So what did create the meteorite on 911?

Originally posted by Pootie
Woah... that is a relief because your example above, where friction and "sheer" forces (what are we talking about... pantyhose?) create this tremendous heat, is absolutely ludicrous.

Just trying to fit in, Pootie.

I thought I would speculate about friction creating enough heat to melt concrete and steel, then graduate to theorizing that our government had the resources and intelligence to pull off 9/11.

Baby steps, you know...baby steps.

Originally posted by Essedarius
then graduate to theorizing that our government had the resources and intelligence to pull off 9/11.

Why does it have to be our government? Couldn't it have been some other government/agency? Maybe the reason they are covering things up is because they don't want us to find out that they really DON'T have the resources and intellegence to protect us? Maybe they majorly F'ed up and they don't want everyone to know that some agency was able to plant explosives in the towers again? Would look pretty bad for them wouldn't it?

Originally posted by Essedarius
Just trying to fit in, Pootie.

I thought I would speculate about friction creating enough heat to melt concrete and steel, then graduate to theorizing that our government had the resources and intelligence to pull off 9/11.

Baby steps, you know...baby steps.

Wow... another relief because I thought you were trying to derail a thread with a totally ridiculous and uninformed argument.

Originally posted by timeless test
The only way this sort of data is remotely valid if it can be accurately compared to a statistically relevant control sample It's no good this woman going around saying that someone's hair has fallen out and it's all down to 9/11.

Hair does not fall out for no reason. I've never known it to happen to anyone, save old men and some cancer patients. You don't need a control group to tell me that. I've lived it: hair doesn't fall out for mundane reasons in young, healthy people.

Here's Indira's actual testimony:

BF: At one point, I noticed that you testified as to your physical symptoms and how this had affected your health. What did happen to you, just on a physical level?

IS: It’s an interesting question because I was in excellent physical condition for my age and gender and I was training for an 8,000m mountain climb, so aerobically I knew I could be up at 19 – 20,000 feet, no oxygen, doing a fair amount of aerobic activity… what happened to me is—what happened to all of us basically, and it doesn’t sound very nice, but this is what happened—we had sores—some Firefighters I know still have these horrific sores all over their body, our hair fell out, eye infections, shortness of breath, Adult-onset Asthma, chronic coughs, tiredness, extreme fatigue, cardiac symptoms, heart palpitations where you never had any before, irritability, a lot of symptoms that were consistent with neurotoxic poisoning, those were just the physical symptoms, and in some cases people reported that their hair fell out and even their dental work fell out.

And to me they were consistent with signs of radiation poisoning. However, the toxic cocktail that had been burning there… I think a California group went in and analyzed and pretty much came up with the determination that there were about 900 contaminants, 200 different kinds of dioxins, we had the particulate matter the asbestos, the concrete, they had said that particles were ground so fine that they were the smallest particles ever produced in history. And they blew past all our barriers and got lodged right in our lungs and most of us who were exposed to that are suffering from something called reactive airway disease syndrome, which is something that the coalminers get.

Another part I found interesting, but kind of unrelated:

...the WTC is just another massive superfund site and we were told it was in our heads. So if we weren’t feeling well, if we were irritable… you had the feeling that it was just you. It wasn’t until I went to a detox program and got together with everyone else and compared symptoms we realized that this was an epidemic.

That's the kind of "psychological engineering", if you will, that keeps people from picking up on important patterns, and it can be applied in a range of circumstances.

Originally posted by Pootie
Wow... another relief because I thought you were trying to derail a thread with a totally ridiculous and uninformed argument.

Rein in, Tonto. I'm sorry my speculation regarding a story that the government might come up with struck such a dischordant tone with you.

Progress away...

Originally posted by Griff
Maybe the reason they are covering things up is because they don't want us to find out that they really DON'T have the resources and intellegence to protect us?

You've restored my faith in humanity, Griff.

You have voted Griff for the Way Above Top Secret award.

Originally posted by Essedarius
Rein in, Tonto. I'm sorry my speculation regarding a story that the government might come up with struck such a dischordant tone with you.

Progress away...

You have not irritated me in the least... I am just thankful you could clear up you position for me.

Originally posted by Insolubrious
Extreme temperatures, I think we both know.

Check out this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Mod Edit: Fixed link.

