Jesse ventura conspiracy theory episode two

reply to post by GoodOlDave
So,according to you we sholud put little faith in a government that has shown countless times to have lied about everything from POW's still in Vietnam to having being involved in drug dealing.

Originally posted by PRS395
Dave, Dave Dave!

Do, You really believe this?!! Really, Seriously?!!

This is just between you and me. I promise!

You need to be careful with these double standards of yours. Secretary of Transportation Norm Mineta (you know, the same guy you're always quoting out of context to "prove" there ws a stand down to begin with) likewise confirmed there was a shoot down order, and admitted that when he first heard flight 93 went down he thought it was shot down.

If you believe there was a stand down order, then you'll necessarily have to believe there w a shoot down order. If you can't believe his testimony on the shoot down order, then you'll necessarily have to discount his testimony on the stand down order. You cannot have it both ways.

Do you really think you are fooling anyone? Really?

So what do you think cute little sayings like this is really going to refute, specifically?

Originally posted by mike dangerously
So,according to you we sholud put little faith in a government that has shown countless times to have lied about everything from POW's still in Vietnam to having being involved in drug dealing.

??? Huh? If the gov't is doing all those things, then why *shouldn't* we put little faith in them?

Methinks you meant to say something else here.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Well then in that case, you've got a problem. You just said the guy never was able to see all the information that the other investigators had access to, specifically the blueprints of the towers, so how he was able to say the towers definitely *could* survive the plane impacts and the subsequent fires is problematic.

He's relied on the same incomplete structural data that everyone else not associated with NIST/FEMA has had to assume to write various technical papers and do modeling. In other words this guy is going off as much as Bazant ever was, everybody would benefit by having access to the complete data.

He's not here for me to discuss this, but since you arem I'll ask you- every video of the collapse in existence shpows that the point if initial collapse happened at the exact point where the planes hit the towers and ignited fires. How the heck can there *not* be a corelation between the two?

I'm not personally denying a correlation I'm saying the core goes, the hat truss distributes the load onto the perimeter columns, but they can't take the entire load of the tower and start folding in on themselves at their weakest point -- the impact holes. The collapses didn't start on the exact floors where the most fire had occurred in the towers, and the core structure failed simultaneously but no one offered a mechanism for that, either.

Since you don't agree with the structural faulure scenario, and I've already shows why the controlled demolitions scanario is unlikely, what's left, then?

That's why we need to do a LOT better job investigating this. If we only get as much information physically possibly all out in the open, that's all it takes to give all the engineers and scientists of the world all they need to do all the work they want.

But the "BS they had to work with" includes steel which was visibly folded like paper, torn like cloth, and twisted in ghastly forms, which does NOT support your claimn of controlled demolitions.

There were some columns like that, but most were fine. Almost all of the perimeter columns were fine, and many/most of the core columns came apart in perfect sections with clean edges.

First can you please show me what NIST or FEMA proved exactly, and how they proved it? Thanks.

??? I thought you said you read the NIST and FEMA reports. I know full well I pointed out the appendix that explained how they collected samples of the steel.

Well all I'm saying is if you're going to ask me why I don't accept the NIST or FEMA reports, tell me what specifically in those reports you are referring to and just where they proved it.

Originally posted by bsbray11
He's relied on the same incomplete structural data that everyone else not associated with NIST/FEMA has had to assume to write various technical papers and do modeling. In other words this guy is going off as much as Bazant ever was, everybody would benefit by having access to the complete data.

All right, fair enough...but the thing is, eight years have passed and things have changed. For one thing, the blueprints are pretty east to obtain now. In fact, YOU have them now. Here they are-

WTC 1 blueprints

So if this fellow genuinely felt not having access to the blueprints was an obstacle, that obstacle is no longer there. I would think, if he's so convinced of his claims that he's actually filing lawsuits, that he would wish to go back and review the blueprints now that they're available to certify his claims. Has he, do you know?

I'm not personally denying a correlation I'm saying the core goes, the hat truss distributes the load onto the perimeter columns, but they can't take the entire load of the tower and start folding in on themselves at their weakest point -- the impact holes. The collapses didn't start on the exact floors where the most fire had occurred in the towers, and the core structure failed simultaneously but no one offered a mechanism for that, either.

So if you're acknowledging there's a direct corelation between the impact of the planes, the fires that it started in that location, and the fact that the towers began falling at that exact location, then why do you have resistance to the idea that the planes DID cause the towers to collapse, it's just due to an as-yet unknown cause and effect chain reaction of events that neither NIST or FEMA were able to accurately document?

...or am I misunderstanding your position?

That's why we need to do a LOT better job investigating this. If we only get as much information physically possibly all out in the open, that's all it takes to give all the engineers and scientists of the world all they need to do all the work they want.

I agree 100% on this. Are we likewise both in agreement that for a legitimate, satisfactory review, we need to make a conscious effort to weed out the bad sources of information being introduced from either side that muddies the water? The junk-science of Dr. Judy Wood claiming the towers were destroyed by energy beams from outer space comes immediately to mind.

