Trying to resolve 9/11

And this playlist of professional architects and engineers for 9/11 who say no way possible, the evidence Thermite in the dust, etc, etc, etc

www.youtube.com...

And the plane shaped depression in the ground, in Shankesville, was there prior to the false flags of the day...check 1994 Google Earth.

a reply to: boatsnhistory

More falsehoods by you.

Didn’t Gage also state the fires were no hotter than normal office fires? I guess that rules out hundreds of fires fueled from hundreds of thermite charges burning over 4,000 F before building movement?


Is there evidence that hundred of charges was doing the below in hundreds of locations with the assistance of kicker charges to misalign columns?



Hell no

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.

a reply to: boatsnhistory

You

And the plane shaped depression in the ground, in Shankesville, was there prior to the false flags of the day...check 1994 Google Earth.

Quote who worked the Shanksville crash site that claimed flight 93 made an “airplane” impression.

So. You have nothing but generalized falsehoods.

a reply to: neutronflux

No, he makes a valid point that causes you much anxiety.

I too saw those images from 1994 (I guess that's the right date) with the same gouge in the land.

The official narrative fails at every turn.

a reply to: Salander

Again...

Quote who worked the Shanksville crash site that claimed flight 93 made an “airplane” impression.

So. You have nothing but generalized falsehoods.

originally posted by: Salander


I too saw those images from 1994 (I guess that's the right date) with the same gouge in the land.

The official narrative fails at every turn.

It is not in the same place. They would have to move the hole about 200 feet over to the west and rotate it about 30 deg. clockwise if they wanted to use it to fake a crash site.

Can you explain to us how they moved this hole about 200 feet over to the west and rotate it about 30 deg.

I didn't think so.



It is you and the entire truth movement that is in perpetual failure mode.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

This was the other post I was looking for...

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

I claim this.

Only WTC 7 experienced a very short period of free fall acceleration on the second phase of the faced collapse after the internal East to West progressive collapse of the core. With strong evidence the facade for a short time accelerated faster than the rate of gravity, showing the internal collapse was placing the facade under tension.


You claimed the speed at which the WTC 7 facade achieved during its collapse, after the collapse of the WTC 7 core, was from columns being actively cut. Is that false.

This is where you state how many of the facade columns had how many charges placed on them. Then you post evidence of that number of stated charges actuating from the video, seismic, audio, photographic evidence.

Open your eyes or further yet read the NIST report! Opinions matter little (facts matter) NIST had a fire chart in their paper that shows temps on floor 12. 9/11 debunkers must be ignorant if they can’t see on floor 12 the fires are out.  Girder on floor 12 collapsing for fire is impossible. Unless you one of those individuals who’s believe is was smoke caused the thermal expansion of the column 79/ girder on this floor? 

It doesn’t seem to matter to debunkers  when the core went first, this would be the reason the Penthouse was leaving the roof and collapsing?

Building seven is clear demolition period.. Building seven not moving or changing shape  at 5.15 pm - photographic and video is tangible evidence of the event. The penthouse collapses, and ‘six seconds later full collapse. The only path for a non moving building to collapse that fast is by controlled demolition. NIST theory about the collapse is fantasy, but people who don’t know engineering don’t know any better. 

Another failure by debunkers not noticed the NIST global simulations of collapse show no free fall.  Thats a major smoking gun there models could not show  a scenario for free fall based on a fire related collapse.

 NIST revised edition report about free fall (word garbage) is rubbish.  If they had known what actually happened inside the building, NIST finite element models, would have shown the progressions of failures during free fall properly. Crushing and bendingand twisting of steel supports during final collapse is not free fall. 

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: democracydemo

Any way. If you have the “smoking gun” evidence, why mess with a small time operator like me? If you had real brass kahunas, you would post your “evidence” at International Skeptics or Metabunk. I think that would make a great thread here at ATS. A thread about your account and experience posting real “evidence” to show those guys at International Skeptic who is boss, and how you dominated. Looking forward to your progress reports in a new thread.

Funny

No steel framed constructed building has ever collapsed due to fire before 9/11 is not evidence enough for you? 

NIST had to adjust or remove constuction elements out  of the building to get their girder to collapse? Not evidence for you?

Finding melted steel in the WTC7 debris pile not evidence for you?  Most people ignore that NIST said on video nobody saw melted steel on 9/11 and temps for that was not present.

Debunkers of course overlook NIST highest temp inside WTC7 was 600c early in the day and was only heating up beams and girders for 15 minutes. 

Debunkers just imagine extra heat from somewhere else is fueling the debris pile after collapse. Insane stuff. 

neutronflux NIST are liars, they stated there was no noise heard on any video loud enough to destroy a column. The peak they alleged had to be 130db to destroy one column. It just a loud driller hammer heard from a distance.

Unfortunately for them, we have a video of a loud boom picked up on video. About 2 to 3 to seconds later the Penthouse collapsed.

Why is it NIST denying sound evidence?

Listen turn up the volumne-open your ears.

That boom clearly happening inside the building. It not a mic fault or wind.

originally posted by: Hulseyreport


Listen turn up the volumne-open your ears.

Listen turn up the volumne-open your ears and try and find the same boom on this video.






It's not there.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

No steel framed constructed building has ever collapsed due to fire before 9/11 is not evidence enough for you?

Name one building that caught fire that minimized concrete columns and had long floor spans like WTC 1, 2, and 7?

WTC 5 proves steel connection failures and collapse initiation of the WTC structures was very possible.



Now.

Didn’t Gage also state the fires were no hotter than normal office fires? I guess that rules out hundreds of fires fueled from hundreds of thermite charges burning over 4,000 F before building movement?


Is there evidence that hundred of charges was doing the below in hundreds of locations with the assistance of kicker charges to misalign columns?



Hell no

originally posted by: waypastvne

originally posted by: Hulseyreport


Listen turn up the volumne-open your ears.

Listen turn up the volumne-open your ears and try and find the same boom on this video.

It's not there.

Not every commercial mic that same quality. You got a woman speaking very loudly during an interview. So her volume may override the background noise. She further away from where the guy on the other video is located.


The video is legit with the boom. NIST FOIA CBS-Net Dub5 09 clip.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

Dude.

You are trying to falsely push the few expected sounds of pressurized systems cutting lose in a building fire and building collapse? Where there should be the sounds of hundreds of charges exploding. Sounds that should be obvious on any near by mic, awe inspiring, and would echo about Manhattan?

Sad.

Again..

Is there evidence that hundred of charges was doing the below in hundreds of locations with the assistance of kicker charges to misalign columns?



Hell no

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

No steel framed constructed building has ever collapsed due to fire before 9/11 is not evidence enough for you?

Name one building that caught fire that minimized concrete columns and had long floor spans like WTC 1, 2, and 7?

WTC 5 proves steel connection failures and collapse initiation of the WTC structures was very possible.

Now.

Didn’t Gage also state the fires were no hotter than normal office fires? I guess that rules out hundreds of fires fueled from hundreds of thermite charges burning over 4,000 F before building movement?


Is there evidence that hundred of charges was doing the below in hundreds of locations with the assistance of kicker charges to misalign columns?

Hell no

You don’t understand the differences between a local breakdown collapse and full collapse destruction that occurs across the entire width of the building. 
You post pictures of WTC5 and yet neglect to highlight most of the columns in your picture show standing columns and floors iWhy is it the damaged section in the middle, not causing a progressive collapse across the width of the building?
NIST determined freefall was an impossibility in Aug 2008.
5.4 seconds time was based on scenario that involved the top structure crushing the lower half. A natural collapse.
Reality is there was no gradual building up to freefall. The building went from full support to zero support in a fraction of a second. Any buiilding coming down at free fall is not slowing down it accelerating
Buckling of exterior columns in complete sync across the building in a fraction of a second can't happen by natural means.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

And yet there are partial and total collapse of buildings due to fire besides 9/11.

Now. Don’t run and change the subject.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

Dude.

You are trying to falsely push the few expected sounds of pressurized systems cutting lose in a building fire and building collapse? Where there should be the sounds of hundreds of charges exploding. Sounds that should be obvious on any near by mic, awe inspiring, and would echo about Manhattan?

Sad.

Again..

Is there evidence that hundred of charges was doing the below in hundreds of locations with the assistance of kicker charges to misalign columns?



