PROOF that Building 7 was demolished with explosives!!!

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by jthomas

 

Anyway, you already agreed with me above that the methodology of determining the chemical components of the dust to find explosive residue is valid. And no explosive residue has been found.

This is untrue. I did not agree with you and had I, you would have posted it.

This is what you wrote:

"No one on planet earth besides Pro Steven Jones has done such a test and Jones has found chemical compounds that should not been in the WTC dust.

These chemicals are ingredients of bomb making materials used in our military it is already proven these ingredients are in different applications of making highly explosive weapons."

So, yes, you did agree with me "that the methodology of determining the chemical components of the dust to find explosive residue is valid" since you claim that's how Steven Jones did it.

I don't have to prove anything. You do. The burden of proof remains on your shoulders to prove your claims that explosives were found and refute the NIST investigation. We see you still haven't.

That is untrue, and you do have to support your claims. The OS is already a proven fallacy.

I have no claims to prove. And you have failed to refute the NIST investigations.

You are ignoring the facts, the sources, which have been posted to you, by most people on here. Experts in A&E and scientist have already proved NIST is a fraud. Why support it?

I haven't ignored those claims. But they are undemonstrated claims. If it was so cut and dry, we wouldn't be here and you would have long-since had a new investigation.

Claims are not proof.

What we see is groups like Architects and Engineers resort to posting a dishonest account of the fires in WTC 2 (see: www.abovetopsecret.com...) as a fund raising event, and resort to pleading for anybody to sign a petition.

You are twisting the facts here. I have confronted camronfox over this fallacy and it was camron who posted this nonsense. pleading, I don’t think so.

It is entirely true. A&E made that video to attract new members and donations and intentionally misrepresented what happened in WTC 2. I have already shown how. They know perfectly well what they were doing was deceptive and unethical.

A&E has fully discredited itself and that example will be used against it until and unless they withdraw the video, admit it was untrue, and apologize to the the family members of those firemen who were killed and to the NYFD as a whole. You all should be joining me in condemning A&E's actions.

The only problem is that Jones found red paint chips, which turn out to be only red paint chips.

That is untrue. You obviously didn’t read professor Steven Jones report. Where is your science that proves that the nano Thermite & nano Thermate are only red paint chips?

I didn't say that "nano Thermite & nano Thermate are only red paint chips." I said they were just red paint chips.

I have not seen any scientist or Scholar refute professor Steven Jones Thermite report.

Well, it wasn't published in a scientific, peer-reviewed journal. Instead it was published in an "open journal". The editor claimed she never reviewed it nor gave permission for it to be published.

Second, no one has to refute the paper. Not refuting it is not equivalent to agreeing with anything about it. Many on these kinds of forums have shown the problems with the paper and that is likely as far as it will ever go. We can all see that the paper has gone nowhere in convincing anyone of the validity of Jones's paper or for the need for a new investigation.

reply to post by THE AQUARIAN 1


The point is that structural cabling, spent detonators, wiring, unexploded devices and other evidence of CD would have been found had it been specifically searched for or not. A careful search was done for plane parts and body parts of all sizes. This would also have discovered any unusual or unexplained devices present in the rubble. According to some, there should have been tons of unreacted thermite charges in the rubble. Remember Jones' ridiculous claim that there were ten tons of unburnt fuse material in the dust? Ten tons of fuse must have been fusing many more tons of devices. This is the same fuse material that won't stay lit so it should be expected that these charges would not have gone off and been discovered in the rubble. [If that was the case, how did CD cause the building to fall?]


[edit on 4/18/2010 by pteridine]

reply to post by K J Gunderson


The point is that one does not have to look for specific things to find evidence of them. My example was for those who have difficulty with this concept. Had submarine parts been present, they would have been found.

reply to post by jthomas


Dont ya just hate it when people keep insisting that thermate is an explosive?

I also recall that in both FEMA's report and NIST, all the beams they did test, showed virtually no temps approaching the burning temp of thermate. On no steel samples, including the ones that had the "eutectic mix" on it, showed no temps above 2,000F. Isnt that strange, considering thermate burns over 4,000F? And we do know that there isnt any thermites that burn at low temperatures. So why are we constantly being told it was therm*te? Therm*te is not an explosive. Sure they make explosives with therm*tes in them but I cannot see a single coherent arguement of just how it would have been used anywhere in the WTCs.