There were some columns like that, but most were fine. Almost all of the perimeter columns were fine, and many/most of the core columns came apart in perfect sections with clean edges.

That is not suspicious, seeing that when the individual components broke from the force of impact of the collapse, they'd naturally break at the most vulnerable stress point, and that would almost certainly be at the joints where they were riveted to each other.

Well all I'm saying is if you're going to ask me why I don't accept the NIST or FEMA reports, tell me what specifically in those reports you are referring to and just where they proved it.

All right, please start with the claim that FEMA didn't collect enough samples to make an informed analysis of the steel, as described in Appendix A, becuase it seems to me that they did.

I can post a link to Appendix A, if you'd like.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
All right, fair enough...but the thing is, eight years have passed and things have changed. For one thing, the blueprints are pretty east to obtain now. In fact, YOU have them now. Here they are-

I have them now? Seriously, why do you think "we" are all ONE person? Why do you honestly think like that?

WTC 1 blueprints

First, those aren't structural "schematics" or whatever SE's call their technical documents (I know they aren't called "blueprints" anymore). They are architectural drawings, which means they are for/from an architect, not a civil/structural engineer.

Second, do you know what the original source for those were? Nope, didn't think so.

Those drawings were emailed to Steven Jones while the Scholars for 9/11 Truth thing was getting its feet. I was a student member of their organization and forums when he received the documents. He posted the whole story on the forums and I was not impressed with it. Someone anonymously sent them to him, years after 9/11 and so with plenty of time to edit them in any way desired. You are talking about trying to extrapolate structural information from architectural drawings that have no source.

I hope we can agree this is not the best source of information. You don't trust anything else Steven Jones says, so why do you trust something anonymously emailed to him, for which he is now the only "source" for these that can be listed?

So if you're acknowledging there's a direct corelation between the impact of the planes, the fires that it started in that location, and the fact that the towers began falling at that exact location

No, I actually explicitly just told you that the floors whose exterior columns collapsed first were NOT the floors with the worst fires. So there is NO correlation to the fires. Plane impacts, yes. For the exterior columns only, as per the load transfer I mentioned in my last post.

then why do you have resistance to the idea that the planes DID cause the towers to collapse, it's just due to an as-yet unknown cause and effect chain reaction of events that neither NIST or FEMA were able to accurately document?

Let's just say my problem is that both you and the investigating agencies are comfortable concluding their investigation by determining that the global collapses were caused by "an as-yet unknown cause and effect chain reaction."

I don't and never claimed to know what exactly brought those towers down, whether it was bombs, or where they were placed or how many of them or any nonsense like that, that I have no idea how I would honestly and personally know any of that information. The problem I have is that the story presented in the official reports so far doesn't paint a complete picture, and where it DOES try to paint a complete "local" picture, they do a shoddy job at best. And do it in such a way that it can easily be interpreted as being intentional, and as them having no intention to find the real answers or follow up on very important questions.

That's why we need to do a LOT better job investigating this. If we only get as much information physically possibly all out in the open, that's all it takes to give all the engineers and scientists of the world all they need to do all the work they want.

I agree 100% on this. Are we likewise both in agreement that for a legitimate, satisfactory review, we need to make a conscious effort to weed out the bad sources of information being introduced from either side that muddies the water? The junk-science of Dr. Judy Wood claiming the towers were destroyed by energy beams from outer space comes immediately to mind.

Well this is what I've decided. If all of the information we want is simply released to public domain, before we decide who does another sponsored investigation, we should just let all the information "steep" with public engineers and scientists who are actually interested, and see what floats to the top, and see what the best theories are and how we can test them.

In other words, forget another investigation for now, is my position now. Simply release all this information we are still missing, and help us find names and contact information for people willing to come forward about things they saw that day that have been under-reported or otherwise neglected. And then let us do what we will with it, and see where it goes.

I have no problem with Judy Woods because most people have enough of a head on their shoulders to realize what evidence she actually has going for her claims. The problem I have is with people who lump people like ME in with people like HER. That's not MY problem, that's somebody's problem who is not capable of intelligently discriminating between two different things. I like to sit and think about theories, visualize them, see what possibilities and limitations I can identify. There are a number of things with Judy Woods' theories that make absolutely no sense, the "collapse" initiation point being one of them if she's talking space beams. But I'm not even going to go there...

There were some columns like that, but most were fine. Almost all of the perimeter columns were fine, and many/most of the core columns came apart in perfect sections with clean edges.

That is not suspicious, seeing that when the individual components broke from the force of impact of the collapse, they'd naturally break at the most vulnerable stress point, and that would almost certainly be at the joints where they were riveted to each other.

And naturally even in a demolition things are still going to be bent up. So from this angle you can neither confirm or deny any demolition theory or much of any other theory, because the actual evidence/photos of Ground Zero won't immediately settle it either way.

All right, please start with the claim that FEMA didn't collect enough samples to make an informed analysis of the steel, as described in Appendix A, becuase it seems to me that they did.

