JulesMaximus
No Lifer
- Jul 3, 2003
- 74,459
- 854
- 126
Nothing anyone has said to date on this issue has given me one shred of evidence to believe that the WTC buildings came down because of anything other than flying fuel laden jets into them.
anomalies are explored and with the scientific method, explained.
fema wanted to explore it.
1. Suggestions for Future Research
The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure. A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires.
its an example of a36 steel that shows:
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.
now from what fema stated above that if happened before collapse, that could have been a contributing factor. now if this type of an attack was found on column 79, would that help expain the collapse of wtc 7.
i read where fema would select samples in the field and the next day they would be gone. how much of this steel that was "attacked" and "liquified" was out there. who knows right???
i did read your article, its his opinion. no mention of this sample either.
BeauJangles
Lifer
- Aug 26, 2001
- 13,941
- 1
- 0
This thread is unbelievable.
The NIST would not have released the report if they had serious doubts about their own work. We've already seen them unwilling to bend to political pressure with the WTC 7 report, which they delayed releasing for two years because they were not done with it despite the fact that people were screaming for it.
Are they also covering up 9/11?
The NIST would not have released the report if they had serious doubts about their own work. We've already seen them unwilling to bend to political pressure with the WTC 7 report, which they delayed releasing for two years because they were not done with it despite the fact that people were screaming for it.
Are they also covering up 9/11?
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
Just stop it. You're using a minor anomaly as an excuse to ignore the COPIOUS amount of evidence and statements that show there's no possible way this could have been a demolition job. If you want to continue to play the fool and single-mindedly stare at those samples so you don't have to deal with the oveall facts of the matter, help yourself. It seems that only you fail to recognize how blatantly ignorant that blindered view is.
get mad tlc, get mad at whatever caused that steel to melt. thats what u should be getting mad at and why fema recommended further study and nist didnt provide.
now as for copious amounts of evidence, theres still some evidence that points in other directions.
the whole "countdown" eyewittness thing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STbD9XMCOho
the eyewittness in wtc7 when 1 and 2 were still standing that heard "explosions". damage by wtc tower had not happened yet to wtc 7.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6X9OspdsTU
could those "explosions" be just big cutter charges such as this
http://video.google.com/videop...=thermite+cutter&vt=lf
as for that "bomb" and "clear out" as the fireman was saying, by that time the wtc was hit by debris and steel was showing. could someone of seen a big one of these straped to a steel beam and thought it was a bomb
http://video.google.com/videop...=thermite+cutter&vt=lf
and foreknowlege-
11 months before 911 as russo states, rockefeller says an "event" is going to happen and we will invade iraq and afghanistan. hummmm, was that "event" 911. i like the part where he talks about they will look in caves and not find anybody. i laughed when obama gave his speech and mentioned mcain will follow OBL to the gates of hell but not to the cave he lives in!!!!!!!!!!
http://video.google.com/videop...id=1263677258215075609
and this is very interesting-
December 1, 2006 -- In October 2000, approximately 11 months prior to September 11, 2001, a former Israeli Defense Force member and veteran of the Yom Kippur War (1973) was collecting English Ivy cuttings at the Gomel Chesed Cemetery located at McCellen and 245 Mount Olive Ave. in Newark, NJ. The Gomel Chesed Cemetery is a ?Jewish? cemetery.
In addition to overhearing in Hebrew, the statements, ?The Americans will learn what it is to live with terrorists after the planes hit the twins in September?, and ?Don?t worry, we have people in high places and no matter who gets elected, they will take care of everything?, the source also reports that he overheard one of the three men in the Gomel Chesed Cemetery say, ?The Arabs are so stupid. They don?t even imagine that we are using them.? This comment should not be overlooked.
http://www.muckrakerreport.com/id324.html
ps. this cemetery is only 14 miles away from the urban movers warehouse in weehawken nj where they found " Later, Federal law enforcement agents discovered pipes, caps, explosive chemical materials, and traces of anthrax at the Weehawken warehouse. Suter?s name and those of some of his moving employees turned up in a CIA database of foreign intelligence agents. Suter?s name also appeared on an FBI 9-11 terrorism suspect."
BeauJangles
Lifer
- Aug 26, 2001
- 13,941
- 1
- 0
Look at your own evidence. You have individual quotes about a very confusing situation (concerning the "countdown"). You have no evidence of any explosives, explosive materials, explosives residue, actors, motive, opportunity, or anything.
You're quoting the same old minutia again because you have no argument, no theory, nothing.
Look at other explanations for your evidence:
"Countdown" - Very confused situation on the ground, misunderstood that the FDNY thought the building was collapsing and heard that they were going to blow it up. As I said before, I heard all sorts of different things on 9/11 and I wasn't even at ground zero. News reports came out about attacks that didn't occur, about explosions that didn't happen, and about casualties that never materialized. Why is it so unbelievable for you to believe that people might have misunderstood the situation, passed on a rumor, or just have gotten scared and started saying things that weren't true? Without ANY corroborating evidence, this testimony is worthless.
