9/11 Loose Change Final Cut Released Online

[TastesLikeChicken]

Yes. Here's an important sentence from that statement:

The analysis focused on the WTC 1 and WTC 2.

You're attempting to manufacture an issue where none exists. At least I assume you are because, once again, you absolutely refuse to make any sort of statements or observations of your own on the matter. You appear to have absolutely no conviction and won't explain yourself so I'm not even sure where you're going with this other than to practice your C&P skills.

 

[event8horizon]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Yes. Here's an important sentence from that statement:

The analysis focused on the WTC 1 and WTC 2.

You're attempting to manufacture an issue where none exists. At least I assume you are because, once again, you absolutely refuse to make any sort of statements or observations of your own on the matter. You appear to have absolutely no conviction and won't explain yourself so I'm not even sure where you're going with this other than to practice your C&P skills.

they didnt have any steel to analyze from wtc7. thats why if focused on 1 and 2. they estimated those properties from wtc 7. we will discuss this again in a few months when they release their report.

The analysis focused on the WTC 1 and WTC 2. Although no steel was recovered from WTC 7, a 47-story building that also collapsed on September 11, properties for steel used in its construction were estimated based on literature and contemporaneous documents.
how can they do their research toward their stated goal- "The goal of the study was threefold: Determine mechanical properties of WTC structural steel, Determine the quality of the steel and if design requirements were met, and Analyze the recovered steel to provide insight into failure mechanisms to guide and/or validate models of building performance."

my observation is they didnt have any steel to analyze from wtc 7. my conviction is they should have steel to analyze.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Do you understand how they "estimated" those properties? It's not as if they flipped a coin or even simply pulled specifications from the drawings. They referred back to the original material certifications (which is what they mean by "contemporous documentation"), just as they did with the WTC 1 and WTC 2 steels (which were addtiionally tested physically to verify material composition).

One of the many jobs I've held was as a purchasing agent. Back in the 80s I bought raw materials to the tune of about $4 million dollars worth each year - steel, aluminum, copper, brass, bronze, and titanium as well as plastics and elastomers (rubber), and castings (sand, investment, and die). Every single shipment of raw materials was mandated to come with certificates of compliance (commonly called C of Cs) or material certifications that verified those materials complied with the specifications under which they were ordered. Whether we required C of Cs, which were a sort of testament provided by the distributor that referenced a material certification, or the actual material certs - where the materials were physically tested by an independent lab - every shipment of material came with documentation that was filed away.

The same thing is done when buildings are built. It's all part of the documentation required by code. That was no different 3+ decades ago when WTC 7 was built. For buildings like WTC 7 all raw material documentation for any of the load-bearing components must be material certs, no C of Cs. Physical samples from the production batches must be tested by independent labs. In addition, on large project like the WTC, materials are pulled from on-site and sent to a lab for testing, just to ensure that there's no shenanigans and that the material meets specification.

iow, in this case I don't think "estimated" means what you think it means. I know you're trying your best to cast doubts and the associated aspersions but it just doesn't work in this case.

 

[Noobtastic]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Tab
Not this shit again...

Those links are a few years old. Lots of stuff in the Final Cut is brand new.

Why did our government cover up Pakistani ISI involvement with the hijackers? A member of the ISI sent $100,000 to Atta right before 9/11.

You're a dolt.

 

[event8horizon]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Do you understand how they "estimated" those properties? It's not as if they flipped a coin or even simply pulled specifications from the drawings. They referred back to the original material certifications (which is what they mean by "contemporous documentation"), just as they did with the WTC 1 and WTC 2 steels (which were addtiionally tested physically to verify material composition).

One of the many jobs I've held was as a purchasing agent. Back in the 80s I bought raw materials to the tune of about $4 million dollars worth each year - steel, aluminum, copper, brass, bronze, and titanium as well as plastics and elastomers (rubber), and castings (sand, investment, and die). Every single shipment of raw materials was mandated to come with certificates of compliance (commonly called C of Cs) or material certifications that verified those materials complied with the specifications under which they were ordered. Whether we required C of Cs, which were a sort of testament provided by the distributor that referenced a material certification, or the actual material certs - where the materials were physically tested by an independent lab - every shipment of material came with documentation that was filed away.