Well, again, I'm going to have to ask for an "informed analysis" of the debris before I can personally evaluate this statement. It all goes back to what they found and what they concluded, and what they based their conclusions on.

I can post a link to Appendix A, if you'd like.

I believe the FEMA chapters relevant to their conclusions on the Towers were in chapters 1 and/or 2, off the top of my head. I know chapter 2 deals with the Towers.

[edit on 13-12-2009 by bsbray11]

Those who are sleeping at this stage of the game WILL REMAIN ASLEEP AND WILL NEVER WAKE UP.
It doesnt matter what you show them...
It just is that way.
I dont know why, but that is the pattern with humans.

:shk:

reply to post by dgtempe

"Those who are sleeping at this stage of the game WILL REMAIN ASLEEP AND WILL NEVER WAKE UP.
It doesnt matter what you show them...
It just is that way.
I dont know why, but that is the pattern with humans."

Now theres truth right there if you ask me.
It's so refreshing to see every now and again. S&F

In this episode I was stunned and blown away at how building 7 containing federal offices collapsed and imploded exactly like the two towers did. I don't know why but I had never seen that video before and it was only for a couple of brief seconds but it imploded EXACTLY like the first two towers...

How on earth could that have happened? There was no airplane that rammed into that building? Can somebody... anyone explain the theory or theories related to building 7 implosion? I'd love to hear thoughts on that and what the official 9/11 commission had to say about why building 7 collapsed.

thx.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Second, do you know what the original source for those were? Nope, didn't think so.

I wouldn't go there if I were you. I got them from a pro-conspiracy website, as I suspect your position is that if they came from some gov't site you wouldn't consider them valid. If you're saying these scematics are bogus, then you're necessarily agreeing with me that these conspiracy web sites are putting out entirely untrustworthy information.

Those drawings were emailed to Steven Jones while the Scholars for 9/11 Truth thing was getting its feet. I was a student member of their organization and forums when he received the documents. He posted the whole story on the forums and I was not impressed with it. Someone anonymously sent them to him, years after 9/11 and so with plenty of time to edit them in any way desired. You are talking about trying to extrapolate structural information from architectural drawings that have no source.

Now THAT is an interesting claim, coming from you. Steven Jones is the very person who supposedly analyzed ground zero dust samples for thermite, and he openly admits his source material was literally obtained in the exact same manner. He shows no chain of custody, he shows no methodology that documents how the sample came from the towers rather than one of the nearby structures, and he certainly doesn't show how the material is actually thermite vs ingredients for thermite that just happen to be found together along with a thousand other ingredients.

Thus, his claims of Thermite must be equally spurious on exactly the same grounds. Do you agree or disagree?

No, I actually explicitly just told you that the floors whose exterior columns collapsed first were NOT the floors with the worst fires. So there is NO correlation to the fires. Plane impacts, yes. For the exterior columns only, as per the load transfer I mentioned in my last post.

The issue wasn't necessarily which floor had the worst fires, but which floor had the highest temperatures. According to NIST the 94th floor on WTC 1, where the plane had impacted, had temperatures upwards of 1000 degrees celcius in areas (NCSTAR-1, fig. 6-36, pg 127)). That certainly sounds like a corelation to me.

Let's just say my problem is that both you and the investigating agencies are comfortable concluding their investigation by determining that the global collapses were caused by "an as-yet unknown cause and effect chain reaction."

But the obvious problem is, the chain reaction would entail so many randomly occurring events caused by other randomnly occuring events which in turn caused other randomly occurring events (I.E. what caused steel to bend vs. tear vs. snap like a twig vs. break at the rivets) that we will NEVER know the exact chain of events. All we know is what entered the black box (the plane crash, the fuel, and the fires, occurring in a building with a unique design no other building in the world had), and what came out of the black box (the building collapsing at the point of impact). I'll agree the events of the day were pretty flaky, but even you have to agree there is more evidence of the "planes-impact-fires' scenarios than for the non "planes-impact-fires" scenarios.

Yeah, we really don't know how the Egyptians built the pyramids either, but we still know the answer involves human muscle, more than it does sorcerers or UFOs.

In other words, forget another investigation for now, is my position now. Simply release all this information we are still missing, and help us find names and contact information for people willing to come forward about things they saw that day that have been under-reported or otherwise neglected. And then let us do what we will with it, and see where it goes.

Here's the problem with that statement. I fully agree that the gov't is withholding a lot of relevent information, but history has many examples of when important information needed to be withheld in order that a great goal can be achieved. Back in WWII the reasons are obvious for why they didn't reveal they were reading Japanese naval codes, and the cops sure aren't going to reveal the names of the snitches giving them reports on drug dealers. I can fully understand why the gov't isn't going to likewise reveal how it knows Bin Laden was behind the attack as it too will require revealing sensitive information on how we collected the information to begin with.

Personally, I think this is the reason why we haven't found him yet- all these know it alls are gleefully gloating how we can eavesdrop on cell phone conversations and triangulate their precise location, so of COURSE Bin Laden is going stop using cell phones, making it that much harder for us to locate. The guy ain't stupid, you know.