Bomb sounds - Easily could be concrete slamming into concrete, steel beams slamming down, power transformers exploding, steel bolts snapping under the increased tension of the falling buildings.
Who is part of your conspiracy now?
Your version of events:
Players involved:
NYPD
FDNY
NIST
FEMA
All other first responders
The media
Israel
Larry Silverstein
The Rockefellers
foreign-born hijackers
Materials:
box cutters
thousands of pounds of explosives or thermite (which one?)
miles of detonation cord
Airplanes
Trucks to haul explosives.
Preparation:
Months laying explosives and detonation cords secretly in three buildings located in downtown Manhattan.
Flight school.
Aftermath:
Thousands of people to "silence" in the United States and Israel
Those involved must have "bought off" the NIST to reach the proper conclusions
Mountains of evidence to ignore and make disappear
Look at who is involved in my version of events:
Players involved:
foreign-born hijackers
Materials:
box cutters
Preparation:
flight school
Aftermath:
hijackers themselves dead. A few individuals who helped them are rounded up by authorities.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
I'm not mad at the steel. I'm frustrated that you're such a complete and utter moron, not to mention an anti-semite. There is a mountain of evidence against your claims and you still fail to recognize that you have absolutely no evidence whatsoever. All you have is hearsay and innuendo that doesn't amount to a hill of beans. You're a typical truther who focuses only on what they want to see and purposefully blinders themself to everything else because looking around at the actual truth would destroy their ridiculous little paranoid-delusional fantasy world.
You're a goofball, plain and simple. I don't even think you're ignorant. You're just plain stupid. That's a shame too because ignorance can be fixed but stupid is permanent.
- Oct 30, 2000
- 42,591
- 5
- 0
DrPizza
Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
They got off on a technicality. They didn't cross a border to enter our country; they came from the airspace above it. They needed to clear the area because they had come back to build more pyramids.
attack me all u want man, as for being an "anti-semite", i call it like i see it. if those were iranians or mexicans that got caught celebrating on 911 id be talking about that. but it wasnt now was it. it was a israeli mossad agent. get it tlc. and when someone that has dealt with intel agencies before says the "cia and mossad" were the minds behind 911, then u see all sorts of connections, it makes one wonder. do some research on it. just google israel + 911. after u do some research get back with me. and i dont believe rockefeller is a jew is he. that vid i linked shows russo talking about how rockefeller told him 11 months before 911 that there was going to be an "event" that would cause us to go into afghanistan and iraq.
as for evidence, here are how some 430 architects and engineers view the downing of the wtc complexes.
http://video.google.com/videop...d=-8182697765360042032
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
i read it. it does not mention what one of the scientist that analyzed that sample said about the wtc 7 site. your article said nothig abnormal was found.
"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, Dr. Barnett said."
and remember, fema wanted to research what the hell happened to that piece of steel in more detail.
nist "final" report states the structural damage did NOT contribute to the collapse sequence. they modeled the collapse without the damage too. "termal - expansion" was what they say brought the building down.
now, if what dr barnett says is correct, i dont see why he would lie, that there were "steel members in the debris pile"......that is pleural....partly evaporated. like i said before, what would they say if column 79 looked like that.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/f...=&spon=&pagewanted=all
beau-
can u tell me who exactly silverstein talked to when he gave his famous "pull it" order. ive been trying to find the guy on the other end of his phone but with no luck.
remember, the nist concluded that the damage did NOT contribute to it falling. they did a model that had no damge and the damn thing still collapsed.
Falling debris also caused major structural damage to the building, which soon began burning on multiple floors, said Francis X. Gribbon, a spokesman for the Fire Department. By 11:30 a.m., the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from it for safety reasons.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/f...=&spon=&pagewanted=all
Deputy Fire Chief Hayden, said ?one particular engineer? advised that collapse of WTC7 was a possibility. And gave them about 5 hours, and ?he was pretty much right on the money, that he said in its current state, you have about 5 hours.?
[Interestingly the film did not elaborate and tell us who this engineer was. It would
have been intriguing to discover who this individual was who was able to accurately
predict the onset of occurrence of a physical phenomenon, which it was admitted had never occurred in history before, accurate to a matter of minutes.
------
Deputy Fire Chief Nick Visconti describes resistance to the evacuation by firefighters who wanted to fight the fires in Building 7:
Now, World Trade Center 7 was burning and I was thinking to myself, how come they're not trying to put this fire out?
...