The same thing is done when buildings are built. It's all part of the documentation required by code. That was no different 3+ decades ago when WTC 7 was built. For buildings like WTC 7 all raw material documentation for any of the load-bearing components must be material certs, no C of Cs. Physical samples from the production batches must be tested by independent labs. In addition, on large project like the WTC, materials are pulled from on-site and sent to a lab for testing, just to ensure that there's no shenanigans and that the material meets specification.

iow, in this case I don't think "estimated" means what you think it means. I know you're trying your best to cast doubts and the associated aspersions but it just doesn't work in this case.

your not telling me anything in that post.
again, from the fema report-
Several regions in the section of the beam shown in Figures C-1 and C-2 were examined to determine microstructural changes that occurred in the A36 structural steel as a result of the events of September 11, 2001, and the subsequent fires. Although the exact location of this beam in the building was not known, the severe erosion found in several beams warranted further consideration. In this preliminary study, optical and scanning electron metallography techniques were used to examine the most severely eroded regions as exemplified in the metallurgical mount shown in Figure C-3. Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfication with subsequent intragranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel. This sulfur-rich liquid penetrated preferentially down grain boundaries of the steel, severely weakening the beam and making it susceptible to erosion. The eutectic temperature for this mixture strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached 1,000 °C (1,800 °F), which is substantially lower than would be expected for melting this steel.

Summary for Sample 1

The thinning of the steel occurred by a high-temperture corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation.

Heating of the steel into a hot corrosive environment approaching 1,000 °C (1,800 °F) results in the formation of a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen, and sulfur that liquefied the steel.

The sulfidation attack of steel grain boundaries accelerated the corrosion and erosion of the steel.

wouldnt it be good if nist studied this and found the cause so it wouldnt happen again. this is just one sample. there could have been more samples that had the same stuff going on with them.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: event8horizon

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Do you understand how they "estimated" those properties? It's not as if they flipped a coin or even simply pulled specifications from the drawings. They referred back to the original material certifications (which is what they mean by "contemporous documentation"), just as they did with the WTC 1 and WTC 2 steels (which were addtiionally tested physically to verify material composition).

One of the many jobs I've held was as a purchasing agent. Back in the 80s I bought raw materials to the tune of about $4 million dollars worth each year - steel, aluminum, copper, brass, bronze, and titanium as well as plastics and elastomers (rubber), and castings (sand, investment, and die). Every single shipment of raw materials was mandated to come with certificates of compliance (commonly called C of Cs) or material certifications that verified those materials complied with the specifications under which they were ordered. Whether we required C of Cs, which were a sort of testament provided by the distributor that referenced a material certification, or the actual material certs - where the materials were physically tested by an independent lab - every shipment of material came with documentation that was filed away.

The same thing is done when buildings are built. It's all part of the documentation required by code. That was no different 3+ decades ago when WTC 7 was built. For buildings like WTC 7 all raw material documentation for any of the load-bearing components must be material certs, no C of Cs. Physical samples from the production batches must be tested by independent labs. In addition, on large project like the WTC, materials are pulled from on-site and sent to a lab for testing, just to ensure that there's no shenanigans and that the material meets specification.

iow, in this case I don't think "estimated" means what you think it means. I know you're trying your best to cast doubts and the associated aspersions but it just doesn't work in this case.

your not telling me anything in that post.
again, from the fema report-
Several regions in the section of the beam shown in Figures C-1 and C-2 were examined to determine microstructural changes that occurred in the A36 structural steel as a result of the events of September 11, 2001, and the subsequent fires. Although the exact location of this beam in the building was not known, the severe erosion found in several beams warranted further consideration. In this preliminary study, optical and scanning electron metallography techniques were used to examine the most severely eroded regions as exemplified in the metallurgical mount shown in Figure C-3. Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfication with subsequent intragranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel. This sulfur-rich liquid penetrated preferentially down grain boundaries of the steel, severely weakening the beam and making it susceptible to erosion. The eutectic temperature for this mixture strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached 1,000 °C (1,800 °F), which is substantially lower than would be expected for melting this steel.

Summary for Sample 1

The thinning of the steel occurred by a high-temperture corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation.

Heating of the steel into a hot corrosive environment approaching 1,000 °C (1,800 °F) results in the formation of a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen, and sulfur that liquefied the steel.

The sulfidation attack of steel grain boundaries accelerated the corrosion and erosion of the steel.

wouldnt it be good if nist studied this and found the cause so it wouldnt happen again. this is just one sample. there could have been more samples that had the same stuff going on with them.

Now your argument is moving back to what the physical analysis found instead of the "estimated" material composition? And you're still arguing by link proxy instead of trying to actually discuss what you yourself personal know, which seems to not be much.

I've already explained this btw. The sulfication came from the large amounts of sulphur in the gypsum board (drywall) used to enclose the central core of the buildings (where the elevators were). There may have even been some existing sulfication from the acid rain in NYC which contains high amounts of sulfuic compounds. However, that's not verified as the sulfication from that cause should have been deeper than the near-surface grain boundry sulfication than was reported, particularly if the steel didn't meet the ASTM-A36 specifications. However, if something like thermite was used, which you seem to imply but actually refuse to commit to saying, it would have left a very distinctive pattern at those grain boundries. Since FEMA specifically stated that they tested the steel for the by-products of a controlled detonation and found nothing there's no evidence that thermite or any derivative thereof was used.

So once again. WTF is it you're trying to claim? This is getting old, dude. State YOUR case and stop saying nothing at all besides copying & pasting someone elses stuff. That doesn't prove you know what you're talking about. It only proves you know how to copy & paste.

 

[event8horizon]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: event8horizon

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Do you understand how they "estimated" those properties? It's not as if they flipped a coin or even simply pulled specifications from the drawings. They referred back to the original material certifications (which is what they mean by "contemporous documentation"), just as they did with the WTC 1 and WTC 2 steels (which were addtiionally tested physically to verify material composition).

One of the many jobs I've held was as a purchasing agent. Back in the 80s I bought raw materials to the tune of about $4 million dollars worth each year - steel, aluminum, copper, brass, bronze, and titanium as well as plastics and elastomers (rubber), and castings (sand, investment, and die). Every single shipment of raw materials was mandated to come with certificates of compliance (commonly called C of Cs) or material certifications that verified those materials complied with the specifications under which they were ordered. Whether we required C of Cs, which were a sort of testament provided by the distributor that referenced a material certification, or the actual material certs - where the materials were physically tested by an independent lab - every shipment of material came with documentation that was filed away.

The same thing is done when buildings are built. It's all part of the documentation required by code. That was no different 3+ decades ago when WTC 7 was built. For buildings like WTC 7 all raw material documentation for any of the load-bearing components must be material certs, no C of Cs. Physical samples from the production batches must be tested by independent labs. In addition, on large project like the WTC, materials are pulled from on-site and sent to a lab for testing, just to ensure that there's no shenanigans and that the material meets specification.

iow, in this case I don't think "estimated" means what you think it means. I know you're trying your best to cast doubts and the associated aspersions but it just doesn't work in this case.

your not telling me anything in that post.
again, from the fema report-
Several regions in the section of the beam shown in Figures C-1 and C-2 were examined to determine microstructural changes that occurred in the A36 structural steel as a result of the events of September 11, 2001, and the subsequent fires. Although the exact location of this beam in the building was not known, the severe erosion found in several beams warranted further consideration. In this preliminary study, optical and scanning electron metallography techniques were used to examine the most severely eroded regions as exemplified in the metallurgical mount shown in Figure C-3. Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfication with subsequent intragranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel. This sulfur-rich liquid penetrated preferentially down grain boundaries of the steel, severely weakening the beam and making it susceptible to erosion. The eutectic temperature for this mixture strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached 1,000 °C (1,800 °F), which is substantially lower than would be expected for melting this steel.

Summary for Sample 1

The thinning of the steel occurred by a high-temperture corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation.

Heating of the steel into a hot corrosive environment approaching 1,000 °C (1,800 °F) results in the formation of a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen, and sulfur that liquefied the steel.

The sulfidation attack of steel grain boundaries accelerated the corrosion and erosion of the steel.

wouldnt it be good if nist studied this and found the cause so it wouldnt happen again. this is just one sample. there could have been more samples that had the same stuff going on with them.

Now your argument is moving back to what the physical analysis found instead of the "estimated" material composition? And you're still arguing by link proxy instead of trying to actually discuss what you yourself personal know, which seems to not be much.

I've already explained this btw. The sulfication came from the large amounts of sulphur in the gypsum board (drywall) used to enclose the central core of the buildings (where the elevators were). There may have even been some existing sulfication from the acid rain in NYC which contains high amounts of sulfuic compounds. However, that's not verified as the sulfication from that cause should have been deeper than the near-surface grain boundry sulfication than was reported, particularly if the steel didn't meet the ASTM-A36 specifications. However, if something like thermite was used, which you seem to imply but actually refuse to commit to saying, it would have left a very distinctive pattern at those grain boundries. Since FEMA specifically stated that they tested the steel for the by-products of a controlled detonation and found nothing there's no evidence that thermite or any derivative thereof was used.

So once again. WTF is it you're trying to claim? This is getting old, dude. State YOUR case and stop saying nothing at all besides copying & pasting someone elses stuff. That doesn't prove you know what you're talking about. It only proves you know how to copy & paste.

of coarse im moving back to the physical evidence from the fema report that was done before the nist report. fema had wtc 7 steel and nist didnt. your just guessing at what the sulification was from and u even state that "if the steel didnt meet the astm a 36 specs" which it would be nice if the nist had available that piece of steel to analyze to determine that.

thermite is not an explosive so i doubt it would show up when tested for explosives.
Thermite is a pyrotechnic composition of aluminium powder and a metal oxide which produces an aluminothermic reaction known as a thermite reaction. It is not an explosive, but can create short bursts of extremely high temperatures focused on a very small target for a short period of time.

my case is that nist should have steel to analyze from wtc 7. but, as i said before, we will discuss this again when the nist report comes out about wtc7 in a few months.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: event8horizon
of coarse im moving back to the physical evidence from the fema report that was done before the nist report. fema had wtc 7 steel and nist didnt. your just guessing at what the sulification was from and u even state that "if the steel didnt meet the astm a 36 specs" which it would be nice if the nist had available that piece of steel to analyze to determine that.

thermite is not an explosive so i doubt it would show up when tested for explosives.
Thermite is a pyrotechnic composition of aluminium powder and a metal oxide which produces an aluminothermic reaction known as a thermite reaction. It is not an explosive, but can create short bursts of extremely high temperatures focused on a very small target for a short period of time.

my case is that nist should have steel to analyze from wtc 7. but, as i said before, we will discuss this again when the nist report comes out about wtc7 in a few months.