So I suppose the question is, what information would you want to know, that DOESN'T come with a higher cost for knowing?

I have no problem with Judy Woods because most people have enough of a head on their shoulders to realize what evidence she actually has going for her claims. The problem I have is with people who lump people like ME in with people like HER. That's not MY problem, that's somebody's problem who is not capable of intelligently discriminating between two different things. I like to sit and think about theories, visualize them, see what possibilities and limitations I can identify.

...and here's the problem with THAT statement. I've been discussing 9/11 conspiracies for a number of years now, and I can say with 100% confidence that ALL the information the 9/11 conspiracy theorists are basing their claims on are equally as dubious. Steven Jones claims there was thermite in WTC dust which he can in no way prove actaully came from the WTC. Bin Laden supposedly died from bad kidneys as reported by "undisclosed reports" from "anonymous sources". There are reports of suspicious links between Bush and Bin Laden via the exact same five degrees of separation, "Kevin Bacon" game that links everyone to everyone else. Thus, if 95% of conspiracy theorists suspect controlled demolitions, and if controlled demolitions is found to be based upon incorrect information, then 95% of conspiracy theorists are incorrect. It's just that they're incorrect for different reasons that why the 3% of "lasers from outer space" people and the 2% of "no planes" people are incorrect.

Would you like me to provide examples?

I believe the FEMA chapters relevant to their conclusions on the Towers were in chapters 1 and/or 2, off the top of my head. I know chapter 2 deals with the Towers.

No, appendix A is relevent becuase it specifically documents on how they collected the samples of steel ("coupons" as they called them). They collected 170 samples from the critical areas of structural failure, if memory serves.

Originally posted by YAHUWAH SAVES
How on earth could that have happened? There was no airplane that rammed into that building? Can somebody... anyone explain the theory or theories related to building 7 implosion? I'd love to hear thoughts on that and what the official 9/11 commission had to say about why building 7 collapsed.

thx.

First, the 9/11 commission didn't mention why ANY of the buildings collapsed. It was to document who was behind the attack and how they did it. They left the investigation of the collapse to FEMA and NIST.

NIST did the investigation of WTC 7. They found that it was a number of reasons, First, when the north tower fell a gigantic pile of debris hit WTC 7 and ignited fires. These fires burned uncontrollably becuase the collapse of the north tower destroyed all the water supplied to the firefighters. The fires heated critical support beams and caused them to lose their structural integrity (supposedly on the 13th floor), which transferred the load bearing to the remaining columns which couldn't hold the weight, and it collapsed.

WTC 7 doesn't get as much press becuase the building had already been evacuated by the time of the collapse, so noone was killed.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by bsbray11
Second, do you know what the original source for those were? Nope, didn't think so.

I wouldn't go there if I were you.

You don't really know me.

I got them from a pro-conspiracy website, as I suspect your position is that if they came from some gov't site you wouldn't consider them valid. If you're saying these scematics are bogus, then you're necessarily agreeing with me that these conspiracy web sites are putting out entirely untrustworthy information.

I already explained to you in my last post that no, I don't trust these documents.

I don't trust something or not trust something based on where it came from. Maybe that is the real difference between you and me, huh SimpleOlDave?


Now explain to me why YOU consider architectural drawings anonymously sent to Steven Jones an accurate source of technical structural information?

Steven Jones is the very person who supposedly analyzed ground zero dust samples for thermite, and he openly admits his source material was literally obtained in the exact same manner. He shows no chain of custody, he shows no methodology that documents how the sample came from the towers rather than one of the nearby structures, and he certainly doesn't show how the material is actually thermite vs ingredients for thermite that just happen to be found together along with a thousand other ingredients.

First of all, given that the substance is actually the WTC dust he claims it is, the data itself speaks that this substance is not just concrete dust and paint chips. The chemistry itself tells you that it consists of a eutectic mixture. What other paints are eutectic mixtures, or whatever else you'd claim it is?

Secondly, unlike the structural documents which only certain people have access to in the first place, this dust is still all over Manhattan if you look in the right places. They were still finding bone fragments on the roofs of other buildings years later. So if someone wants to really confirm or deny Jones' study based simply on his chain of custody, they are more than welcome to. Why haven't we seen anyone else test the dust to confirm or deny Jones' study? If Jones could do it, surely some single humble person from your army of 10000000000000's of experts could do it, too?

Jones' study is also consistent with appendix C of the FEMA report where even FEMA reports eutectic corrosion to steel.

Thus, his claims of Thermite must be equally spurious on exactly the same grounds. Do you agree or disagree?

I agree that the chain of custody for the samples is questionable. But on that question, I'm putting my money on it Jones using accurate samples. If not, I guess I'll be waiting for someone willing to put the same amount of effort into acquiring and testing their own samples. Another unanswered question that could be settled with the release of more information, huh?