Some say they are from "fuse" material (which is a crock since they self extinguish). Others say they are from special "cutter charges" (if that is so, then why or how would they create "chips"?) Other say it was painted on in a teeny tiny layer (which in reality would have had no real effect on the steel other than warming it by a few degrees). Others insist it was explosive thermite (exploding thermite? Like a C-4 charge? No no no............. :barf So why cant we get a straight story or coherent response?

how about they try and prove it wasnt magic pixy dust? Some people believe pixies exist, and so,it cold have been magic pixy dust is what brought down the WTCs. Did Jones test for pixy dust? he should have! If he didnt, then he is incompetent!

reply to post by pteridine


Again, we have gone over and over this. There was MOLTEN METAL in the rubble of the twin towers ONE DAY after 9/11. In case you have trouble figuring the math on that we are talking about SEPTEMBER 12TH 2001. This lasted for MONTHS after.

This is inexplicable barring some sort of incendiary.

You're argument that there would be fuse material and cords is totally ridiculous. We're not talking about explosive technology from BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI. A 115 story cord was not wired all the way down the building and connected to a detonator.

And to the individuals trying to say that NIST didn't have to look for explosives, you haven't been reading this forum because I posted this about thirty pages ago.

N.F.P.A. 921- 19.2.4 Exotic Accelerants states that molten steel and concrete could indicate the use of exotic accelerants, specifically Thermite.

N.F.P.A. 921 is the National Fire Protection Association's pamphlet "Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations" National Fire Code.

NIST, FEMA, the 9/11 Commission Report, Popular Mechanics, and your favorite websites Debunking 9/11 and ScrewLooseChange, approached the attacks of September 11th with pre-determined conclusions, making their investigations totally incompetent. FEMA's budget on this investigation as of December 2001...$100,000.

Also in the N.F.P.A. Sec 6-5, conflict of interests should be avoided when conducting investigations. Obviously NIST and FEMA utilized specialists and contractors who were dependent on government contracts, and consequently dependent on the official story.

Sec 12-4: Unusual residues could arise from thermite, magnesium or other pyrotechnic materials.

The NIST report does not mention FEMA's sulfur residue. They also admit openly that they did not even look for thermite, which is in direct violation to the national fire code.

In terms of the fireproofing dislodge evidence, which I have asked repeatedly for individuals supporting the OS to bring forth, there isn't any. It is absolutely essential to NIST's "fires were so hot" theory, because if the fireproofing was not dislodged it is 100% impossible for those buildings to collapse, this is why it is even discussed.

The dislodging of the fireproofing posited by NIST is a THEORY, nothing more. NIST tried to prove it by shooting shotguns at the spray-on foam insulation that was coated onto the steel beams. It took shotgun blasts, which consist of tiny pellets, to remove the insulation. The Boeing 757 crash would have to be transformed into thousands of shotgun blasts to remove 6,000 square meters of surface area.

Kevin Ryan provides scientific calculations from MIT in regards to the available energy:

"NIST says 2500 MJ of kinetic energy (equivalent to a one ton vehicle at 100 miles per hour) from plane that hit WTC 1.
--Calculations show that all this energy was consumed in crushing aircraft and breaking columns and floors.
--Shotgun tests found that 1 MJ per sq meter was needed to dislodge fireproofing.
--For the Areas in question, intact floors and columns had 6000 sq meters of surface area.
Calculations by Tomasz Wierzbiki of MIT"

Bring forth the evidence that the fireproofing was dislodged.

Yours,

THE AQUARIAN 1

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

The point is that one does not have to look for specific things to find evidence of them. My example was for those who have difficulty with this concept. Had submarine parts been present, they would have been found.

Your point is actually kind of stupid. Were there parts of a submarine, perhaps they would have been found. How big were they? They might have been pulverized like say...almost everything else. Are you talking about microscopic pieces of submarine? If so, then you need to prove to me that they would have been found and how. If you are talking about big obvious submarine chunks, then how do you not see the difference between noticing a periscope and actually doing chemical tests on steel for residue?

You used to at least try. You seem to be getting tired of your own argument. This was hardly even a valid attempt.

Elephants and chemical residue are exactly as easy to spot to you, eh? That says more about you than anything else but thanks for showing us all how far from serious you even are about this.

Maybe you and jthomas should go back to agreeing with each other about how right you both are about the OPPOSITE STANDS you are both taking. At least that was worth reading for entertainment value.

Get back to me when you actually plan to try and have some kind of legit argument as to why they did not need to actually look for explosives residue.

We keep seeing some here making the same assertions and unsupported claims we've heard for years, insisting that NIST did not follow standard methodologies, yet not one of these posters can point to anything that invalidates those methodologies.

I really don't understand how these posters think they can get a "new" investigation if they cannot show us what was invalid about the previous ones. Making unsupported claims based on questionable data, e.g., "There was MOLTEN METAL in the rubble of the twin towers ONE DAY after 9/11. This is inexplicable barring some sort of incendiary," just won't convince anyone.

We have data like this from professionals:

- www.tms.org...
- pubs.usgs.gov...

No one has refuted it. There are no uproars from those in the various professions, none of whom question or refute the studies. And we don't see the 9/11 Truth Movement able to convince anyone of its claims.

reply to post by jthomas


I make those kind of statements because I have already posted, exhaustively, the evidence supporting those claims, on this very forum.

You have obviously not read the contents of this forum. I suggest you read through it. As I have stated before, you are hawking old arguments that have already been refuted.

NIST did not look for evidence of explosives, they admit this themselves. Molten metal was present on 9/12/01.

These claims have already been supported.

No amount of hot air can change that.

reply to post by jthomas


There is nothing to refute. The two links you posted do not show tests for thermite. They are completely irrelevant to what I posted, so I'm confused as to why you chose to link these articles as responses.

If you'd like, show me what I've missed and cut and paste it into the body of the forum, otherwise see my previous post, reread it a few times, delete your political affiliations, whatever they may be, and look at it as a reasoned human being.

Originally posted by THE AQUARIAN 1
reply to post by jthomas

 

There is nothing to refute. The two links you posted do not show tests for thermite. They are completely irrelevant to what I posted, so I'm confused as to why you chose to link these articles as responses.

If you'd like, show me what I've missed and cut and paste it into the body of the forum, otherwise see my previous post, reread it a few times, delete your political affiliations, whatever they may be, and look at it as a reasoned human being.

Just how did you say you were going to get a new investigation?

Originally posted by THE AQUARIAN 1
This is CNN, September 21, 2001. In case you were wondering, that's 10 days after 9/11.

video.google.com...=-2553435320631531201
www.youtube.com...

In case you missed it:

"This is how it's been since day one...and this is six weeks later. As we get closer to the center of this it gets hotter and hotter - it's probably 1500 degrees."

Public health advisor arrived at Ground Zero and said he was reminded of a volcano upon "feeling the heat" and "seeing the molten steel," on September 12, 2001. That's one day after 9/11, in case you were wondering.

www.neha.org...

The there's this article from November 29, 2001, in which an expert states:

"a combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures."

www.nytimes.com...

There's also this article:
www.thenewliberator.com...
In which the gentleman (an Occupational Safety and Health Administration Officer) states after seeing a fire truck 10 feet below the ground, still burning, two weeks after the Tower collapsed, "its metal so hot that it looked like a vat of molten steel."

Then also there's the structural engineer responsible for the design of WTC stating that the fire was still burning and molten steel still running 21 days after the attacks. You'll find the passage on page 3.
web.archive.org...://www.seau.org/SEAUNews-2001-10.pdf

Despite the abundance of evidence before you, we still have John Gross, Lead Structural Engineer of NIST, quoted on video:

"I know of absolutely nobody-no eyewitnesses-nobody has produced it."

Hmmm...somebody hasn't been doing there job.

Yours,

THE AQUARIAN 1

reply to post by jthomas


I never said I was going to get a new investigation.

Originally posted by THE AQUARIAN 1
reply to post by pteridine

 

"The duration of (air, not steel) temperatures near 1000 degrees C was about 15 min to 20 min. The rest of the time, the calculated temperatures were near 500 degrees C or below." (NIST, 2005, p. 127, emphasis added.)

"NIST contracted with Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. to conduct tests to obtain information on the fire endurance of trusses like those in the WTC towers...All four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for approximately 2 hours without collapsing." (NIST, 2005, p. 140, emphasis added).

You may read more here:

wtc7.net...

If you're going to attempt to bring up the pictures of rescue workers looking at molten metal, Steven Jones states, within the article, that he is not sure whether they are looking at molten metal or a work light.

Maybe something like this:

"the empirical test results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing, for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11th." (NIST, 2005, p. 141).

NIST, in their "Final Report," does not address the rapid (free fall) and symmetrical collapse of the buildings. Nor does it make mention of the North Towers' antenna dropping first.

In regards to Molten Metal...

"They showed us many fascinating slides ranging from molten metal which was still red hot weeks after the event, to 4-inch thick steel plates sheared and bent in the disaster." (Structural Engineer, September 3, 2002, p.6).

"In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel," Fuchek said. (Walsh, 2002).

Also from NIST:

"12. Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."

NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.

The responses to questions number 2, 4, 5 and 11 demonstrate why NIST concluded that there were no explosives or controlled demolition involved in the collapses of the WTC towers.

Furthermore, a very large quantity of thermite (a mixture of powdered or granular aluminum metal and powdered iron oxide that burns at extremely high temperatures when ignited) or another incendiary compound would have had to be placed on at least the number of columns damaged by the aircraft impact and weakened by the subsequent fires to bring down a tower. Thermite burns slowly relative to explosive materials and can require several minutes in contact with a massive steel section to heat it to a temperature that would result in substantial weakening. Separate from the WTC towers investigation, NIST researchers estimated that at least 0.13 pounds of thermite would be required to heat each pound of a steel section to approximately 700 degrees Celsius (the temperature at which steel weakens substantially). Therefore, while a thermite reaction can cut through large steel columns, many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been placed inconspicuously ahead of time, remotely ignited, and somehow held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building. This makes it an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled demolition.

Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC towers, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard that was prevalent in the interior partitions."

NIST did not even check.

Yours,

THE AQUARIAN 1

Originally posted by THE AQUARIAN 1
reply to post by pteridine

 

You're argument that there would be fuse material and cords is totally ridiculous. We're not talking about explosive technology from BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI. A 115 story cord was not wired all the way down the building and connected to a detonator.

I see that you get your explosive expertise from Hollywood much like many other CTer's. The cables I was referring to are those used to connect structural elements to direct the collapse and not wires from a blasting machine. It was Jones who called paint chips "fuse material" and estimated that ten tons were in the dust. That must be the "totally ridiculous" part you refer to. We can agree that Jones has no evidence of anything.
Now is your chance to display your knowledge of demolitions. Use your vast expertise and state what modern explosive technologies were used in the demolition of WTC7. If you need, you can watch "Mission Impossible" or "Demolition Man" for a refresher.

reply to post by jthomas


I hope the above two "archival" posts from page 33 on this forum will help you fully understand my position on these issues. It would be nice to have a reasoned exchange with someone on this thread. So far it's been quite difficult.

reply to post by pteridine


How original. I believe you used this same "argument" about fifty pages ago.

You're either an old man or have cut and paste responses saved to your desktop in a folder called "PROOF WTC 7 Thread."

Sad, sad, sad, and tiresome.

Originally posted by THE AQUARIAN 1
reply to post by jthomas

 

I never said I was going to get a new investigation.

I didn't mean "you" individually. I meant "you" as part of the 9/11 Truth Movement.

Isn't that what you all want?


[edit on 18-4-2010 by jthomas]

reply to post by jthomas


I'm not associated with the 9/11 Truth Movement in any way shape or form.

A new investigation would be handled by the U.S. government no matter what. Even if the new investigation were done independently it would still be required to go through the U.S. government to see proper official documents. And OS supporters would immediately resort to ad hominem toward the company in charge of this investigation, which would probably be generated by major media outlets once the story broke that a new investigation was taking place.

I don't need that. Mostly because independent investigations are ongoing at this point. That's why this forum exists. People want justice. I want justice. We're embroiled in two wars, civil liberties have been taken, executive power has increased ten fold, and much more. Americans, true lovers of America, do not sit back and let this happen. They dissent, expose, and spread. This is the American way. I fully respect people who support the official story. I also fully disagree with them and demand the same respect I give to them.

What I want is a reasoned debate where citizens, who see the same things I do, are able to learn about the event. That's why everyone is here, I suspect, to learn and spread information.

I get real tired of users abusing this forum with irrational posturing, repeatedly and identically. Pteridine is the poster boy for this.

So, in answer to your question, as simply put as possible, I want to see an informed public. If that's in the form of a new investigation, great.

Yours,

THE AQUARIAN 1

reply to post by THE AQUARIAN 1


Your deflections are predictable. Your positions are without support. You can't say anything about demolitions because you don't know anything about demolitions.
Maybe if you study your video games during summer vacation it will help you with this.

reply to post by pteridine


This post should be deleted or moved to the FLAMERS section.