I'm not guessing where the sulfication was from. I'm using common sense. Since testing discovered that sulphur was present it had to come from somewhere. Common sense says it came from the chemical decomposition of the gypsum in the wallboard and not from thermite because thermite does not contain sulfur. In fact, when informed of that fact Prof Jones "revised" his theory to change his claim to thermate, which does contain sulfur. When informed that the percentage of sulfur found did not match that of thermate his changed his claim to superthermate, which nobody even seems to know if it actually exists or not, and finally to nano-thermate, which is allegedly in the research phases but is also not known to actually exist.

Want to know another reason that it could not have been thermite?

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

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.

Now let's think a bit about this. Somehow a secret group of men came into the towers toting massive quantities of thermite and equipment, stripped at least a hundred areas right down to the bare steel of the columns. Applied copious quantities of thermite around those columns along with the magnesium strips or whatever was required to ignite the thermite, laid all the wiring to the ignition strips, then patched up all the areas that were stripped, hid all the wiring, and NOBODY ever noticed a thing out of the ordinary? Not a soul? Not security. Not the maintenance crew? Not a single occupant? C'mon. A complete suspension of belief and common sense would be required to even begin to imagine that could be pulled off.

As far as physically testing the steel from WTC 7, NIST already states they have no samples so that's all water under the bridge. Simply claiming that "They should have had steel from WTC 7 to test." is pretty much a bogus argument. Doesn't matter whether you think they should have. They didn't.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Oh dear lord... Please let this thread die.

 

[event8horizon]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: event8horizon
of coarse im moving back to the physical evidence from the fema report that was done before the nist report. fema had wtc 7 steel and nist didnt. your just guessing at what the sulification was from and u even state that "if the steel didnt meet the astm a 36 specs" which it would be nice if the nist had available that piece of steel to analyze to determine that.

thermite is not an explosive so i doubt it would show up when tested for explosives.
Thermite is a pyrotechnic composition of aluminium powder and a metal oxide which produces an aluminothermic reaction known as a thermite reaction. It is not an explosive, but can create short bursts of extremely high temperatures focused on a very small target for a short period of time.

my case is that nist should have steel to analyze from wtc 7. but, as i said before, we will discuss this again when the nist report comes out about wtc7 in a few months.

I'm not guessing where the sulfication was from. I'm using common sense. Since testing discovered that sulphur was present it had to come from somewhere. Common sense says it came from the chemical decomposition of the gypsum in the wallboard and not from thermite because thermite does not contain sulfur. In fact, when informed of that fact Prof Jones "revised" his theory to change his claim to thermate, which does contain sulfur. When informed that the percentage of sulfur found did not match that of thermate his changed his claim to superthermate, which nobody even seems to know if it actually exists or not, and finally to nano-thermate, which is allegedly in the research phases but is also not known to actually exist.

Want to know another reason that it could not have been thermite?

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

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.

Now let's think a bit about this. Somehow a secret group of men came into the towers toting massive quantities of thermite and equipment, stripped at least a hundred areas right down to the bare steel of the columns. Applied copious quantities of thermite around those columns along with the magnesium strips or whatever was required to ignite the thermite, laid all the wiring to the ignition strips, then patched up all the areas that were stripped, hid all the wiring, and NOBODY ever noticed a thing out of the ordinary? Not a soul? Not security. Not the maintenance crew? Not a single occupant? C'mon. A complete suspension of belief and common sense would be required to even begin to imagine that could be pulled off.

As far as physically testing the steel from WTC 7, NIST already states they have no samples so that's all water under the bridge. Simply claiming that "They should have had steel from WTC 7 to test." is pretty much a bogus argument. Doesn't matter whether you think they should have. They didn't.

thermate-
Thermate, whose primary component is thermite (, also contains sulfur and sometimes barium nitrate, both of which increase its thermal effect, create flame in burning, and significantly reduce the ignition temperature.

drywall-
A drywall panel is made of a paper liner wrapped around an inner core made primarily from gypsum plaster, the semi-hydrous form of calcium sulphate (CaSO4.½ H2O).

fema report from steel on wtc 7
A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel. This sulfur-rich liquid penetrated preferentially down grain boundaries of the steel, severely weakening the beam and making it susceptible to erosion

show me a scientific study that has drywall, jetfuel, and steel together under a "fire" condition like the wtc towers that leads to the steel being the same way as the fema steel tested.

oh, security was Kroll. the "cia" of wallstreet because they have hired ex cia and other international intel guys to work for them. im sure u knew this.
u really didnt make a case against the use of thermate. just alot of speculation. im just showing that the nist should have access to that steel because it could help them with their stated objectives. fema had some, why not the nist.
surgeon was right, u do go in circles.

 

[event8horizon]

i forgot to add, the drywall contains calcium as well. i did see any of that on the fema report.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: OokiiNeko

Second, even if the BBC did do what you say,

While you are re-writing history Less than a minute into it, while the female reporter is talking about the collapse, WTC 7 is standing right behind her.

I'm not re-writing history, the facts are known. Fire officials reported that WTC7 was going to collapse almost an hour before it did, and BBC misreported it as that it did collapse.

The alternative it to look from your conspiracy theorists' viewpoint, that the most complicated conspiracy in history was tripped up by such a pathetically ridiculous media mistake.

 

[event8horizon]

Originally posted by: event8horizon
i forgot to add, the drywall contains calcium as well. i did see any of that on the fema report.

sorry, i meant is did not see any of that on the fema report

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
I'm wondering why demolition crews don't just use jet fuel to bring down buildings.

Forget weeks of planning, inspections, structural weakening, and carefully planting explosives.

Just take some jet fuel 3/4 of the way up a building, set the timer, and bingo...perfect pancake collapse!

Except that they weren't anything even remotely close to "perfect pancake collapses." :roll:

Look at this: WTC 7 was 400 feet away from WTC 1, and yet you can see pieces of WTC1 in it as high as 20 stories up.

 

[KlokWyze]

The only thing funnier than the majority believing 19 retards could do this, is the same majority's comfort & belief in the sham "investigation" & use of the event to kill 1+ million more people. It's so blatantly obvious that the event was used to just sell another generation of dolts another war, and... well it worked...

Yikes! Terror! Ahhhhh!!! Government please save me from the mess you created! :laugh:

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: event8horizon
thermate-
Thermate, whose primary component is thermite (, also contains sulfur and sometimes barium nitrate, both of which increase its thermal effect, create flame in burning, and significantly reduce the ignition temperature.

drywall-
A drywall panel is made of a paper liner wrapped around an inner core made primarily from gypsum plaster, the semi-hydrous form of calcium sulphate (CaSO4.½ H2O).

fema report from steel on wtc 7
A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel. This sulfur-rich liquid penetrated preferentially down grain boundaries of the steel, severely weakening the beam and making it susceptible to erosion

show me a scientific study that has drywall, jetfuel, and steel together under a "fire" condition like the wtc towers that leads to the steel being the same way as the fema steel tested.

oh, security was Kroll. the "cia" of wallstreet because they have hired ex cia and other international intel guys to work for them. im sure u knew this.
u really didnt make a case against the use of thermate. just alot of speculation. im just showing that the nist should have access to that steel because it could help them with their stated objectives. fema had some, why not the nist.
surgeon was right, u do go in circles.

Circles? I think not. You are performing some hand-waving now. Besides the fact that you've gone back to quoting the same old crap, you come up with another conspiracy theory concerning the security at WTC as a weak attempt to blow it off and you completely fail to address what I said about there being no posible way that a group of people could installed the quantity of thermite (now you claim thermate) required without being noticed. You completely disregard the logisitcs of such an operation.

I already addressed the issue of the chemical composition of thermate as well. The percentage of sulfur in thermate is not of adequate quantity to account for the sulphur found in the WTC debris.

And to answer your post that follows this one, no FEMA did not check for calcium. Howver, the EPA did:

http://www.epa.gov/WTC/panel/p...ort_August_17_2005.pdf

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: KlokWyze
The only thing funnier than the majority believing 19 retards could do this, is the same majority's comfort & belief in the sham "investigation" & use of the event to kill 1+ million more people. It's so blatantly obvious that the event was used to just sell another generation of dolts another war, and... well it worked...

Yikes! Terror! Ahhhhh!!! Government please save me from the mess you created! :laugh:

Nobody thinks 19 retards did it. The general consensus is it was 19 dedicated, trained soldiers who were ready to die for their cause who did this. Anyone who thinks a larger conspiracy requiring involvement of multiple branches of government, and hundreds of US government personel up to and including the presdient, all of whom have no problem killing thousands of their fellow citizens and none of whom have ever been overheard talking about it and none who've leaked any part of it, is nuttier than a snickers bar.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: KlokWyze
The only thing funnier than the majority believing 19 retards could do this, is the same majority's comfort & belief in the sham "investigation" & use of the event to kill 1+ million more people. It's so blatantly obvious that the event was used to just sell another generation of dolts another war, and... well it worked...

Yikes! Terror! Ahhhhh!!! Government please save me from the mess you created! :laugh:

Those who believe the government was behind 9/11 are too afraid to admit that a bunch of Afghans with limited resources could enter the United States and kill 3,000 of our citizens. Those same people are too afraid to admit the government failed to protect them.

Instead of owning up to the fact that our security was woefully inadequate, truthers cling to the much more palatable belief that the government "allowed" this to happen. That way, it wasn't just a bunch of "dumb Arabs", but smart white people, that perpetrated 9/11.

The idea that the government could have, and would have, done this to its own people is somehow more comforting than admitting that we were vulnerable enough to be hurt by foreigners.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: KlokWyze
The only thing funnier than the majority believing 19 retards could do this, is the same majority's comfort & belief in the sham "investigation" & use of the event to kill 1+ million more people. It's so blatantly obvious that the event was used to just sell another generation of dolts another war, and... well it worked...

Yikes! Terror! Ahhhhh!!! Government please save me from the mess you created! :laugh:

Your 2 points are unrelated. I won't argue that 9/11 has been abused by our government for the purposes of waging an unnecessary war (because it has), but at the same time it is no stretch of the imagination to believe that 19 dedicated and educated soldiers, who had been training for years, could hijack some commercial jetliners and crash them into tall buildings. In fact, with all the terrorist hijackings that have occurred in the past, the most surprising thing IMO is that no one had ever thought to do this sooner.

The greatest lie of 9/11 conspiracy theorists is that what the terrorists did was hard or complicated.
The 2nd lie of course is that a government conspiracy involving thousands of people would not be complicated (or would be less complicated than the hijackings), that government actually has the immense power necessary to pull it off, than no one involved would ever come forward, or (your point) that government involvement in the hijackings is necessary in order for the government to abuse what happened afterwards.

Look... half million pound jetplanes laden with huge quantities of kerosene and traveling 625 mph hit the buildings and the buildings fsckin fell. No additional explosives were needed. The engineering analysis is beyond sound. In fact, the CT'ers argument of this is the scientific equivalent of debating against the validity of evolution using the Bible. Even worse than that is the fact that you moron dilute the greater discussion with your fscking stupidity. As far as I'm concerned, if there is some kind of government conspiracy surrounding 9/11, then the CT'ers themselves must be in on it. We all saw the planes, you idiots say it was missiles. We all saw the fires, you idiots say it was explosives. And so forth. Making it so that whatever you want to argue about how it's "so blatantly obvious that the event was used to just sell another generation of dolts another war" completely impossible.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: LOUISSSSS
this was a GREAT FILM and all the points make enough sense for me to believe that 911 was staged, along with the points on religion and banking

Let me guess, you now have a strong desire to kill some Jews now, right? :roll:

 

[event8horizon]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: event8horizon
thermate-
Thermate, whose primary component is thermite (, also contains sulfur and sometimes barium nitrate, both of which increase its thermal effect, create flame in burning, and significantly reduce the ignition temperature.

drywall-
A drywall panel is made of a paper liner wrapped around an inner core made primarily from gypsum plaster, the semi-hydrous form of calcium sulphate (CaSO4.½ H2O).

fema report from steel on wtc 7
A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel. This sulfur-rich liquid penetrated preferentially down grain boundaries of the steel, severely weakening the beam and making it susceptible to erosion

show me a scientific study that has drywall, jetfuel, and steel together under a "fire" condition like the wtc towers that leads to the steel being the same way as the fema steel tested.

oh, security was Kroll. the "cia" of wallstreet because they have hired ex cia and other international intel guys to work for them. im sure u knew this.
u really didnt make a case against the use of thermate. just alot of speculation. im just showing that the nist should have access to that steel because it could help them with their stated objectives. fema had some, why not the nist.
surgeon was right, u do go in circles.

Circles? I think not. You are performing some hand-waving now. Besides the fact that you've gone back to quoting the same old crap, you come up with another conspiracy theory concerning the security at WTC as a weak attempt to blow it off and you completely fail to address what I said about there being no posible way that a group of people could installed the quantity of thermite (now you claim thermate) required without being noticed. You completely disregard the logisitcs of such an operation.

I already addressed the issue of the chemical composition of thermate as well. The percentage of sulfur in thermate is not of adequate quantity to account for the sulphur found in the WTC debris.

And to answer your post that follows this one, no FEMA did not check for calcium. Howver, the EPA did:

http://www.epa.gov/WTC/panel/p...ort_August_17_2005.pdf

u brought up security. kroll was behind security. as for hand waving, what exactly do u mean. i did look into that epa report u linked. it didnt mention any steel samples. i was wondering if calcium was found on that particular piece of steel from the fema report from the wtc 7.
this is also interesting-
"The landfill contains construction materials from demolished homes, and it is thought
that hydrogen sulfide is in the air because of burning drywall."
from http://www.doh.state.fl.us/Env...aRosa/SantaRosa_07.pdf

so if it was drywall, how concentrated would the hydrogen sulfide be to make the steel sample from the fema report that f'ed up.

and wouldnt it be in the interests of the nist to examine steel from the wtc 7 especially that fema sample considering their stated goals.

all i am saying is they need to examine wtc 7 steel. ohhhh shit, they dont have any!!!!

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: event8horizon
u brought up security. kroll was behind security.

I brought up the fact that a bunch of men tearing into a hundred places in WTC 1 and WTC 2 in order to secretly install thermite/thermate would not likely go unnoticed by security, maintenance, etc. You responded with a bunch of specious baloney that completely failed to address point and is yet another example of the type of argumentation put forward by the conspiracy crowd. The CIA of security? lol. If you have any evidence that the security at the WTC was directly involved in 9/11, present it. Otherwise it's little more than a weak attempt to deflect away from and to avoid answering the point I made.

as for hand waving, what exactly do u mean.

Your comment about me making a circular argument. I did not such thing and you know it. I sense you put that forward because I've begun discussing issues you you don't how to address because it's not part of the regular CT response script.

i did look into that epa report u linked. it didnt mention any steel samples. i was wondering if calcium was found on that particular piece of steel from the fema report from the wtc 7.

Calcium found on the steel? Erm, sulfur wasn't found ON the steel either. It was found in it since sulfur is a small component of structural steel but sulfur was not found ON it. You seem a bit confused about a couple issues and what means what.

this is also interesting-
"The landfill contains construction materials from demolished homes, and it is thought
that hydrogen sulfide is in the air because of burning drywall."
from http://www.doh.state.fl.us/Env...aRosa/SantaRosa_07.pdf

so if it was drywall, how concentrated would the hydrogen sulfide be to make the steel sample from the fema report that f'ed up.

and wouldnt it be in the interests of the nist to examine steel from the wtc 7 especially that fema sample considering their stated goals.

all i am saying is they need to examine wtc 7 steel. ohhhh shit, they dont have any!!!!

WTF?

Because of a report on a Florida landfill NIST should physically test WTC 7 steel? Grasp at straws much?

 

[event8horizon]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: event8horizon
u brought up security. kroll was behind security.

I brought up the fact that a bunch of men tearing into a hundred places in WTC 1 and WTC 2 in order to secretly install thermite/thermate would not likely go unnoticed by security, maintenance, etc. You responded with a bunch of specious baloney that completely failed to address point and is yet another example of the type of argumentation put forward by the conspiracy crowd. The CIA of security? lol. If you have any evidence that the security at the WTC was directly involved in 9/11, present it. Otherwise it's little more than a weak attempt to deflect away from and to avoid answering the point I made.

as for hand waving, what exactly do u mean.

Your comment about me making a circular argument. I did not such thing and you know it. I sense you put that forward because I've begun discussing issues you you don't how to address because it's not part of the regular CT response script.

i did look into that epa report u linked. it didnt mention any steel samples. i was wondering if calcium was found on that particular piece of steel from the fema report from the wtc 7.

Calcium found on the steel? Erm, sulfur wasn't found ON the steel either. It was found in it since sulfur is a small component of structural steel but sulfur was not found ON it. You seem a bit confused about a couple issues and what means what.

this is also interesting-
"The landfill contains construction materials from demolished homes, and it is thought
that hydrogen sulfide is in the air because of burning drywall."
from http://www.doh.state.fl.us/Env...aRosa/SantaRosa_07.pdf

so if it was drywall, how concentrated would the hydrogen sulfide be to make the steel sample from the fema report that f'ed up.

and wouldnt it be in the interests of the nist to examine steel from the wtc 7 especially that fema sample considering their stated goals.

all i am saying is they need to examine wtc 7 steel. ohhhh shit, they dont have any!!!!

WTF?

Because of a report on a Florida landfill NIST should physically test WTC 7 steel? Grasp at straws much?

look into kroll if u want to know more. all i said is they have hired ex cia, and other intel guys.
u brought up that the drywall is the cause of the sulfur. well, drywall also contains calcium. if the steel was in direct contact with drywall, i was thinking that calcium might be in or on that sample. then i looked into the burning of drywall. it creates hydrogen sulfide. u say that the sulfur was from the drywall. how much hydrogen sulfide must be produced from the burning of drywall to create that destinctive of a sample from the fema report.
the sample once again showed-

A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel. This sulfur-rich liquid penetrated preferentially down grain boundaries of the steel, severely weakening the beam and making it susceptible to erosion .

now from what ive read, when drywall burns, it makes a gas. Hydrogen sulfide is the chemical compound with the formula H2S. This colorless, toxic and flammable gas is responsible for the foul odour of rotten eggs and flatulence. damn thats some nasty shit!!!! hahaha. from what the fema report says, that agent was a liquid mixture containing iron, oxygen, and sulfur.
so tell me how hydrogen sulfide can do that much damage. how concentrated does that gas need to be to do that much damage. how is it going to convert to a liquid to enter that steel as the sample shows.
heres the fema report if anyone wants to read it:
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/AppendixC-fema403_apc.pdf

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: event8horizon

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: event8horizon
u brought up security. kroll was behind security.