The issue wasn't necessarily which floor had the worst fires, but which floor had the highest temperatures. According to NIST the 94th floor on WTC 1, where the plane had impacted, had temperatures upwards of 1000 degrees celcius in areas (NCSTAR-1, fig. 6-36, pg 127)). That certainly sounds like a corelation to me.

You are free to believe what you want, but there are a lot of things you don't mention, that your claim depends on. First and most obviously the accuracy of NIST's computer simulations, which they didn't have physical evidence to justify. Second that other floors wouldn't have had areas of fire of equal intensity, whatever the actual temperatures were. Also how much of that would have been able to transfer to steel, ie where it was exposed and how long, and finally how close to the massive impact hole and other sources of cool air, which doesn't contribute to high temperatures.

The bottom line is no matter what you believe was the reason the buildings failed at the impact site, you can't claim a demolition wouldn't produce the same thing. Now you know that if the core structure failed first, via explosives or eutectic agents or anything that will fit the bill, then the perimeter will naturally collapse where they are weakest since they won't be able to support the massive load redistribution from the core.

Let's just say my problem is that both you and the investigating agencies are comfortable concluding their investigation by determining that the global collapses were caused by "an as-yet unknown cause and effect chain reaction."

But the obvious problem is, the chain reaction would entail so many randomly occurring events caused by other randomnly occuring events which in turn caused other randomly occurring events (I.E. what caused steel to bend vs. tear vs. snap like a twig vs. break at the rivets) that we will NEVER know the exact chain of events.

I call BS on that. Just because SimpleOlDave doesn't see any way we can figure it out, doesn't mean brighter engineering minds can't. I have seen all kinds of unexpected and beautiful mathematical and physical proofs, from times and people you would least expect. I'm not closing my mind to closure within my lifetime yet.

I'll agree the events of the day were pretty flaky, but even you have to agree there is more evidence of the "planes-impact-fires' scenarios than for the non "planes-impact-fires" scenarios.

Actually I totally disagree, as if you hadn't caught on yet. I just told you I think all the reports endorsing that theory are BS and I have been asking you repeatedly to show me what any of those reports actually proved and how they proved it. So far, just like with everyone else, you have refrained from even trying that. You would think with so many people convinced so zealously that they have solid evidence, they would know what it actually is.

Yeah, we really don't know how the Egyptians built the pyramids either, but we still know the answer involves human muscle, more than it does sorcerers or UFOs.

Way off topic but I don't actually know any of that either. Apparently no one ever taught you the difference between theories and evidence. Nor how to keep an open mind. I personally have absolutely no idea who built the pyramids or when. Is it really that hard for you to just admit it when you don't know something?

Back in WWII the reasons are obvious for why they didn't reveal they were reading Japanese naval codes, and the cops sure aren't going to reveal the names of the snitches giving them reports on drug dealers.

The WTC Towers are already blown up and the Pentagon has already been hit. So releasing things like the WTC structural documents and the Pentagon security videos isn't going to hurt a damned thing now. I challenge you to think of a scenario where either of those things would be dangerous in the hands of terrorists.

I've been discussing 9/11 conspiracies for a number of years now, and I can say with 100% confidence that ALL the information the 9/11 conspiracy theorists are basing their claims on are equally as dubious.

That's your opinion and I don't particularly care. I've already noticed that the source of some information is your primary means of determining your opinion about it. Don't even bother defending that way of "reasoning" because it's never going to fly with me. I don't care who says what, I only care what they are actually saying. That's why I can disagree with Jones, even though that apparently baffles you.

I believe the FEMA chapters relevant to their conclusions on the Towers were in chapters 1 and/or 2, off the top of my head. I know chapter 2 deals with the Towers.

No, appendix A is relevent becuase it specifically documents on how they collected the samples of steel ("coupons" as they called them). They collected 170 samples from the critical areas of structural failure, if memory serves.

But that doesn't tell us anything. In order for you to say they actually did a decent investigation job with that debris, you would then have to show me what they concluded, and how they were able to conclude it. That's the thing you are allergic to even thinking about.

Originally posted by huntergatherer
reply to post by Nyhee

 

the tv show "smarter than a 5th grader" has openings

2nd line

So does The Weakest Link

tag

you're it

what a stupid game...

files.abovetopsecret.com...



just scanning the last couple pages makes me wonder why this banner is really here?

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

Originally posted by Americanist
5. Halliburton and Hunt picked up some lucrative deals re-building and refining inside Iraq. Halliburton operates in Iran under a corporate umbrella going against US Embargo. You find no-bid contracts and loopholes "gone wild" during this time in history. I'm surprised there isn't a DVD out yet starring Bush and Cheney frolicking in the sand.

Not sure where they flew off to.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8ea3d540cdf8.jpg[/atsimg]

This is the best picture I have ever seen, that did not have a naked chick in it.

Ever.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
All right, fair enough...but the thing is, eight years have passed and things have changed. For one thing, the blueprints are pretty east to obtain now. In fact, YOU have them now. Here they are-

WTC 1 blueprints

A set of Architectural drawings is not a complete set of the structural documentation. Or do you believe they built the towers with only 113 drawings showing nothing but architectural information?