[edit on 26/3/2007 by Mirthful Me]

Yes, extreme temperatures that they claimed reach the heat of the inner core of the earth! Do we know how hot that is? Try 9,000 to 10,900 degrees F. I saw somewhere someone saying, "So, how can this be the smoking gun?" Well, there you go. How else can something that was crushed in a gravity collapse reach temperatures so extreme?

Now we're to believe that not only did the jet fuel burn long enough and hot enough to weaken the steel structure so much to cause a complete unresisted collapse but that this collapse also caused long burning fires to reach temperatures of 9,000 plus degrees???

**Whewwww** Blowing the smoke off the end of the gun.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by Essedarius
then graduate to theorizing that our government had the resources and intelligence to pull off 9/11.

Why does it have to be our government? Couldn't it have been some other government/agency? Maybe the reason they are covering things up is because they don't want us to find out that they really DON'T have the resources and intellegence to protect us? Maybe they majorly F'ed up and they don't want everyone to know that some agency was able to plant explosives in the towers again? Would look pretty bad for them wouldn't it?

And yet, here it is. Probably the most logical string of statement/questions about this whole event. I have never stated that it was our entire government. However, one form or another most likely, from what has been uncovered, has had a part in it. Or, simply put, they just screwed up royally and are trying to CY(T)As.

Nice post Griff.

Originally posted by bsbray
Hair does not fall out for no reason. I've never known it to happen to anyone, save old men and some cancer patients. You don't need a control group to tell me that. I've lived it: hair doesn't fall out for mundane reasons in young, healthy people

Ho hum, where shall I begin?

Let's start with my original statement. I made the point that this sort of anecdotal evidence is worthless in any rational scientific sense and I stand by that absolutely and without qualification. If any member of the scientific community attempted to explain the causes of diseases such as cancers or perhaps the effectiveness of new medicines without proper statistical analysis they would ridiculed, and rightly so. More importantly, if a NIST representative attempted to support the "official story" with such sketchy evidence a number of the posters on this thread would descend upon him with unbounded glee and castigate him for unremitting incompetence.

To clarify, I know many people whose hair has fallen out, some simply suffered premature hair loss, my father was mostly bald by the age of 30 and lived to 80 whilst my school friend Richard lost most of his by the age of 25 and was dead two weeks after I last saw him. He had leukaemia.

My wife, Mother and good friend Alex all suffer from recurrent eye infections, a colleague called Jack suffers from shortness of breath and so do I, (but that's because I smoke too much and take no exercise). I know personally of cases of adult onset Asthma in two family members, several chronic coughs, almost everyone I know claims to be fatigued and more of my elderly relatives have died from cardiac disease than I care to recall and if I wanted to show off I could throw pneumonia, diabetes, malformed tear ducts in babies and a nasty bruise on my knee.

Remarkably, none of these people were in New York on 9/11 and none of this catalogue of medical woes are remotely related.

So just who the heck is Indira Singh? Well, to the best of my knowledge she is an IT consultant and EMT at 9/11 who has not the slightest qualification to identify the symptoms of radiation poisoning, neither is she qualified in epidemiology as far as I know. She is, however, a disaffected ex-employee who appears to be making some kind of a career out of making more and more outlandish statements and is it just me or is it becoming rather boring how often such people, (that is ex-employees) turn up whenever a "whistle blower" is required?

It is entirely possible and maybe even probable that there will be chronic illnesses, particularly respiratory conditions that will eventually be attributable to the working conditions suffered by the courageous men and women who worked at ground zero after 9/11 and if the Government attempt to cover that up then they will be thoroughly deserving of the contempt of all of us.

However, none of this, not one tiny bit, means that people who worked there are suffering the after effects of exposure to a nuclear explosion of any kind and if anyone wants to try to make that case then thay are going to have to come up with some proper science to demonstrate it.

Originally posted by timeless test
I made the point that this sort of anecdotal evidence is worthless in any rational scientific sense and I stand by that absolutely and without qualification.

Go ahead. I just think it's pointless to require a formal scientific analysis of things that come down to common sense. One such thing is that hair needs a reason to fall out in clumps.

If any member of the scientific community attempted to explain the causes of diseases such as cancers or perhaps the effectiveness of new medicines without proper statistical analysis they would ridiculed, and rightly so.

Sure. Am I trying to put forth a new medicine that hasn't been tested yet? No.

More importantly, if a NIST representative attempted to support the "official story" with such sketchy evidence a number of the posters on this thread would descend upon him with unbounded glee and castigate him for unremitting incompetence.

You mean like when they perform a test, get data that contradicts their working hypothesis, but include the test data in their final report which ultimately backs the exact same hypothesis nonetheless? What is the point of even doing research if you're going to totally ignore it? And you want to talk about proper scientific analyses?

We've already bashed them, plenty of times. You must not be paying attention. The guys behind the WTC NIST study are total jackasses. They deserve to be fired, etc.

To clarify, I know many people whose hair has fallen out, some simply suffered premature hair loss, my father was mostly bald by the age of 30 and lived to 80 whilst my school friend Richard lost most of his by the age of 25 and was dead two weeks after I last saw him. He had leukaemia.

So unless all these guys coincidentally came down with leukemia, I guess your working theory is that premature hair loss caused all their hair to come out in clumps. Good work.

Remarkably, none of these people were in New York on 9/11 and none of this catalogue of medical woes are remotely related.

And this is also a straw-man because I was speaking of none of the ailments you described immediately before this.

So just who the heck is Indira Singh? Well, to the best of my knowledge she is an IT consultant and EMT at 9/11 who has not the slightest qualification to identify the symptoms of radiation poisoning, neither is she qualified in epidemiology as far as I know.

Then look up the symptoms yourself and compare with what she describes. She at least has eyes, doesn't she? You can give her that much credit.

She is, however, a disaffected ex-employee

Ah, here we go, can't have a good witness without someone trying to discredit them.

However, none of this, not one tiny bit, means that people who worked there are suffering the after effects of exposure to a nuclear explosion of any kind and if anyone wants to try to make that case then thay are going to have to come up with some proper science to demonstrate it.

I never said the respiratory problems were caused by radiation. You're dancing all around the point I was making, without making it any less valid.

If you want to talk about scientific demonstration, then you aren't talking about 9/11. The only thing yet to be demonstrated in a lab regarding 9/11 is that NIST lied about the molten material being aluminum, and aluminum with organics mixed in, as Steven Jones showed with experimentation that aluminum will not glow bright orange in broad daylight in the conditions suggested by NIST. No one on either side of the fence has shown more than that as far as I'm aware, because (a) most people have common sense enough not to need demonstration of most accepted principles of physics and engineering, and (b) the things that DO need to be reproduced are too expensive for anyone to reproduce without special funding (ie NIST, and NIST failed horribly here).

[edit on 27-3-2007 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11
I just think it's pointless to require a formal scientific analysis of things that come down to common sense.

Careful. The majority of the world's population thinks its common sense that the towers were brought down by a plane crash and fire.

So unless all these guys coincidentally came down with leukemia, I guess your working theory is that premature hair loss caused all their hair to come out in clumps. Good work.

I don't think you really read his post. Either that or I don't understand your response at all.

Ah, here we go, can't have a good witness without someone trying to discredit them.

Exactly. People will ALWAYS try to discredit your witnesses. Whether or not they are SUCCESSFUL depends on the character of the witness...and being a disgruntled ex-employee is RARELY a step in the right direction.

If you want to talk about scientific demonstration, then you aren't talking about 9/11.

True dat.

No one on either side of the fence has shown more than that as far as I'm aware, because (a) most people have common sense enough not to need demonstration of most accepted principles of physics and engineering...

Unless experts in the field are offering contradicting assessments of the event... then it would be nice to have a demonstration for those of us who don't find complicated physics and chemistry to be "common sense."

...and (b) the things that DO need to be reproduced are too expensive for anyone to reproduce without special funding...

I promise you that if any confirmed leads are found connecting the events of 9/11 to widespread health issues, that the bill to run a full study will be put on the tab of the personal injury lawyer lucky enough to land the class-action suit.

We're in some danger of straying a long way from the topic of the "meteorite" and I have already said that I do not know how it was formed so if anyone wants to complain that I'm sidetracking this thread I'll take that on the chin but in the mean time I owe bsbray some answers.

Originally posted by bsbray11 I just think it's pointless to require a formal scientific analysis of things that come down to common sense.

They used to say that about witchcraft, although it is, of course, entirely up to you whether you want a scientific investigation into the circumstances surrounding 9/11 or not.

One such thing is that hair needs a reason to fall out in clumps.

True enough, but no one has mentioned it falling out "in clumps" as far as I can see.

Sure. Am I trying to put forth a new medicine that hasn't been tested yet?

No, you were presenting some quotes which tried to suggest that there was a link between a range of illnesses and ailments despite there being no scientific validity to the claims being made. I think you know full well that this is the point I was making.

More importantly, if a NIST representative attempted to support the "official story" with such sketchy evidence a number of the posters on this thread would descend upon him with unbounded glee and castigate him for unremitting incompetence.

We've already bashed them, plenty of times.

I have noticed. Which makes it more of a pity that there are some on this thread, (and plenty of others), who appear anxious to fall into the same traps that they accuse NIST of by presenting unsubstantiated speculation as incontrovertible fact.

So unless all these guys coincidentally came down with leukemia, I guess your working theory is that premature hair loss caused all their hair to come out in clumps. Good work.

Not at all, there are lots of reasons why people lose their hair. I related a couple of examples but thought you may find it dull if I listed the circumstances of all my balding friends

And this is also a straw-man because I was speaking of none of the ailments you described immediately before this.

The quotes you presented discussed exactly those conditions. I just added a few extra at the end to make the point that anyone can recount a list of illnesses they have suffered. I have lots more but I'll spare you those.

look up the symptoms yourself and compare with what she describes. She at least has eyes, doesn't she? You can give her that much credit.

Yes I can, but she is still no epidemiologist and still no expert. She is just recounting anecdotal evidence which no one has demonstrated has any scientific significance.

Ah, here we go, can't have a good witness without someone trying to discredit them.

Her testimony is poor scientific evidence and is unquestionably tainted by her personal position. You can chose to regard this as irrelevant if you wish but the scenario is becoming repetitive.

You're dancing all around the point I was making, without making it any less valid.

I think I was responding directly to the points raised in the quotations you presented. You did make a passing comment about "psychological engineering" but I have to say that the only "engineering" of evidence being done was probably by Indira Singh herself. She attended a detox clinic and appeared to be surprised to find people there who either were ill or thought they were. If I wanted to find sick people that's precisely the kind of place I'd go which just goes to demonstrate the poor statistical quality of the evidence she is presenting.

If you want to talk about scientific demonstration, then you aren't talking about 9/11.

There is no doubt that there's plenty of rubbishy evidence being presented in the name of science by all sides and Steven Jones is far from innocent in that respect. It would be nice if we could try to avoid doing that in this forum but I guess that is a futile hope. Shame.

[edit on 27-3-2007 by timeless test]

[edit on 27-3-2007 by timeless test]

Originally posted by timeless test
They used to say that about witchcraft

You have just compared the idea of hair falling out due to radiation, to witchcraft. Congrats?

No, you were presenting some quotes which tried to suggest that there was a link between a range of illnesses and ailments despite there being no scientific validity to the claims being made. I think you know full well that this is the point I was making.

If you want to know the truth about it, I think there may have been a nuclear reaction for totally different reasons. The health effects and other consequences are only secondary to me, and I'm not using them to try to PROVE anything. But if there was a nuclear reaction, you would expect to see signs of radiation in the clean-up workers, would you not? Doesn't mean there WAS radiation, but only that IF there was, THEN this is in agreement.

And look up the people that are now sick having worked at Ground Zero. Simple Google search for you. It was unrelated, but if you want to suggest that she only found others that were sick by attending detox, you'd be surprised to find that thousands of clean-up workers are now seriously ill. Do you want to show me that this is a small portion of the total workers or anything like that, that it's unrelated, a fluke? Mainstream sources would even contradict you there.

There is no doubt that there's plenty of rubbishy evidence being presented in the name of science by all sides and Steven Jones is far from innocent in that respect. It would be nice if we could try to avoid doing that in this forum but I guess that is a futile hope. Shame.

In all the points like this you run your mouth but don't offer me anything. Disagree with Jones, but he's the only one thus far to actually perform experiments and have them turn out supporting his initial hypotheses in any of this.

Originally posted by Essedarius
Unless experts in the field are offering contradicting assessments of the event... then it would be nice to have a demonstration for those of us who don't find complicated physics and chemistry to be "common sense."

The physics aren't complicated. I just think people sell themselves short and give up trying to understand the technical stuff, when it really is basic stuff. The experimental demonstrations you're looking for are offered in any college physics lab. You can probably purchase the credit hours to take one physics course at a local community college and get first hand experience with mechanics.

I haven't really seen anyone talk of the physics of the actual global collapse in accurate detail without making a case for demolition. NIST and FEMA both totally neglected to look fully at the collapses from the perspective of mechanics. NIST didn't even try to analyze the global collapses at all. So this is the kind of "opposition", if you can even call it that, to the "common sense" I'm talking about. Anybody in an Internet forum can spout off something they think justifies this or that, but beyond this medium there is no opposition to the implications of a lack of acceleration, or accelerating at free-fall, or falling symmetrically from the very first instant.

I promise you that if any confirmed leads are found connecting the events of 9/11 to widespread health issues, that the bill to run a full study will be put on the tab of the personal injury lawyer lucky enough to land the class-action suit.

Not only are there such widespread health issues, but the EPA lied about it. Immediately after 9/11.

Here's a source for one of the above, Google will bring you the EPA bit.

Zero for Heroes

Many of the people who spent months in the pit at ground zero have respiratory ailments. And no health insurance. And no aid from the government. Why?

[...]

“From a public-health standpoint, this is an intolerable outrage,” says Dr. Stephen Levin, who oversees a program at Mount Sinai Hospital that screens thousands of patients with ground-zero-related illnesses. “There is a patchwork, at best, of treatment resources for a limited number of people. But this requires a serious federal response. Hundreds and hundreds of people are facing lives turned totally upside down by illness—without access to care.”

nymag.com...

Love this threads, completelly derailed, and went into weird directions..

can anyone explain how to make a ball of molten metal in a collapse like that?

I knew it, they dont...

Toché

I feel the need to address the whole hair loss debate. I have personally had large clumps of hair fall out for no apparent reason. The doctors eventually decided (after extensive testing) that it was due to stress. Go here www.follicle.com... for more info.
Many people who were at ground zero not only suffered the trauma of the collapse and losing loved ones, they also lost their jobs. Stress seems like it could be the cause of many of such cases.
Wikipedia also has a good list of contaminants that those at ground zero were exposed to that would account for even more health effects.
en.wikipedia.org...

As to the 'meteorite', this didn't happen in an instant. The debris from the towers was exposed to high temperature fires that burned for weeks. Steel will absorb and hold heat, getting hotter and hotter. We are told that the fires weren't sustained for long enough for the steel to melt and collapse the towers, but surely the sustained heat of several weeks worth of fires would have been enough to cause the metals to meld as seen in the OP.

I have no idea what caused those fires to burn for so long, but we know that they did - that is why this piece of evidence does not need to be hidden.

there is paper in the meteorite.
so, any extreme heat was extremely localized.

Originally posted by ilandrah

As to the 'meteorite', this didn't happen in an instant. The debris from the towers was exposed to high temperature fires that burned for weeks. Steel will absorb and hold heat, getting hotter and hotter. We are told that the fires weren't sustained for long enough for the steel to melt and collapse the towers, but surely the sustained heat of several weeks worth of fires would have been enough to cause the metals to meld as seen in the OP.

I have no idea what caused those fires to burn for so long, but we know that they did - that is why this piece of evidence does not need to be hidden.

So surely by your logic by leaving my gas hob on with a steel pot above it will infact cause the steel to melt after a long enough time? The steel would and could only get as hot as the flame on it. It does not retain the energy and build it up until in will melt. If it did we wouldn't need a blast furnace to make the metals in the first place...

My first post, I've been a lurker for a while so feel free to disregard my comments if you want.

Originally posted by Ultima72
My first post, I've been a lurker for a while so feel free to disregard my comments if you want.

Welcome. And no, we will not disregard your comments because they are valid. Everyone's opinion is valid in my mind. That is why I have yet to put someone on ignore.

As far as getting back to topic. Anyone know how they came to the conclusion that "it was as hot as the inner earth"? Was that just a statement made by Fox news? And why would they say that?

I've no idea where the original comment came from and it may have been no more that journalistic silliness.

But just to be a touch pedantic the actual comment referred to the "inner Earth" which could mean almost anything whilst the phrase "inner core", (which leads to the estimates of 9000deg +temperatures), is rather more specific and extreme and, (I think), was bsbray's interpretation of what was said.

(bsb, I'm not trying to reopen a picky argument and if it wasn't you I humbly apologise).

[edit on 28-3-2007 by timeless test]