I brought up the fact that a bunch of men tearing into a hundred places in WTC 1 and WTC 2 in order to secretly install thermite/thermate would not likely go unnoticed by security, maintenance, etc. You responded with a bunch of specious baloney that completely failed to address point and is yet another example of the type of argumentation put forward by the conspiracy crowd. The CIA of security? lol. If you have any evidence that the security at the WTC was directly involved in 9/11, present it. Otherwise it's little more than a weak attempt to deflect away from and to avoid answering the point I made.

as for hand waving, what exactly do u mean.

Your comment about me making a circular argument. I did not such thing and you know it. I sense you put that forward because I've begun discussing issues you you don't how to address because it's not part of the regular CT response script.

i did look into that epa report u linked. it didnt mention any steel samples. i was wondering if calcium was found on that particular piece of steel from the fema report from the wtc 7.

Calcium found on the steel? Erm, sulfur wasn't found ON the steel either. It was found in it since sulfur is a small component of structural steel but sulfur was not found ON it. You seem a bit confused about a couple issues and what means what.

this is also interesting-
"The landfill contains construction materials from demolished homes, and it is thought
that hydrogen sulfide is in the air because of burning drywall."
from http://www.doh.state.fl.us/Env...aRosa/SantaRosa_07.pdf

so if it was drywall, how concentrated would the hydrogen sulfide be to make the steel sample from the fema report that f'ed up.

and wouldnt it be in the interests of the nist to examine steel from the wtc 7 especially that fema sample considering their stated goals.

all i am saying is they need to examine wtc 7 steel. ohhhh shit, they dont have any!!!!

WTF?

Because of a report on a Florida landfill NIST should physically test WTC 7 steel? Grasp at straws much?

look into kroll if u want to know more. all i said is they have hired ex cia, and other intel guys.
u brought up that the drywall is the cause of the sulfur. well, drywall also contains calcium. if the steel was in direct contact with drywall, i was thinking that calcium might be in or on that sample. then i looked into the burning of drywall. it creates hydrogen sulfide. u say that the sulfur was from the drywall. how much hydrogen sulfide must be produced from the burning of drywall to create that destinctive of a sample from the fema report.
the sample once again showed-

A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel. This sulfur-rich liquid penetrated preferentially down grain boundaries of the steel, severely weakening the beam and making it susceptible to erosion .

now from what ive read, when drywall burns, it makes a gas. Hydrogen sulfide is the chemical compound with the formula H2S. This colorless, toxic and flammable gas is responsible for the foul odour of rotten eggs and flatulence. damn thats some nasty shit!!!! hahaha. from what the fema report says, that agent was a liquid mixture containing iron, oxygen, and sulfur.
so tell me how hydrogen sulfide can do that much damage. how concentrated does that gas need to be to do that much damage. how is it going to convert to a liquid to enter that steel as the sample shows.
heres the fema report if anyone wants to read it:
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/AppendixC-fema403_apc.pdf

Let's see. What do we have as a mx of materials available when the towers collapsed?

Iron? We had lots of that. Check.

Oxygen? It's practically everywhere. Check.

Sulfur? Because the vast majority of the drywall did NOT burn, it got pulverized in the collapse. Check.

What else does it take to form a eutectic environment? Oh yeah, heat. We had that too, in spades. Check.

Iron + Oxygen + Suflur + Heat = eutectic environment and corrosive effect on the steel.

Also note that this particular piece of steel was selected for its unusual chracteristics in the first place. They don't even know where in the building it came from so some of the corrosive effects that are evident, like the unusual thinning of the metal, may have occured previous to the sulfidation. They just don't know. So despite your seeming implication that this could not have happened any other way besides some sort of thermite/thermate causing it, an implication you don't even have the nads to come straight out and admit you're implying, there are alternate explanations. With all considered the alternate explanations are FAR more plausible as well.

As far as Kroll, I don't give a crap about your weak ad hominem. Nor was security the only possible witness. There's also maintenance as well as the people that worked in the towers. Yet not a single soul reported anything that could be considered some sort of subservise activity that involved planting some type of demolitions. Not a one. How could that be with the massive amount of work required to plant and conceal thermite/thermate in the quantities required?

Sorry, but the claim that the towers or WTC 7 were brought down but explosives just doesn't hold a drop of water. Nothing stands up to any scrutiny.

 

[OokiiNeko]

What do we have as a mx of materials available when the towers collapsed?

Practically none, remember.

It was shipped out to our pals in China or buried in landfills.