You have plumbing drawings missing, mechanical drawings missing, electrical drawings missing, and most importantly the structural drawings are missing.

Not to mention the specifications (where most of the data can be found....not the drawings).

[edit on 16-12-2009 by Nutter]

Originally posted by bsbray11
First of all, given that the substance is actually the WTC dust he claims it is, the data itself speaks that this substance is not just concrete dust and paint chips. The chemistry itself tells you that it consists of a eutectic mixture. What other paints are eutectic mixtures, or whatever else you'd claim it is?

The problem I have with this is that...

a) all Jones found was chips of aluminum stuck to chips of iron oxide (I.E. rust). I don't have to tell you that the entire building was built out of aluminum (for the sheath) and steel (for the structual supports) and guess what- steel produces rust when it becomes oxidized, and there was a LOT of rust all over the place. Someone even posted some interesting photos, here...

Photos of WTC rust

..so he is clearly making an unsubstanciated claim that the source of the aluminum chips and the iron oxide originated together, rather than from two separate sources which were combined during the fires and the collapse.

b) not to mention, that the towers were two gigantic sources of aluminim and iron oxide to begin with, and in fact would be even a larger source of aluminum and steel even if thermite had been used. Jones cannot show it didn't originate from the structure itself, so he doesn't even bother to try showing this.

c) There is no such term as "thermitic material". I tried looking up the precise definition but have yet to find a single dictionary that recognizes it as a legitimate term. The REAL term he should have used was "inflammable" or "exothermic" if he wanted to keep it scientific. "Goldschmidt reaction" would have worked here as well. Jones invented that term himself to drop innuendo that it's thermite or a form of thermite.

d) Aluminum burns all on its own. I know aluminum burns becuase I used to make M-80s when I was a kid (for which the statute of limitations has expired so I can freely admit that now) and aluminum powder was one of the ingredients, so *any* aluminum is going to burn when shoved underneath a torch, as Jones has done. There isn't anything suspicious or even particularly new about it.

*You* may see this as some incredible expose, but *I* see this as either someone discovering chemistry for the first time, or, someone being fast and loose with the facts in order to give us a snow job. I am giving Jones the benefit of the doubt that he hasn't discovered chemistry for the first time.

Why haven't we seen anyone else test the dust to confirm or deny Jones' study? If Jones could do it, surely some single humble person from your army of 10000000000000's of experts could do it, too?

No, actually, you have it wrong. Someone from YOUR side needs to prove that Thermite could even be used to destroy the support structures in the way it's been atributed. This is called "proof of concept". It would be very simple to replicate- take a steel beam, put it upright, and attempt to find out how thermite was able to destroy it without getting too implausible. If you can't then this whole thermite scenario is moot to begin with becuase thermite couldn't have been responsible for the collapse.

You are free to believe what you want, but there are a lot of things you don't mention, that your claim depends on. First and most obviously the accuracy of NIST's computer simulations, which they didn't have physical evidence to justify.

I wasn't talking about the computer simulations. I was discussing the claim that NIST wasn't able to collect enough samples of the steel.

I call BS on that. Just because SimpleOlDave doesn't see any way we can figure it out, doesn't mean brighter engineering minds can't.

No, actually, if memory serves, FEMA said the same thing, although in much more eloquent language. That's the whole reason *I* said it.

Actually I totally disagree, as if you hadn't caught on yet. I just told you I think all the reports endorsing that theory are BS and I have been asking you repeatedly to show me what any of those reports actually proved and how they proved it. So far, just like with everyone else, you have refrained from even trying that.

You asked me to (and I quote) "show what FEMA said and how they proved it". I keep wanting to resolve the claim of whether FEMA collected sufficient samples of steel, which is obviously important to how they proved what they said, but getting a straight answer out of you on this is akin to nailing jam to the wall. If you're not going to stick to any one topic long enough to get an answer, then of course you're not going to ever find an answer to anything.

The WTC Towers are already blown up and the Pentagon has already been hit. So releasing things like the WTC structural documents and the Pentagon security videos isn't going to hurt a damned thing now. I challenge you to think of a scenario where either of those things would be dangerous in the hands of terrorists.

Excuse me?? Proving that foreign terrorists were responsible for the attack and the refutation of these controlled demolitions claims are one and the same, because the entire reason for the CD claims is to prove "inside job". If it WAS a genuine attack by foreign terrorists, then it necessarily means it WASN'T an inside job, and you and I both know all these claims of CD are going to fizzle out like a wet match after that. This is exactly why there is such resistance to the idea among the truthers that bin Laden was responsible (or that he even actually exists) to begin with.

I didn't think I needed to point that out to you.

i had NO idea how powerful haarp actually was until i saw his video,, the guy said it CAN fry when turned all the way up, my worry is what if that thing just happened to malfunction one day and it fried the ozone or other layers up there???? thats crazy

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
a) all Jones found was chips of aluminum stuck to chips of iron oxide (I.E. rust). I don't have to tell you that the entire building was built out of aluminum (for the sheath) and steel (for the structual supports) and guess what- steel produces rust when it becomes oxidized, and there was a LOT of rust all over the place.

Yeah, iron oxide and aluminum were both in the towers, and they also make up eutectic mixtures. So this is such a brain-racker to figure out which this stuff was, right?

A eutectic reaction isn't going to even go off if all it is, is a piece of aluminum plastered onto a piece of rust. If you think that is going to result in an explosive reaction, or any reaction at all, you might want to review the basic chemistry that explains that iron oxide and aluminum particles have to be finely ground and mixed together in the proper ratio for a reaction to take place. Otherwise you are basically saying, there are all the ingredients for a cake in this cupboard, so when I open it up I should find a cake. Chemistry doesn't work like that.

b) not to mention, that the towers were two gigantic sources of aluminim and iron oxide to begin with, and in fact would be even a larger source of aluminum and steel even if thermite had been used. Jones cannot show it didn't originate from the structure itself, so he doesn't even bother to try showing this.

A guy named Frank Greening tried to argue that a spontaneous thermite reaction started within the towers from molten aluminum laying on rust. Jones actually tried to recreate this by pouring molten aluminum on rust in a lab, and it didn't do squat. That just isn't how eutectic reactions are created. If you want to make up brand new theories of science just to explain anomalies from that day, you will have to provide more than just your personal conjecture and speculations. At least Jones is actually going to effort to validate or refute these claims such as what you are making, not just an "armchair skeptic."

c) There is no such term as "thermitic material". I tried looking up the precise definition but have yet to find a single dictionary that recognizes it as a legitimate term. The REAL term he should have used was "inflammable" or "exothermic" if he wanted to keep it scientific. "Goldschmidt reaction" would have worked here as well. Jones invented that term himself to drop innuendo that it's thermite or a form of thermite.

Thermite is a type of eutectic reaction that, in its simplest form, involves aluminum and iron oxide. He found both of those substances and also established that they created a eutectic reaction. You can call it want you want, and hide behind your semantic word games, but you'll find that this has nothing to do with what this substance would have done to the towers. Only the chemistry itself has to do with that.

d) Aluminum burns all on its own.

Unless you have very extreme conditions, it only "burns" in powder form and even then the reaction is extremely rapid, like gunpowder.

I know aluminum burns becuase I used to make M-80s when I was a kid (for which the statute of limitations has expired so I can freely admit that now) and aluminum powder was one of the ingredients, so *any* aluminum is going to burn when shoved underneath a torch, as Jones has done. There isn't anything suspicious or even particularly new about it.

Except for the fact that this isn't just aluminum powder, it is a full eutectic reaction. Meaning other ingredients are also involved that change the chemistry.

*You* may see this as some incredible expose, but *I* see this as either someone discovering chemistry for the first time, or, someone being fast and loose with the facts in order to give us a snow job. I am giving Jones the benefit of the doubt that he hasn't discovered chemistry for the first time.

Given his history as a research nuclear physicist at Los Alamos, and tenured physics professor at BYU for a number of years, I would sooner believe you are learning chemistry for the first time than that he is. You have already demonstrated that you can't tell the difference chemically between a eutectic reaction and structural steel and aluminum, which is a pretty damned obvious difference to me. So yeah, I will side with the real expert on this one, who has real experience, and not just from making firecrackers, but from being paid large amounts of money to do research science.

Why haven't we seen anyone else test the dust to confirm or deny Jones' study? If Jones could do it, surely some single humble person from your army of 10000000000000's of experts could do it, too?

No, actually, you have it wrong. Someone from YOUR side needs to prove that Thermite could even be used to destroy the support structures in the way it's been atributed.

Sorry, this is classic bait and switch fallacy. You said you were questioning the source of this material and if Jones had analyzed a legitimate sample. Please pay more attention to what you are responding to.

You are free to believe what you want, but there are a lot of things you don't mention, that your claim depends on. First and most obviously the accuracy of NIST's computer simulations, which they didn't have physical evidence to justify.

I wasn't talking about the computer simulations. I was discussing the claim that NIST wasn't able to collect enough samples of the steel.

No, this was in response to your claim that the perimeter columns failed first on the floors that had suffered the worst fires. Do you drink when you post these responses?

No, actually, if memory serves, FEMA said the same thing, although in much more eloquent language. That's the whole reason *I* said it.

Suffice it to say I don't believe FEMA consists of the best and brightest, either. Just because they throw their hands up and claim they can't figure it out, doesn't mean it's necessarily so. That would be trying to prove a negative.

You asked me to (and I quote) "show what FEMA said and how they proved it". I keep wanting to resolve the claim of whether FEMA collected sufficient samples of steel, which is obviously important to how they proved what they said

Alright, they collected samples of steel. I have no problem admitting that. But now show me why that is relevant to their investigation by showing me what they concluded with it. Is that really so hard? It is, isn't it?

The WTC Towers are already blown up and the Pentagon has already been hit. So releasing things like the WTC structural documents and the Pentagon security videos isn't going to hurt a damned thing now. I challenge you to think of a scenario where either of those things would be dangerous in the hands of terrorists.

Excuse me?? Proving that foreign terrorists were responsible for the attack and the refutation of these controlled demolitions claims are one and the same, because the entire reason for the CD claims is to prove "inside job". If it WAS a genuine attack by foreign terrorists, then it necessarily means it WASN'T an inside job, and you and I both know all these claims of CD are going to fizzle out like a wet match after that. This is exactly why there is such resistance to the idea among the truthers that bin Laden was responsible (or that he even actually exists) to begin with.

I really am starting to think you drink when you post, because I could not make a damned lick of sense out of that, as a response to what I asked.

Re-read what you are responding to and please tell me what further harm terrorists could possibly do with structural documents or tapes of a plane hitting the Pentagon. Why can the public STILL not see these things -- specifically? Can you think of a single good reason?

[edit on 16-12-2009 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11
Yeah, iron oxide and aluminum were both in the towers, and they also make up eutectic mixtures. So this is such a brain-racker to figure out which this stuff was, right?

All right, I can't let this slide any longer. The definition of "eutectic mixture" is a mixture of substances that has a lower melting point than any of its individual substances (as per Wikipedia). Jones doesn't even mention anything about anything eutectic in his report. How is this even remotely relevent to what was found in the dust?

A guy named Frank Greening tried to argue that a spontaneous thermite reaction started within the towers from molten aluminum laying on rust. Jones actually tried to recreate this by pouring molten aluminum on rust in a lab, and it didn't do squat. That just isn't how eutectic reactions are created. If you want to make up brand new theories of science just to explain anomalies from that day, you will have to provide more than just your personal conjecture and speculations. At least Jones is actually going to effort to validate or refute these claims such as what you are making, not just an "armchair skeptic."

So in other words, Jones DID attempt to simulate the destruction of a vertical steel beam using thermite? After all, if he can't provide proof of concept then anythign else he says about Thermite is pointless. Can you post the results?

Thermite is a type of eutectic reaction that, in its simplest form, involves aluminum and iron oxide. He found both of those substances and also established that they created a eutectic reaction. You can call it want you want, and hide behind your semantic word games, but you'll find that this has nothing to do with what this substance would have done to the towers. Only the chemistry itself has to do with that.

All right, now you're just making stuff up. Jones did NOT establish that they created an eutectic reaction. He established it was a "highly energetic reaction" which he coined the term "thermitic reaction" as a description, when he placed it beneath a flame. He didn't investigate the melting points of anythign at all.

Here is Jones' report. Where does he mention eutectic reactions?

Active thermitic blah blah blah

Unless you have very extreme conditions, it only "burns" in powder form and even then the reaction is extremely rapid, like gunpowder.

Extreme condition as in an impact from a passenger jet?

Given his history as a research nuclear physicist at Los Alamos, and tenured physics professor at BYU for a number of years, I would sooner believe you are learning chemistry for the first time than that he is. You have already demonstrated that you can't tell the difference chemically between a eutectic reaction and structural steel and aluminum, which is a pretty damned obvious difference to me.

Good grief, you really are a piece of work. The definition of eutectic reaction (as per Wikipedia) is when a compound I.E. liquid alloy crystalizes into two or more solid phases at the same time. In other words, intergranularization. Are you honestly suggesting that the aluminum/iron oxide chips found in the dust were actually the remains of different metals molten together from the heat and separated/stuck together when the metals cooled? That throws the whole claim of thermite and sabotage into the garbage right there becuase it means it wasn't originally thermite. It means it WAS originally from the structure.

FYI I just looked this up- aluminum needs to be bonded with STAINLESS steel for it to be eutectic. The steel in the WTC wasn't stainless steel. You're making THAT up, too.

Sorry, this is classic bait and switch fallacy. You said you were questioning the source of this material and if Jones had analyzed a legitimate sample. Please pay more attention to what you are responding to.

Yeah, whatever. Call it whatever you like. How about answering the question. DID Jones ever try to show proof of concept of thermite being able to destroy verical columns? If not, he might as well just have found a lot of cat hairs in the samples.

No, this was in response to your claim that the perimeter columns failed first on the floors that had suffered the worst fires. Do you drink when you post these responses?

WTF??? No it wasn't. It was in response to the claim that FEMA/NIST wasn't able to collect enough samples due to it being recycled so rapidly. I said that at least two times already. And you STILL didn't answer the question.

First you use technical terms that don't have anything to do with anything, THEN you attribute claims to Jones that he never made, and NOW you're falsely putting words in my mouth...and your whole defense is- I'm drunk(?) Admit it, bsbray. You're simply repeating some sexy sounding fluff you found on some damned fool conspiracy web site and you haven't the foggiest of what any of it actually means, do you?


[edit on 16-12-2009 by GoodOlDave]