Hell no


Since there is ZERO EVIDENCE OF CD, what does that leave.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

The building went from full support to zero support in a fraction of a second.

Another truth movement lie. What was the total time it took WTC 7 to collapse. How long did the vertical columns of WTC 1 and WTC 2 stand after the last of the floor systems hit the ground.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

And yet there are partial and total collapse of buildings due to fire besides 9/11.

Now. Don’t run and change the subject.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

Dude.

You are trying to falsely push the few expected sounds of pressurized systems cutting lose in a building fire and building collapse? Where there should be the sounds of hundreds of charges exploding. Sounds that should be obvious on any near by mic, awe inspiring, and would echo about Manhattan?

Sad.

Again..

Is there evidence that hundred of charges was doing the below in hundreds of locations with the assistance of kicker charges to misalign columns?

Hell no


Since there is ZERO EVIDENCE OF CD, what does that leave.

If NIST had to change the construction of the building to get to collapse in their model what does that tell you?
Do you not notice the exterior frame crushing and deforming at the top on the way down in their model? Do you not see there no freefall acceleration happening there?
There no support structure to crush the underneath structure. The building went from full support to zero support from the roofline to 29th floor across the entire width of the building in a fraction of second. The building accelerated there was no mass there to stop it. 
NIST models show the exterior columns buckling and pulling in the wall frame. Reality is that never occurred. The wall came down in sync across the width of the building. Exterior columns got removed  so fast that building kept its shape. 

originally posted by: Hulseyreport

Not every commercial mic that same quality. You got a woman speaking very loudly during an interview. So her volume may override the background noise.

Nobody in this video heard your boom. Nobody flinches. She doesn't hear it. The reporter doesn't hear it, you can watch him reflected her glasses. The camera man doesn't flinch. Nobody in the back ground makes a sound until the outside of the building starts to fall. Your boom is wind noise.

She further away from where the guy on the other video is located.

No. She is about 200' closer to WTC7 than the guy on the other video. I can give you the GPS long. and lat. for both cameras if you want

a reply to: Hulseyreport

What’s it like to have no valid argument. No evidence. What’s it like not being able to answer the simplest questions.

You

The building went from full support to zero support in a fraction of a second.

The truth movement lie you are pushing is being called out.

Another truth movement lie. What was the total time it took WTC 7 to collapse. How long did the vertical columns of WTC 1 and WTC 2 stand after the last of the floor systems hit the ground.


And your trying to change the subject.

Dude.

You are trying to falsely push the few expected sounds of pressurized systems cutting lose in a building fire and building collapse? Where there should be the sounds of hundreds of charges exploding. Sounds that should be obvious on any near by mic, awe inspiring, and would echo about Manhattan?

Sad.

Again..

Is there evidence that hundred of charges was doing the below in hundreds of locations with the assistance of kicker charges to misalign columns?



Hell no


Since there is ZERO EVIDENCE OF CD, what does that leave.

originally posted by: waypastvne

originally posted by: Hulseyreport

Not every commercial mic that same quality. You got a woman speaking very loudly during an interview. So her volume may override the background noise.

Nobody in this video heard your boom. Nobody flinches. She doesn't hear it. The reporter doesn't hear it, you can watch him reflected her glasses. The camera man doesn't flinch. Nobody in the back ground makes a sound until the outside of the building starts to fall. Your boom is wind noise.

She further away from where the guy on the other video is located.

No. She is about 200' closer to WTC7 than the guy on the other video. I can give you the GPS long. and lat. for both cameras if you want

Wind on a pleasant day? I think its a blast coming from inside the building and most likely to be true when Penthouse came down right after it. You have you theory which makes less sense to me.
We can see distinctly on video anyhow the columns are still supporting the Penthouse before collapse. NIST theory there is emptying out of the eastside ongoing while this interview was taking place, yet nothing changing the building fine. 

NIST doesn’t even come up with a explantation how this mythical fire can remove full support across the entire width of the building in a fraction of a second. There scenario is nutty- 84 columns just magically weakened in seconds to provide no resistance across a distance of football field? You have to be braindead to not understand that can’t happen. Freefall has never occurred during a natural collapse. The top structure has to crush the underneath part, but clearly the top half resistance was pushed out of the way here by other means to allow that uniform collapse.