At some point, Frank Fellini said, now we've got hundreds of guys out there, hundreds and hundreds, and that's on the West Street side alone. He said to me, Nick, you've got to get those people out of there. I thought to myself, out of where? Frank, what do you want, Chief? He answered, 7 World Trade Center, imminent collapse, we've got to get those people out of there.
...
There were a couple of chiefs out there who I knew and I called them individually. I said to them, listen, start backing those people out, we need them back up to the command post. While this was going on, I saw individual company officers. I was whistling, Captain, bring your guys this way. I was getting some resistance. The common thing was, hey, we've still got people here, we don't want to leave. I explained to them that we were worried about 7, that it was going to come down and we didn't want to get anybody trapped in the collapse. One comment was, oh, that building is never coming down, that didn't get hit by a plane, why isn't somebody in there putting the fire out? A lot of comments, a bit of resistance, understandable resistance.
if u start reading the the firemans oral history, most say they heard it from their superiors that it was coming down. where did the superiors hear it. this "particular engineer" is an interesting starting place.
here is an archive of transcripts of interviews of more than 500 members of emergency services contains at least 26 interviews that describe either warnings or foreknowledge of WTC 7's collapse. The following table excerpts the phrases from each interview relating to expectations of collapse.
file description
9110085 was going to collapse or was at risk of collapsing; imminently to collapse
9110413 in eminent collapse
9110398 a possible collapse
9110486 going to collapse
9110425 going to collapse
9110425 going to collapse
9110103 going to collapse
9110179 might collapse
9110170 threat of collapse
9110217 concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing
9110256 an imminent collapse on
9110200 they knew it was going to come down, but they weren't sure
9110150 a potential for collapse
9110467 concerned about 7 World Trade Center collapsing
9110502 was definitely going to collapse, they don't know when, but it's definitely going to come down
9110021 they were just adamant about 7 coming down immediately
9110055 just waiting for 7 to come down
9110301 in danger of collapsing
9110222 concerned about seven coming down
9110222 The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse had damaged 7 World Trade Center
9110327 heard reports all day long of 7 World Trade possibly coming down
9110117 around 3:00 o'clock, that they thought 7 was going to collapse.
9110246 in dead jeopardy; stood there for a half hour, 40 minutes, because seven was in imminent collapse and finally did come down
9110472 the potential of 7 World Trade Center collapsing
9110409 was going to collapse; is coming down
9110462 definitely in danger of collapse
http://www.wtc7.net/warnings.html
can u tell me who exactly silverstein talked to when he gave his famous "pull it" order. ive been trying to find the guy on the other end of his phone but with no luck.
remember, the nist concluded that the damage did NOT contribute to it falling. they did a model that had no damge and the damn thing still collapsed.
Falling debris also caused major structural damage to the building, which soon began burning on multiple floors, said Francis X. Gribbon, a spokesman for the Fire Department. By 11:30 a.m., the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from it for safety reasons.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/f...=&spon=&pagewanted=all
Deputy Fire Chief Hayden, said ?one particular engineer? advised that collapse of WTC7 was a possibility. And gave them about 5 hours, and ?he was pretty much right on the money, that he said in its current state, you have about 5 hours.?
[Interestingly the film did not elaborate and tell us who this engineer was. It would
have been intriguing to discover who this individual was who was able to accurately
predict the onset of occurrence of a physical phenomenon, which it was admitted had never occurred in history before, accurate to a matter of minutes.
------
Deputy Fire Chief Nick Visconti describes resistance to the evacuation by firefighters who wanted to fight the fires in Building 7:
Now, World Trade Center 7 was burning and I was thinking to myself, how come they're not trying to put this fire out?
...
At some point, Frank Fellini said, now we've got hundreds of guys out there, hundreds and hundreds, and that's on the West Street side alone. He said to me, Nick, you've got to get those people out of there. I thought to myself, out of where? Frank, what do you want, Chief? He answered, 7 World Trade Center, imminent collapse, we've got to get those people out of there.
...
There were a couple of chiefs out there who I knew and I called them individually. I said to them, listen, start backing those people out, we need them back up to the command post. While this was going on, I saw individual company officers. I was whistling, Captain, bring your guys this way. I was getting some resistance. The common thing was, hey, we've still got people here, we don't want to leave. I explained to them that we were worried about 7, that it was going to come down and we didn't want to get anybody trapped in the collapse. One comment was, oh, that building is never coming down, that didn't get hit by a plane, why isn't somebody in there putting the fire out? A lot of comments, a bit of resistance, understandable resistance.
if u start reading the the firemans oral history, most say they heard it from their superiors that it was coming down. where did the superiors hear it. this "particular engineer" is an interesting starting place.
here is an archive of transcripts of interviews of more than 500 members of emergency services contains at least 26 interviews that describe either warnings or foreknowledge of WTC 7's collapse. The following table excerpts the phrases from each interview relating to expectations of collapse.
