

You yourself posted proof that the columns were cut, the debate is whether it was done before the collapse or whether it was done during the clean up

And what are you doing now? Molten steel was present, and now that's been established, you have now moved on to claim that no evidence of thermite was found by using a random thread?

The video I shared shows a scientist discussing his paper on what they found in the 9/11 debris, and he's just one of a few that have shared similar findings. These people have no reason to lie.

If you want to keep shuffling your feet between whatever point it is you're trying to make, then you'll be there for years trying explain all the things wrong with the events of 9/11, not just the anomalies surrounding the collapses

a reply to: neutronflux

Is that the "Miracle of ladder 6" or "Miracle of stairwell B" corner sticking up before the top portion collapsed? This is north tower right?

a reply to: Zcustosmorum

You

You yourself posted proof that the columns were cut, the debate is whether it was done before the collapse or whether it was done during the clean up

I guess you don’t read very well? Or you haven’t read through the thread?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: democracydemo

I think the 9/11 first responders should get as good health as the state senators.

As for as what the video evidence of what? I couldn’t get past the first six seconds.

The video shows this image of what?

A column cut by thermal lance at cleanup up?

www.metabunk.org/debunked-the-wtc-9-11-angle-cut-column-not-thermite-cut-later.t9469/
www.metabunk.org...

Is the photo of the cut column proven to have been cut during cleanup the strongest evidence the video has of controlled demolition?

What do you not understand there is zero evidence the WTC was brought down by planted pyrotechnics.

The video itself shows the truth movement will used falsehoods to create a fictitious mythology for a target audience.

a reply to: Zcustosmorum

Columns not cut during collapse.


Columns cut at cleanup


www.metabunk.org/debunked-the-wtc-9-11-angle-cut-column-not-thermite-cut-later.t9469/
www.metabunk.org...

originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: neutronflux

Is that the "Miracle of ladder 6" or "Miracle of stairwell B" corner sticking up before the top portion collapsed? This is north tower right?

North tower (WTC1) it is. You can do better than some grainy screencaps of the "spire" however.





Source for more: reddit

Consider this a christmas present neutronflux. Ho ho ho

a reply to: democracydemo

I didn’t know you had anything worth replying to?

Please explain how a controlled demolition system would have survived in WTC 7 despite the damage from the collapsing towers and wide spread fires to actuate?

WTC 7 experienced enough floor connection failures like the floor connections failures witnessed in WTC 5 pictured below along a vertical column, the vertical column lost lateral support and buckled. That started the internal progressive collapse.




Now. Do you have evidence of detonations with the force to cut steel columns? Like ejection of shrapnel before the building moves?

Or thermite? Like 4000 Fires? Like sparking and flashing at the exterior columns that should have been clearly seen if thermite was used.