file description
9110085 was going to collapse or was at risk of collapsing; imminently to collapse
9110413 in eminent collapse
9110398 a possible collapse
9110486 going to collapse
9110425 going to collapse
9110425 going to collapse
9110103 going to collapse
9110179 might collapse
9110170 threat of collapse
9110217 concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing
9110256 an imminent collapse on
9110200 they knew it was going to come down, but they weren't sure
9110150 a potential for collapse
9110467 concerned about 7 World Trade Center collapsing
9110502 was definitely going to collapse, they don't know when, but it's definitely going to come down
9110021 they were just adamant about 7 coming down immediately
9110055 just waiting for 7 to come down
9110301 in danger of collapsing
9110222 concerned about seven coming down
9110222 The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse had damaged 7 World Trade Center
9110327 heard reports all day long of 7 World Trade possibly coming down
9110117 around 3:00 o'clock, that they thought 7 was going to collapse.
9110246 in dead jeopardy; stood there for a half hour, 40 minutes, because seven was in imminent collapse and finally did come down
9110472 the potential of 7 World Trade Center collapsing
9110409 was going to collapse; is coming down
9110462 definitely in danger of collapse
http://www.wtc7.net/warnings.html
so i guess your ok with them finding "steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated. fema wanted to investigate but didnt. nist wrote it off.
the results of that "evaportated" steel he saw. the same guy from fema saw the steel and analyzed it.
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.
thats pretty impressive for an office fire. there have been many building that have burned for many hrs. i wonder if there steel did anything like this.
and do u notice he said steel members in the debris pile. that is pleural. column 79 might have looked like this.
KAZANI
Senior member
- Sep 10, 2006
- 527
- 0
- 0
CallMeJoe, how about I call you a troll along with the rest of the lynch mob in here who, for more than a week now, try to subdue a single man's dissidence with little more than insult tactics. event8horizon has confronted you in a civilised manner of discourse providing ample references to back up his view and everytime your weak argument collapses you just lean on your authority-issued comfort pillow and blather about your opponent's imaginery "kookiness" or just plain cretinism. Your side is systematically trolling this and every other 9/11 discussion into what the moderator disclaimer under the OP disgracefully calls "a tin foil thread". A vehement :thumbsdown: to moding of this thread. You guys have trampled on core principles of modding by allowing trolling and personal attacks to degenerate this thread so it can be locked or discredited enough to match your POV.
(...and that's coming from someone who actually read the whole 270 posts up to this point before commenting. )
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
http://www.jod911.com/drg_nist_review_1_0.pdf
Go on to read the rest about your sulfidation and eutectic environment hocus pocus claims too. That's why I said previously that you clearly don't even know what those terms mean, but you continue to trot them out as if they are something significant in regard to the collapse. As the article from the Implosionworld experts state, there was no sign of controlled demolition so whatever caused the anomalies, it wasn't a CD. The article above also points out the lack of barium. If thermate was used, where's the barium. Another GLARING problem with your thermate scenario is that thermate leaves highly visible signs of residue on steel when used as a method of cutting. With the amount of thermate that would have been necessary to perform a controlled demolition of the towers and/or WTC7, there should have been large amounts of thermate residue readily visible yet not a single expert that examined the site notes anything of the sort.
But I'm sure you'll read the above, tightly clench your eyes together, put your head down, and bull on forward in your quest for conspiracy theorist stupid because no amount of reasoning or the exposure of your ignorance will stop you from espousing your "truth." Damn those multitudes of facts that completely argue against your claims and show them as empty and vapid. Full speed ahead on that truther train, regardless of the truth.
:roll:
KAZANI
Senior member
- Sep 10, 2006
- 527
- 0
- 0
The implosionworld article is full of erroneous claims which hurt its credibility. For instance, on commenting on ASSERTION #1:
For guys who want to pose as super-experts on CD's they seem quite ignorant of widespread practices in their industry field:
Top-Down Controlled Demolition?
Another top-down CD
I would like to comment alot more further on this article but I can't be arsed with transfering text I want to quote by typing it, just because the authors put ludicrus restrictions on copying text on that pdf (nice retarding tactics
). If you want you may read a rebuttal at http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pil...dex.php?showtopic=5126 (although I don't endorse it in its entirety)About barium in thermate: barium nitrate is only used in military-grade thermate and is not necessary for it to work. Its addition to thermite increases its thermal effect, creates flame in burning and reduces the ignition temperature. http://www.dodtechmatch.com/DO...ption&id=6766744&HL=ON
We can go back and forth with these arguments-counterarguments for a long time. Why can't you people accept the fact that truthers are not slabbering cretins who gobble up any piece of misinformation thrown at their way, without critical thought?
Edit: Spelling
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter