• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Fire - not explosives - brought 7 WTC down on 9/11, says report

Page 15 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: event8horizon
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: event8horizon
i dont think u get it. they havent figured out where the hell that elemental sulfur came from. they have ideas. and the fema report stated that the "corrosion could have started before collapse". now the engineer stated that the beam that came from wtc 7 looked as though it "vaporized" before it fell. that blows the lid off nist that the molten metal had nothing to do with the collapse.

have there been any fires which caused steel to do this.

jones might have found some thermite on those red chips though.
No, it's you that doesn't get it. I've already explained but it doesn't sink in. It doesn't matter where that sulfur came from because it didn't cause the collapse, nor did it come from any demolitions. As far as FEMA and NIST are concerned, the sulfur is a non-issue for determining WHY the towers collapsed. Maybe in the future they'll have the time and funds to determine if the sulfidation occurred pre- or post-collapse? Unlikely though because it's just not that an important issue to their reports on 9/11.

Jones did not find thermite or thermate. He found iron nodules. That doesn't imply thermate whatsoever. It's discussed in the very page you linked previously but clearly you ignored it because it destroys your narrative.
no u havent explained it to me. u link frank greening who hasnt figured how the sulfur got there. actually fema wanted a furthur study but didnt get one.
jones spheres are spent thermite from his hypothesis. the "red chips" are a form of thermite.
the sulphur should be a very big issue if they cant explain it and the possibility that it could have contributed to the collapse. even your debunking site wants more info on that sulfur.
Greening came to this conclusion:

It is concluded that sulfur emissions from the combustion of typical live load materials such as furniture,
paper, plastics, textiles, etc, were relatively small compared to sulfur emissions from more
unconventional sources, including those involving diesel fuel for emergency power generation in WTC 7
and CaSO4 in gypsum wallboard used in WTC 1 & 2. Sulfur emissions from thermite/thermate are shown
to be quite small compared to these sources.
Besides that, Greening doesn't claim that the sulfidation had any role in the collapse. Only truthers make that claim and they use highly dubious evidence that doesn't add up when you look at the big picture. But you'd rather ignore that big picture to make hay of insignificance. Your sulfidation is a hyped red herring of a truther argument, nothing more. Once again it's fruit, not meat.
 

KAZANI

Senior member
Sep 10, 2006
527
0
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Erm, Gross was specifically asked about "molten steel." There was no proof of molten steel. Molten metal != molten steel. There was no lie, only a weak attempt at conflation on your part.

And all your paranoia about the government amount to nothing except for, well, paranoia on your part. "My" side has consistently shown you guys to be wrong time after time after time, yet you still trot the same old baloney out. You seem to think that placing it in a new wrapper will make it any more palatable. It doesn't. It's the same old spoiled, rotten fruit as before. Heck, it's not even meat because we're constantly asking you guys 'Where's the beef?' and you fail to deliver. Bring some meat instead of trying to act like some poor, pitiful, persecuted victim here. Thus far you have failed massively.

And, once again, even the bluntest tool in the P&N shed should be able to see that the link you provided was not any sort of "top-down" demolition. Of course the truthers have to make such ridiculous claims these days. How pathetic.
This is the selective sight you (too) have but you accuse your opponents of. Gross says there were no eyewitness reports.

Also when you see a top-down demolition it's either:
1. Not top-down
2. Not in a building
...anything but make a make a concession to a *truther*.

Methinks it's time to dismount that high horse of yours and maybe review your opinion on whether those evidence that NIST too easily dismissed were really worthy of examination or not.
 

DrPizza

Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Administrator
Mar 5, 2001
49,606
162
111
www.slatebrookfarm.com
Just a weird observation that I couldn't resist responding to:

How in the hell does something that was "vaporized" be seen as "molten" pouring out of a building? I mean, sure, some of the chemistry knowledge involved might require an intro level college chemistry course. But, wtf? "Vaporized = molten"??! I just checked our curriculum; that's 7th grade level.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: KAZANI
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Erm, Gross was specifically asked about "molten steel." There was no proof of molten steel. Molten metal != molten steel. There was no lie, only a weak attempt at conflation on your part.

And all your paranoia about the government amount to nothing except for, well, paranoia on your part. "My" side has consistently shown you guys to be wrong time after time after time, yet you still trot the same old baloney out. You seem to think that placing it in a new wrapper will make it any more palatable. It doesn't. It's the same old spoiled, rotten fruit as before. Heck, it's not even meat because we're constantly asking you guys 'Where's the beef?' and you fail to deliver. Bring some meat instead of trying to act like some poor, pitiful, persecuted victim here. Thus far you have failed massively.

And, once again, even the bluntest tool in the P&N shed should be able to see that the link you provided was not any sort of "top-down" demolition. Of course the truthers have to make such ridiculous claims these days. How pathetic.
This is the selective sight you (too) have but you accuse your opponents of. Gross says there were no eyewitness reports.
No, he didn't say that. He said" "I know of nobody..." iow, he was not aware of anyone making such a claim. Nor were these "bowls" of molten steel ever produced. They wouldn't have just disappeared or vaporized. That alleged "molten steel" would have solidified and would have been discovered during the clean-up. Nothing of the sort was ever produced. It's sure wasn't your "meteorite" which is nothing more than a chunk of a few floors of deris compressed together.

Also when you see a top-down demolition it's either:
1. Not top-down
2. Not in a building
...anything but make a make a concession to a *truther*.

Methinks it's time to dismount that high horse of yours and maybe review your opinion on whether those evidence that NIST too easily dismissed were really worthy of examination or not.
I'm not on any high horse. It's that you've dug yourself so deep a hole with shoddy evidence and claims that everyone else looks like they're up high when it's really you down low.
 

BeauJangles

Lifer
Aug 26, 2001
13,941
1
0
Originally posted by: DrPizza
Just a weird observation that I couldn't resist responding to:

How in the hell does something that was "vaporized" be seen as "molten" pouring out of a building? I mean, sure, some of the chemistry knowledge involved might require an intro level college chemistry course. But, wtf? "Vaporized = molten"??! I just checked our curriculum; that's 7th grade level.
I think the argument being made is simply a fundamental misunderstanding of what is being said. The beams which had been partially "vaporized" were observed on their way to one of the two disposal sites. Dr. Astaneh-Asl's declaration that the beams had been partly corroded and had been "melted" into curved shapes. In the article event8horizon links to, he mentions that the beams were "burned" before the collapse, not "vaporized," "corroded," or "melted."

What he's really talking about are two separate processes. First, the "melting" of the beams which resulted in their deformed appearance. (It is interesting to note that most of the beams that weren't shattered by the force of the impact still resembled beams, except that they weren't straight anymore.) The evidence that this process occurred after the collapse is overwhelming. Ground Zero had tremendous heat and tremendous pressure, both requirements to "bend" steel. Second, is this business of the "vaporizing" or "corrosion." Despite Astaneh-Asl's reputation as one of the foremost experts in this field, the guy doesn't speak very clearly. He's hard to understand and has weird ways of phrasing things. The NYT article is ambiguous, at best, about when he thinks the "vaporizing" happened.

HOWEVER, The important thing to remember about him is that, despite the fact he (and Dr. Quintiere) both have issues with how the NIST modeled the impact and the collapse, their complaints are of small significance because they agree, 100%, with the final conclusion -- that planes brought down the WTC. They also both agree that there is no evidence for a controlled demolition of any sort.

Hence, the discussion of what they say about individual beams is mostly irrelevant to this conversation, unless event8horizon or Kazani or anybody else on these forums wants to attack their qualifications and state they reached the wrong conclusion (good luck).
 

event8horizon

Senior member
Nov 15, 2007
674
0
0
theres a couple of more things id like to talk about concerning dr jones discovery of these "red chips" that have the same chemical makeup of thermite. but lets review first:

**Foreknowledge
Rockefeller tells russo 11 months before 911 that there was going to be an ?event? that would lead us to Afghanistan and iraq.
http://video.google.com/videop...id=1263677258215075609

Israeli foreknowledge 11 months before:
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://muckrakerreport.com/id324.html

the Israeli company odigo warning 2 hrs before
Odigo, the instant messaging service, says that two of its workers received messages two hours before the Twin Towers attack on September 11 predicting the attack would happen, and the company has been cooperating with Israeli and American law enforcement, including the FBI, in trying to find the original sender of the message predicting the attack

**We have this ?engineer? that states to Deputy Fire Chief Hayden that advised the 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.?
I just wonder who the hell this engineer was. and remember, the nist tested their model without the damage and it STILL fell.
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/07/404876.html

**We also have an eyewitness claiming there was a countdown to wtc 7. there are other stories out there that deal with the ?countdown?.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STbD9XMCOho.

**Then we have an engineer that states this piece of steel ?vaporized?. From the context, it seems that he thinks it ?burned? first then buckled. He is linking ?burn? with ?vaporize?. So that would mean the nist would need to look into molten metel before the collape instead of just writing it off.
One piece Dr. Astaneh-Asl saw was a charred horizontal I-beam from 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story skyscraper that collapsed from fire eight hours after the attacks. The beam, so named because its cross-section looks like a capital I, had clearly endured searing temperatures. Parts of the flat top of the I, once five-eighths of an inch thick, had vaporized. Less clear was whether the beam had been charred after the collapse, as it lay in the pile of burning rubble, or whether it had been engulfed in the fire that led to the building's collapse, which would provide a more telling clue. The answer lay in the beam's twisted shape. As weight pushed down, the center portion had buckled outward.
''This tells me it buckled while it was attached to the column,'' not as it fell, Dr. Astaneh-Asl said, adding, ''It had burned first, then buckled.''
http://www.historycommons.org/...ds#a091901astanehfinds
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.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/f...=&spon=&pagewanted=all
**check out the nasa Images of the World Trade Center Site that Show Thermal Hot Spots on September 16 and 23, 2001. at the very end of the page, check out the pic where it shows ?A?. notice ?A? is where column 79 is. Nist hypothesis revolves around column 79. How much u wanna bet that column 79 looked ?evaporated? or ?vaporized?!!!!!!
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/o...-0429/thermal.r09.html
**molten metal flowing out of the wtc. Look at the hole it leaves towards the end of the vid. Looks bright yellow too me. Aluminum?..i doubt it.
http://video.google.com/videop...ompilation&vt=lf&hl=en
**and from the fema bpat report, the summary suggests ?It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure.?
**And last dr jones has found what he believes to be thermite. http://video.google.com/videop...d=-4186920967571123147
I wonder how much steel in wtc 7 debris pile was ?vaporized? or ?evaporated?.


 

event8horizon

Senior member
Nov 15, 2007
674
0
0
now if u havent checked out dr jones and the thermite he found:
http://video.google.com/videop...d=-4186920967571123147

now this guy wrote a paper linking nanothermite and the nist

'The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermites' -- by Kevin Ryan
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/07/402772.html

this is interesting concerning what can be done (spray on) with that type of thermite-

The mixing is accomplished by adding these reactants to a liquid solution where they form what are called ?sols?, and then adding a gelling agent that captures these tiny reactive combinations in their intimately mixed state (LLNL 2000). The resulting ?sol-gel? is then dried to form a porous reactive material that can be ignited in a number of ways. The high surface area of the reactants within energetic sol-gels allows for the far higher rate of energy release than is seen in ?macro? thermite mixtures, making nano-thermites ?high explosives? as well as pyrotechnic materials
These LLNL scientists reported that? ?The sol-gel process is very amenable to dip-, spin-, and spray-coating technologies to coat surfaces. We have utilized this property to dip-coat various substrates to make sol-gel Fe,O,/ Al / Viton coatings. The energetic coating dries to give a nice adherent film. Preliminary experiments indicate that films of the hybrid material are self-propagating when ignited by thermal stimulus? (Gash et al 2002).
 

event8horizon

Senior member
Nov 15, 2007
674
0
0
beau asks-
how did they get thermite into the wtc
did u notice that nanothermite can be sprayed on!!!! hence the "red chips" jones found.
and also-
There appears to be a remarkable correlation between the floors upgraded for fireproofing in the WTC towers, in the years preceding 9/11/01, and the floors of impact, fire and failure. The fireproofing upgrades would have allowed for shutdown of the affected floors, and the exposure of the floor assemblies and the columns for a significant period of time. Exactly what work was done during that time?

In some sections of the NIST WTC report, the exact floors upgraded are listed. Other sections of the report suggest even more floors were upgraded, a total of 18 floors in WTC 1 and 13 floors in WTC 2, but the additional floors involved are not specified.[1]

and also the planes hit secure computer rooms
But on the 95th floor, Marsh & McLennan had a "large walled data center along north and east sides," according to the NIST report. And that's exactly where the plane hit ? the north wall of the 95th floor.

and the other tower-
Fuji Bank had torn up the 81st floor, he said, and stripped it down to the bare bone to reinforce the trusses so that the floor could hold more weight. Then they had built a raised floor and filled the entire floor with server-size Uninterrupted Power Supply (UPS) batteries.
These units were bolted to the raised floor which stood about 3 feet above the reinforced 81st floor. Beneath the raised floor ran the cables and power supply that connected the army of batteries. IT techies had to get down on all fours and crawl around beneath the raised floor to connect cables.
"The whole floor was batteries," he said, "huge battery-looking things." They were "all black" and "solid, very heavy" things that had been brought in during the night. They had been put in place during the summer prior to 9/11, he said.
But were they really batteries?
"It's weird," he said. "They were never turned on."

 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Nobody cares about your claims from loopy websites and crazy ex-professors (Jones also wrote a paper on Jesus visiting the Indians. I suppose you're a firm believer in that too?). You've been asked questions that you continue to dodge. Until you begin addressing the massive holes in your claims all your little links don't mean a thing.
 

KAZANI

Senior member
Sep 10, 2006
527
0
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
No, he didn't say that. He said" "I know of nobody..." iow, he was not aware of anyone making such a claim. Nor were these "bowls" of molten steel ever produced. They wouldn't have just disappeared or vaporized. That alleged "molten steel" would have solidified and would have been discovered during the clean-up. Nothing of the sort was ever produced. It's sure wasn't your "meteorite" which is nothing more than a chunk of a few floors of deris compressed together.
Here we go again with those wording acrobatics...So, everyone else knew about the "molten steel" reports except Gross, who was leading the NIST investigation? :confused: I'm really trying to feel comfortable with that, but I can't.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: KAZANI
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
No, he didn't say that. He said" "I know of nobody..." iow, he was not aware of anyone making such a claim. Nor were these "bowls" of molten steel ever produced. They wouldn't have just disappeared or vaporized. That alleged "molten steel" would have solidified and would have been discovered during the clean-up. Nothing of the sort was ever produced. It's sure wasn't your "meteorite" which is nothing more than a chunk of a few floors of deris compressed together.
Here we go again with those wording acrobatics...So, everyone else knew about the "molten steel" reports except Gross, who was leading the NIST investigation? :confused: I'm really trying to feel comfortable with that, but I can't.
Everyone else knew? Surely you can prove that? Surely you can prove the Gross knew as well and was trying to conceal the information in order to keep the vast 9/11 government conspiracy, of which he and thousands of others were part and parcel of, all secure and hidden?

:roll:

I wonder if you guys ever think through some of the crap you toss out there? It sure doesn't seem so.
 

BeauJangles

Lifer
Aug 26, 2001
13,941
1
0
Originally posted by: event8horizon
beau asks-
how did they get thermite into the wtc
did u notice that nanothermite can be sprayed on!!!! hence the "red chips" jones found.
and also-
There appears to be a remarkable correlation between the floors upgraded for fireproofing in the WTC towers, in the years preceding 9/11/01, and the floors of impact, fire and failure. The fireproofing upgrades would have allowed for shutdown of the affected floors, and the exposure of the floor assemblies and the columns for a significant period of time. Exactly what work was done during that time?

In some sections of the NIST WTC report, the exact floors upgraded are listed. Other sections of the report suggest even more floors were upgraded, a total of 18 floors in WTC 1 and 13 floors in WTC 2, but the additional floors involved are not specified.[1]

and also the planes hit secure computer rooms

But on the 95th floor, Marsh & McLennan had a "large walled data center along north and east sides," according to the NIST report. And that's exactly where the plane hit ? the north wall of the 95th floor.

and the other tower-
Fuji Bank had torn up the 81st floor, he said, and stripped it down to the bare bone to reinforce the trusses so that the floor could hold more weight. Then they had built a raised floor and filled the entire floor with server-size Uninterrupted Power Supply (UPS) batteries.
These units were bolted to the raised floor which stood about 3 feet above the reinforced 81st floor. Beneath the raised floor ran the cables and power supply that connected the army of batteries. IT techies had to get down on all fours and crawl around beneath the raised floor to connect cables.
"The whole floor was batteries," he said, "huge battery-looking things." They were "all black" and "solid, very heavy" things that had been brought in during the night. They had been put in place during the summer prior to 9/11, he said.
But were they really batteries?
"It's weird," he said. "They were never turned on."
Have you ever been to NYC? Did you see the WTC before it was hit?

The planes were traveling at about 500 mph when they hit the building, that's about 733 fps. That means that three seconds before they hit the building, they were a little under a half mile away.

So what you're claiming is that these pilots, with little training, not only managed to hit the side of a building, but they managed to hit a specific side of a specific floor on a building that looked this:
http://wirednewyork.com/church...ges/st_nicholas_up.jpg

This picture is what the buildings would have looked like about seven seconds prior to impact (from the hijackers' perspective): http://www.guardianchronicle.c...d%20trade%20center.jpg

From that photo, why don't you try picking out the 95th floor? Good luck.

You're really going to argue that they could discern individual floors well enough to collide with a specific one? Looking at the exterior of the buildings I find that scenario highly improbable for a trained pilot, no less an unskilled hijacker.

Plus, like usual, you fail to supply any reason why they'd attack "secure computer rooms."

As for your "thermite battery theory," give me a freaking break. Thermite needs to be IN DIRECT CONTACT with steel to have a measurable effect. Remember all those videos you linked to before? What was the one common theme? Thermite touching steel. Now, imagine the support beams of the WTC. They're a heck of a lot thicker than those you linked from youtube university, so you need lots more thermite and a lot of direct contact, not a bunch of batteries lying on a raised platform in the middle of a floor.

You're grasping at straws here.
 

event8horizon

Senior member
Nov 15, 2007
674
0
0
Originally posted by: BeauJangles
Originally posted by: event8horizon
beau asks-
how did they get thermite into the wtc
did u notice that nanothermite can be sprayed on!!!! hence the "red chips" jones found.
and also-
There appears to be a remarkable correlation between the floors upgraded for fireproofing in the WTC towers, in the years preceding 9/11/01, and the floors of impact, fire and failure. The fireproofing upgrades would have allowed for shutdown of the affected floors, and the exposure of the floor assemblies and the columns for a significant period of time. Exactly what work was done during that time?

In some sections of the NIST WTC report, the exact floors upgraded are listed. Other sections of the report suggest even more floors were upgraded, a total of 18 floors in WTC 1 and 13 floors in WTC 2, but the additional floors involved are not specified.[1]

and also the planes hit secure computer rooms

But on the 95th floor, Marsh & McLennan had a "large walled data center along north and east sides," according to the NIST report. And that's exactly where the plane hit ? the north wall of the 95th floor.

and the other tower-
Fuji Bank had torn up the 81st floor, he said, and stripped it down to the bare bone to reinforce the trusses so that the floor could hold more weight. Then they had built a raised floor and filled the entire floor with server-size Uninterrupted Power Supply (UPS) batteries.
These units were bolted to the raised floor which stood about 3 feet above the reinforced 81st floor. Beneath the raised floor ran the cables and power supply that connected the army of batteries. IT techies had to get down on all fours and crawl around beneath the raised floor to connect cables.
"The whole floor was batteries," he said, "huge battery-looking things." They were "all black" and "solid, very heavy" things that had been brought in during the night. They had been put in place during the summer prior to 9/11, he said.
But were they really batteries?
"It's weird," he said. "They were never turned on."
Have you ever been to NYC? Did you see the WTC before it was hit?

The planes were traveling at about 500 mph when they hit the building, that's about 733 fps. That means that three seconds before they hit the building, they were a little under a half mile away.

So what you're claiming is that these pilots, with little training, not only managed to hit the side of a building, but they managed to hit a specific side of a specific floor on a building that looked this:
http://wirednewyork.com/church...ges/st_nicholas_up.jpg

This picture is what the buildings would have looked like about seven seconds prior to impact (from the hijackers' perspective): http://www.guardianchronicle.c...d%20trade%20center.jpg

From that photo, why don't you try picking out the 95th floor? Good luck.

You're really going to argue that they could discern individual floors well enough to collide with a specific one? Looking at the exterior of the buildings I find that scenario highly improbable for a trained pilot, no less an unskilled hijacker.

Plus, like usual, you fail to supply any reason why they'd attack "secure computer rooms."

As for your "thermite battery theory," give me a freaking break. Thermite needs to be IN DIRECT CONTACT with steel to have a measurable effect. Remember all those videos you linked to before? What was the one common theme? Thermite touching steel. Now, imagine the support beams of the WTC. They're a heck of a lot thicker than those you linked from youtube university, so you need lots more thermite and a lot of direct contact, not a bunch of batteries lying on a raised platform in the middle of a floor.

You're grasping at straws here.
why attack secure computer rooms?? if there is foreknowledge, one could prep the area.
here is where the whole "direct contact with steel" is-
There appears to be a remarkable correlation between the floors upgraded for fireproofing in the WTC towers, in the years preceding 9/11/01, and the floors of impact, fire and failure. The fireproofing upgrades would have allowed for shutdown of the affected floors, and the exposure of the floor assemblies and the columns for a significant period of time.
as for the batteries, it would be a good way to sneak some thermite in since they never actually turned them on. this is all hypothetical. im awaiting dr jones paper on this.
as for why they would target a secure computer room, look into ptech software and Dov Zakheim + 911. if there is foreknowledge, one can plan.
 

Ns1

No Lifer
Jun 17, 2001
55,385
1,517
126
There appears to be a remarkable correlation between the floors upgraded for fireproofing in the WTC towers, in the years preceding 9/11/01, and the floors of impact, fire and failure. The fireproofing upgrades would have allowed for shutdown of the affected floors, and the exposure of the floor assemblies and the columns for a significant period of time.
got proof?



Ever see "WANTED"? Maybe they just strapped a shitload of explosive watches to mice and let them run around in the building instead, and all the mice survived the initial impact, and fires, only to be used as tools in bush's master plan a few hours later.


srsly, you got no proof just a shitload of retarded theories.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: event8horizon
why attack secure computer rooms?? if there is foreknowledge, one could prep the area.
here is where the whole "direct contact with steel" is-
There appears to be a remarkable correlation between the floors upgraded for fireproofing in the WTC towers, in the years preceding 9/11/01, and the floors of impact, fire and failure. The fireproofing upgrades would have allowed for shutdown of the affected floors, and the exposure of the floor assemblies and the columns for a significant period of time.
as for the batteries, it would be a good way to sneak some thermite in since they never actually turned them on. this is all hypothetical. im awaiting dr jones paper on this.
as for why they would target a secure computer room, look into ptech software and Dov Zakheim + 911. if there is foreknowledge, one can plan.
Comments like these are what make conspiracy theorists look really dumb. The fireproofing upgrade began in 1999 and went through 2000. So now you're not only involving the Bush admin, but many people in the Clinton admin would have to have been complicit in this as well? Do tell.

btw, I hope you know that the pieces of "super nano thermite" that Jones is trying to pass off is actually nothing more than an anti-corrosion paint that was commonly used on the beams in the twin towers. It was a red oxide zinc chromate primer. How about bothering to ask why Jones blows off testing the other side of his "thermite" chip? For someone who is supposed to be asking questions you sure don't seem to be to eager to ask questions of anything that questions your conspiracy. Neither does Jones. In fact, he flat out ignores anything that doesn't jibe with his beliefs and when confronted with evidence that is contrary, he changes his story. He's done it so many times it's not even funny. But that's always the way it has been with the truthers. More evidence of their confirmation bias.
 

event8horizon

Senior member
Nov 15, 2007
674
0
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: event8horizon
why attack secure computer rooms?? if there is foreknowledge, one could prep the area.
here is where the whole "direct contact with steel" is-
There appears to be a remarkable correlation between the floors upgraded for fireproofing in the WTC towers, in the years preceding 9/11/01, and the floors of impact, fire and failure. The fireproofing upgrades would have allowed for shutdown of the affected floors, and the exposure of the floor assemblies and the columns for a significant period of time.
as for the batteries, it would be a good way to sneak some thermite in since they never actually turned them on. this is all hypothetical. im awaiting dr jones paper on this.
as for why they would target a secure computer room, look into ptech software and Dov Zakheim + 911. if there is foreknowledge, one can plan.
Comments like these are what make conspiracy theorists look really dumb. The fireproofing upgrade began in 1999 and went through 2000. So now you're not only involving the Bush admin, but many people in the Clinton admin would have to have been complicit in this as well? Do tell.

btw, I hope you know that the pieces of "super nano thermite" that Jones is trying to pass off is actually nothing more than an anti-corrosion paint that was commonly used on the beams in the twin towers. It was a red oxide zinc chromate primer. How about bothering to ask why Jones blows off testing the other side of his "thermite" chip? For someone who is supposed to be asking questions you sure don't seem to be to eager to ask questions of anything that questions your conspiracy. Neither does Jones. In fact, he flat out ignores anything that doesn't jibe with his beliefs and when confronted with evidence that is contrary, he changes his story. He's done it so many times it's not even funny. But that's always the way it has been with the truthers. More evidence of their confirmation bias.
bush admin or clinton admin???? i think this statement made in the cemetary pretty much sums it up.
What the observer of these happenings heard beneath him after the normal niceties were exchanged between the three men alarmed him. The man who arrived in the Town Car said, ?The Americans will learn what it is to live with terrorists after the planes hit the twins in September.? One of the men that had been leaning against the retaining wall expressed concerns regarding whether the upcoming presidential election (November 2000) between Bush / Cheney and Gore / Lieberman could impact the plans. The man that arrived in the Town Car pacified the doubts by saying, ?Don?t worry, we have people in high places and no matter who gets elected, they will take care of everything.?

as for the anti corrosion paint from one of your debunking sites-
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/stevene.jones'thermitethermateclaims

"The levels of many of the elements are consistent with their presence in building materials, including chromium, magnesium, manganese, aluminum, and barium." Source (p. 709)
And the zinc? Galvanized zinc coating covered roughly 150 acres of corrugated steel floor decking in the towers. Red oxide zinc chromate primer paint was used on the structural steel, and many of the aircraft components were coated with zinc corrosion protection. Zinc also constitutes 10-40% of the content of brass, and a significant portion of bronze and nickel, and is used in many other construction and mechanical applications.

they are talking about elements. this "red chip" is a product of many elements that has the same chemical signature as thermite. i didnt see that it contained any zinc chromate either???
and the "grey" side, he thinks it may be plastic. he sent samples off to different labs for analysis so we will see.
 

BeauJangles

Lifer
Aug 26, 2001
13,941
1
0
Originally posted by: event8horizon
Originally posted by: BeauJangles
Originally posted by: event8horizon
beau asks-
how did they get thermite into the wtc
did u notice that nanothermite can be sprayed on!!!! hence the "red chips" jones found.
and also-
There appears to be a remarkable correlation between the floors upgraded for fireproofing in the WTC towers, in the years preceding 9/11/01, and the floors of impact, fire and failure. The fireproofing upgrades would have allowed for shutdown of the affected floors, and the exposure of the floor assemblies and the columns for a significant period of time. Exactly what work was done during that time?

In some sections of the NIST WTC report, the exact floors upgraded are listed. Other sections of the report suggest even more floors were upgraded, a total of 18 floors in WTC 1 and 13 floors in WTC 2, but the additional floors involved are not specified.[1]

and also the planes hit secure computer rooms

But on the 95th floor, Marsh & McLennan had a "large walled data center along north and east sides," according to the NIST report. And that's exactly where the plane hit ? the north wall of the 95th floor.

and the other tower-
Fuji Bank had torn up the 81st floor, he said, and stripped it down to the bare bone to reinforce the trusses so that the floor could hold more weight. Then they had built a raised floor and filled the entire floor with server-size Uninterrupted Power Supply (UPS) batteries.
These units were bolted to the raised floor which stood about 3 feet above the reinforced 81st floor. Beneath the raised floor ran the cables and power supply that connected the army of batteries. IT techies had to get down on all fours and crawl around beneath the raised floor to connect cables.
"The whole floor was batteries," he said, "huge battery-looking things." They were "all black" and "solid, very heavy" things that had been brought in during the night. They had been put in place during the summer prior to 9/11, he said.
But were they really batteries?
"It's weird," he said. "They were never turned on."
Have you ever been to NYC? Did you see the WTC before it was hit?

The planes were traveling at about 500 mph when they hit the building, that's about 733 fps. That means that three seconds before they hit the building, they were a little under a half mile away.

So what you're claiming is that these pilots, with little training, not only managed to hit the side of a building, but they managed to hit a specific side of a specific floor on a building that looked this:
http://wirednewyork.com/church...ges/st_nicholas_up.jpg

This picture is what the buildings would have looked like about seven seconds prior to impact (from the hijackers' perspective): http://www.guardianchronicle.c...d%20trade%20center.jpg

From that photo, why don't you try picking out the 95th floor? Good luck.

You're really going to argue that they could discern individual floors well enough to collide with a specific one? Looking at the exterior of the buildings I find that scenario highly improbable for a trained pilot, no less an unskilled hijacker.

Plus, like usual, you fail to supply any reason why they'd attack "secure computer rooms."

As for your "thermite battery theory," give me a freaking break. Thermite needs to be IN DIRECT CONTACT with steel to have a measurable effect. Remember all those videos you linked to before? What was the one common theme? Thermite touching steel. Now, imagine the support beams of the WTC. They're a heck of a lot thicker than those you linked from youtube university, so you need lots more thermite and a lot of direct contact, not a bunch of batteries lying on a raised platform in the middle of a floor.

You're grasping at straws here.
why attack secure computer rooms?? if there is foreknowledge, one could prep the area.
here is where the whole "direct contact with steel" is-
There appears to be a remarkable correlation between the floors upgraded for fireproofing in the WTC towers, in the years preceding 9/11/01, and the floors of impact, fire and failure. The fireproofing upgrades would have allowed for shutdown of the affected floors, and the exposure of the floor assemblies and the columns for a significant period of time.
as for the batteries, it would be a good way to sneak some thermite in since they never actually turned them on. this is all hypothetical. im awaiting dr jones paper on this.
as for why they would target a secure computer room, look into ptech software and Dov Zakheim + 911. if there is foreknowledge, one can plan.
So the terrorists flew a 300,000 pound plane at over 500 mph into a specific office in the WTC to ignite thermite bombs disguised as batteries placed there by a bank? What's with this "never turned them on" crap? They're backup batteries and unless the WTC lost power, why the hell would anyone turn them on?

Shit, now that you mention it, a buddy of mine who went to high school in NYC saw some dude carrying what were supposed to be reams of paper into the WTC -- maybe it was thermite paper?!!?!!?!?!!

Your claims are completely baseless because you base them off one statement, a statement you cannot even provide a source for.

YOUR source doesn't even say where they got this information from, just that it came from "a former bank employee."

( http://www.erichufschmid.net/TFC/Bollyn-Fuji-WTC.html I know you just used a cut and paste job from one of Bollyn's website copies).

Please, there is zero credibility here. Your source can't even name his source. Talk about having the wool pulled over your eyes, this is pathetic.

Beyond the lack of credibility, you then supply no other evidence like, for instance, why would Fuji Bank load their backup systems full of thermite? They're now part of some grander conspiracy? Not to mention that once the thermite is inside the building, it still needs to be placed on every major support beam and wired with detonation cord.

I'll be waiting for you to explain how Fuji Bank profited from this enterprise, or if they didn't profit why they aided in killing 3,000 Americans and meanwhile I'll add them to your conspirators list.
 

BeauJangles

Lifer
Aug 26, 2001
13,941
1
0
Originally posted by: event8horizon

What the observer of these happenings heard beneath him after the normal niceties were exchanged between the three men alarmed him. The man who arrived in the Town Car said, ?The Americans will learn what it is to live with terrorists after the planes hit the twins in September.? One of the men that had been leaning against the retaining wall expressed concerns regarding whether the upcoming presidential election (November 2000) between Bush / Cheney and Gore / Lieberman could impact the plans. The man that arrived in the Town Car pacified the doubts by saying, ?Don?t worry, we have people in high places and no matter who gets elected, they will take care of everything.?
This isn't a source because you cannot provide any information that makes it valid. What you cite, event8horizon, is pathetic. You're so gullible that when some truther site throws up another quote from a man in the shadows you jump all over it like it's the gospel.

Your quote doesn't "summarize" anything, it just shows that you either (a) like being played like a piano or (b) lack critical reading capabilities.

I know personal jabs suck, but I seriously cannot believe that you swallow this shit hook, line, and sinker every single time. These quotes are easily manufactured. I can start a website called "CIAagentsfor911truth.com" and start posting all sorts of things, citing "anonymous sources." Just because someone posts them on the internet doesn't make them true.

Take, for instance, those chain emails that go around all the time. There's one that talks about how some individual died after drinking a can of coke because a rat had shit on it. The email took the world by storm, except that the story wasn't true. It was made up, fabricated, fake -- believe it or not people lie on the internet all the time. It's the job of the reader to assess the accuracy of the statement and part of that involves looking at who said it, who quoted the person as saying it, and the context into which the quote exists.

Quotes citing anonymous Mossad / CIA / whoever sources concerning 9/11 raise immediate flags because there's no verification on any level. We don't know if the quote fell into the author's hands through a game of telephone (remember that game and what it taught fourth graders about quotes?), whether the author simply made it up, or whether he really spoke to the source first hand. Now, people in journalism have a little more credibility because they stake their reputations on the validity of these quotes. People on the internet face zero consequences for lying.

edit: Just wanted to add one last thing... The final strike against your anonymous quotes is that they come from websites / individuals who have factually incorrect information on their web pages. We've been over a lot of this in detail, so no need to go back through it, but when we're dealing with sources here, many you've pointed to have no credibility, including Mr. Bollyn, who expounds on a lot things that are simply untrue. The individuals you cite aren't exactly Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein reporting on Deepthroat.
 

event8horizon

Senior member
Nov 15, 2007
674
0
0
Originally posted by: BeauJangles
Originally posted by: event8horizon
Originally posted by: BeauJangles
Originally posted by: event8horizon
beau asks-
how did they get thermite into the wtc
did u notice that nanothermite can be sprayed on!!!! hence the "red chips" jones found.
and also-
There appears to be a remarkable correlation between the floors upgraded for fireproofing in the WTC towers, in the years preceding 9/11/01, and the floors of impact, fire and failure. The fireproofing upgrades would have allowed for shutdown of the affected floors, and the exposure of the floor assemblies and the columns for a significant period of time. Exactly what work was done during that time?

In some sections of the NIST WTC report, the exact floors upgraded are listed. Other sections of the report suggest even more floors were upgraded, a total of 18 floors in WTC 1 and 13 floors in WTC 2, but the additional floors involved are not specified.[1]

and also the planes hit secure computer rooms

But on the 95th floor, Marsh & McLennan had a "large walled data center along north and east sides," according to the NIST report. And that's exactly where the plane hit ? the north wall of the 95th floor.

and the other tower-
Fuji Bank had torn up the 81st floor, he said, and stripped it down to the bare bone to reinforce the trusses so that the floor could hold more weight. Then they had built a raised floor and filled the entire floor with server-size Uninterrupted Power Supply (UPS) batteries.
These units were bolted to the raised floor which stood about 3 feet above the reinforced 81st floor. Beneath the raised floor ran the cables and power supply that connected the army of batteries. IT techies had to get down on all fours and crawl around beneath the raised floor to connect cables.
"The whole floor was batteries," he said, "huge battery-looking things." They were "all black" and "solid, very heavy" things that had been brought in during the night. They had been put in place during the summer prior to 9/11, he said.
But were they really batteries?
"It's weird," he said. "They were never turned on."
Have you ever been to NYC? Did you see the WTC before it was hit?

The planes were traveling at about 500 mph when they hit the building, that's about 733 fps. That means that three seconds before they hit the building, they were a little under a half mile away.

So what you're claiming is that these pilots, with little training, not only managed to hit the side of a building, but they managed to hit a specific side of a specific floor on a building that looked this:
http://wirednewyork.com/church...ges/st_nicholas_up.jpg

This picture is what the buildings would have looked like about seven seconds prior to impact (from the hijackers' perspective): http://www.guardianchronicle.c...d%20trade%20center.jpg

From that photo, why don't you try picking out the 95th floor? Good luck.

You're really going to argue that they could discern individual floors well enough to collide with a specific one? Looking at the exterior of the buildings I find that scenario highly improbable for a trained pilot, no less an unskilled hijacker.

Plus, like usual, you fail to supply any reason why they'd attack "secure computer rooms."

As for your "thermite battery theory," give me a freaking break. Thermite needs to be IN DIRECT CONTACT with steel to have a measurable effect. Remember all those videos you linked to before? What was the one common theme? Thermite touching steel. Now, imagine the support beams of the WTC. They're a heck of a lot thicker than those you linked from youtube university, so you need lots more thermite and a lot of direct contact, not a bunch of batteries lying on a raised platform in the middle of a floor.

You're grasping at straws here.
why attack secure computer rooms?? if there is foreknowledge, one could prep the area.
here is where the whole "direct contact with steel" is-
There appears to be a remarkable correlation between the floors upgraded for fireproofing in the WTC towers, in the years preceding 9/11/01, and the floors of impact, fire and failure. The fireproofing upgrades would have allowed for shutdown of the affected floors, and the exposure of the floor assemblies and the columns for a significant period of time.
as for the batteries, it would be a good way to sneak some thermite in since they never actually turned them on. this is all hypothetical. im awaiting dr jones paper on this.
as for why they would target a secure computer room, look into ptech software and Dov Zakheim + 911. if there is foreknowledge, one can plan.
So the terrorists flew a 300,000 pound plane at over 500 mph into a specific office in the WTC to ignite thermite bombs disguised as batteries placed there by a bank? What's with this "never turned them on" crap? They're backup batteries and unless the WTC lost power, why the hell would anyone turn them on?

Shit, now that you mention it, a buddy of mine who went to high school in NYC saw some dude carrying what were supposed to be reams of paper into the WTC -- maybe it was thermite paper?!!?!!?!?!!

Your claims are completely baseless because you base them off one statement, a statement you cannot even provide a source for.

YOUR source doesn't even say where they got this information from, just that it came from "a former bank employee."

( http://www.erichufschmid.net/TFC/Bollyn-Fuji-WTC.html I know you just used a cut and paste job from one of Bollyn's website copies).

Please, there is zero credibility here. Your source can't even name his source. Talk about having the wool pulled over your eyes, this is pathetic.

Beyond the lack of credibility, you then supply no other evidence like, for instance, why would Fuji Bank load their backup systems full of thermite? They're now part of some grander conspiracy? Not to mention that once the thermite is inside the building, it still needs to be placed on every major support beam and wired with detonation cord.

I'll be waiting for you to explain how Fuji Bank profited from this enterprise, or if they didn't profit why they aided in killing 3,000 Americans and meanwhile I'll add them to your conspirators list.

im giving u a hypothesis. jones looks like he found thermite / spent thermite and al qaeda did not put it there.
 

event8horizon

Senior member
Nov 15, 2007
674
0
0
Originally posted by: BeauJangles
Originally posted by: event8horizon

What the observer of these happenings heard beneath him after the normal niceties were exchanged between the three men alarmed him. The man who arrived in the Town Car said, ?The Americans will learn what it is to live with terrorists after the planes hit the twins in September.? One of the men that had been leaning against the retaining wall expressed concerns regarding whether the upcoming presidential election (November 2000) between Bush / Cheney and Gore / Lieberman could impact the plans. The man that arrived in the Town Car pacified the doubts by saying, ?Don?t worry, we have people in high places and no matter who gets elected, they will take care of everything.?
This isn't a source because you cannot provide any information that makes it valid. What you cite, event8horizon, is pathetic. You're so gullible that when some truther site throws up another quote from a man in the shadows you jump all over it like it's the gospel.

Your quote doesn't "summarize" anything, it just shows that you either (a) like being played like a piano or (b) lack critical reading capabilities.

I know personal jabs suck, but I seriously cannot believe that you swallow this shit hook, line, and sinker every single time. These quotes are easily manufactured. I can start a website called "CIAagentsfor911truth.com" and start posting all sorts of things, citing "anonymous sources." Just because someone posts them on the internet doesn't make them true.

Take, for instance, those chain emails that go around all the time. There's one that talks about how some individual died after drinking a can of coke because a rat had shit on it. The email took the world by storm, except that the story wasn't true. It was made up, fabricated, fake -- believe it or not people lie on the internet all the time. It's the job of the reader to assess the accuracy of the statement and part of that involves looking at who said it, who quoted the person as saying it, and the context into which the quote exists.

Quotes citing anonymous Mossad / CIA / whoever sources concerning 9/11 raise immediate flags because there's no verification on any level. We don't know if the quote fell into the author's hands through a game of telephone (remember that game and what it taught fourth graders about quotes?), whether the author simply made it up, or whether he really spoke to the source first hand. Now, people in journalism have a little more credibility because they stake their reputations on the validity of these quotes. People on the internet face zero consequences for lying.

edit: Just wanted to add one last thing... The final strike against your anonymous quotes is that they come from websites / individuals who have factually incorrect information on their web pages. We've been over a lot of this in detail, so no need to go back through it, but when we're dealing with sources here, many you've pointed to have no credibility, including Mr. Bollyn, who expounds on a lot things that are simply untrue. The individuals you cite aren't exactly Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein reporting on Deepthroat.

as for source, did u read the article. he is a jew and an ex idf soldier. whats makes this article interesting is that the cemetary is only 14 miles away from the urban movers warehouse. and as u know:

It has been claimed that Israeli espionage agents, and particularly the Mossad, may have had foreknowledge of the attacks.[50][51]

In September, 2001, The New York Times and Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz' reported that four hours after the attack, the FBI arrested five Israelis who had been filming the smoking skyline from the roof of a white van in the parking lot of an apartment building, for "puzzling behavior". They were charged with illegally residing in the United States and working there without permits. The Israelis were said to have been videotaping the disaster with cries of "joy and mockery".[52][53] Police found the van and a search revealed $4,700 in cash hidden, along with foreign passports and a boxcutter which aroused suspicions and led to the detention of the occupants. The men were held in detention for more than 2 months, during which time they were subjected to interrogation and lie detector tests, before being deported back to Israel; one of the men (Paul Kurzberg) refused to take the test for 10 weeks, and then failed it.[54] There has been speculation as to whether the men had advance knowledge of the attacks.

The five men worked at the company Urban Moving Systems, owned and operated by Dominick Suter. After the men were arrested the FBI searched their offices and questioned Suter, however Suter fled to Israel before he could be questioned further. Eventually, Suter's name appeared on the May 2002 FBI Suspect List, along with the Sept. 11 hijackers and other suspected Muslim extremists.[55]

According to a former CIA chief of operations for counterterrorism Vince Cannistraro, there was speculation that Urban Moving Systems may have been a front for an intelligence operation investigating fund-raising networks channeling money to Hamas and Islamic Jihad.[56] n June 21, 2002, ABC reported that the FBI had concluded that the van's driver, Paul Kurzberg, andO his brother Sivan, were indeed Mossad operatives.[57] According to an FBI spokesman, the men explained that they were celebrating because "...the United States would now have to commit itself to fighting [Middle East] terrorism, that Americans would have an understanding and empathy for Israel?s circumstances, and that the attacks were ultimately a good thing for Israel.

What is perhaps most damning is that the Israelis? celebration on the New Jersey waterfront occurred in the first sixteen minutes after the initial crash, when no one was aware this was a terrorist attack.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9...vance-knowledge_debate
 

CallMeJoe

Diamond Member
Jul 30, 2004
6,938
5
81
Whack! Whack! Whack!

Get up, Damned Horse!!! Get up, says I!!!

Whack! Whack! Whack!
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
There is the original 9/11 thread that you can put all your reviewed theories in.

This thread was supposed to be about new stuff; Everything you have presented to argue against the NIST report seems to be scientifically refuted multiple times or is based on people supposing without qualifications or true knowledge.

Everytime you put forwrd a theory and it gets shot down; you jump to another tangent.

Are you going to provide anything new to justify this thread being open.

If not this thread will be locked down on Monday.


Senior Anandtech Moderator
Common Courtesy
 

BeauJangles

Lifer
Aug 26, 2001
13,941
1
0
Originally posted by: event8horizon
Originally posted by: BeauJangles
Originally posted by: event8horizon

What the observer of these happenings heard beneath him after the normal niceties were exchanged between the three men alarmed him. The man who arrived in the Town Car said, ?The Americans will learn what it is to live with terrorists after the planes hit the twins in September.? One of the men that had been leaning against the retaining wall expressed concerns regarding whether the upcoming presidential election (November 2000) between Bush / Cheney and Gore / Lieberman could impact the plans. The man that arrived in the Town Car pacified the doubts by saying, ?Don?t worry, we have people in high places and no matter who gets elected, they will take care of everything.?
This isn't a source because you cannot provide any information that makes it valid. What you cite, event8horizon, is pathetic. You're so gullible that when some truther site throws up another quote from a man in the shadows you jump all over it like it's the gospel.

Your quote doesn't "summarize" anything, it just shows that you either (a) like being played like a piano or (b) lack critical reading capabilities.

I know personal jabs suck, but I seriously cannot believe that you swallow this shit hook, line, and sinker every single time. These quotes are easily manufactured. I can start a website called "CIAagentsfor911truth.com" and start posting all sorts of things, citing "anonymous sources." Just because someone posts them on the internet doesn't make them true.

Take, for instance, those chain emails that go around all the time. There's one that talks about how some individual died after drinking a can of coke because a rat had shit on it. The email took the world by storm, except that the story wasn't true. It was made up, fabricated, fake -- believe it or not people lie on the internet all the time. It's the job of the reader to assess the accuracy of the statement and part of that involves looking at who said it, who quoted the person as saying it, and the context into which the quote exists.

Quotes citing anonymous Mossad / CIA / whoever sources concerning 9/11 raise immediate flags because there's no verification on any level. We don't know if the quote fell into the author's hands through a game of telephone (remember that game and what it taught fourth graders about quotes?), whether the author simply made it up, or whether he really spoke to the source first hand. Now, people in journalism have a little more credibility because they stake their reputations on the validity of these quotes. People on the internet face zero consequences for lying.

edit: Just wanted to add one last thing... The final strike against your anonymous quotes is that they come from websites / individuals who have factually incorrect information on their web pages. We've been over a lot of this in detail, so no need to go back through it, but when we're dealing with sources here, many you've pointed to have no credibility, including Mr. Bollyn, who expounds on a lot things that are simply untrue. The individuals you cite aren't exactly Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein reporting on Deepthroat.

as for source, did u read the article. he is a jew and an ex idf soldier. whats makes this article interesting is that the cemetary is only 14 miles away from the urban movers warehouse. and as u know:

It has been claimed that Israeli espionage agents, and particularly the Mossad, may have had foreknowledge of the attacks.[50][51]

In September, 2001, The New York Times and Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz' reported that four hours after the attack, the FBI arrested five Israelis who had been filming the smoking skyline from the roof of a white van in the parking lot of an apartment building, for "puzzling behavior". They were charged with illegally residing in the United States and working there without permits. The Israelis were said to have been videotaping the disaster with cries of "joy and mockery".[52][53] Police found the van and a search revealed $4,700 in cash hidden, along with foreign passports and a boxcutter which aroused suspicions and led to the detention of the occupants. The men were held in detention for more than 2 months, during which time they were subjected to interrogation and lie detector tests, before being deported back to Israel; one of the men (Paul Kurzberg) refused to take the test for 10 weeks, and then failed it.[54] There has been speculation as to whether the men had advance knowledge of the attacks.

The five men worked at the company Urban Moving Systems, owned and operated by Dominick Suter. After the men were arrested the FBI searched their offices and questioned Suter, however Suter fled to Israel before he could be questioned further. Eventually, Suter's name appeared on the May 2002 FBI Suspect List, along with the Sept. 11 hijackers and other suspected Muslim extremists.[55]

According to a former CIA chief of operations for counterterrorism Vince Cannistraro, there was speculation that Urban Moving Systems may have been a front for an intelligence operation investigating fund-raising networks channeling money to Hamas and Islamic Jihad.[56] n June 21, 2002, ABC reported that the FBI had concluded that the van's driver, Paul Kurzberg, andO his brother Sivan, were indeed Mossad operatives.[57] According to an FBI spokesman, the men explained that they were celebrating because "...the United States would now have to commit itself to fighting [Middle East] terrorism, that Americans would have an understanding and empathy for Israel?s circumstances, and that the attacks were ultimately a good thing for Israel.

What is perhaps most damning is that the Israelis? celebration on the New Jersey waterfront occurred in the first sixteen minutes after the initial crash, when no one was aware this was a terrorist attack.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9...vance-knowledge_debate
Toot toot! All aboard the failboat!

Here's the direct quote from the New York Times article in question:
Separately, officials said a group of about five men were now under investigation in Union City, suspected of assisting the hijackers. In addition, the officials said the men had apparently set up cameras near the Hudson River and fixed them on the World Trade Center. They photographed the attacks and were said to have congratulated each other afterward, officials said.
So in an article written less than 24 hours after they were arrested, we know that they were "said" to have congratulated each other and had "apparently" set up cameras. Sounds very damning so far, but wait! There's more!

Despite the fact we have two words to go on, one of your wonderful websites provides more hard-hitting analysis:
Several of the detainees discussed their experience in America on an Israeli talk show after their return home. Said one of the men, denying that they were laughing or happy on the morning of Sept. 11, "The fact of the matter is we are coming from a country that experiences terror daily. Our purpose was to document the event."

How did they know there would be an event to document on 9/11?
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fiveisraelis.html

Wait a second. Whatreallyhappened is trying to say that because these Israelis said they "wanted to document the event" we should be suspicious of them. To be fair then, shouldn't we be suspicious of everyone who turned a camera towards the towers on 9/11? After all, they did so to "document the event." Our best evidence of 9/11 is because thousands of people wanted to capture the moments on film, so why should we be suspicious of Israelis who wanted to do the same thing?

This ABC article is often the "source" for more on the dancing Israelis: http://web.archive.org/web/200...0_whitevan_020621.html

Maria says she saw three young men kneeling on the roof of a white van in the parking lot of her apartment building. "They seemed to be taking a movie," Maria said.

The men were taking video or photos of themselves with the World Trade Center burning in the background, she said. What struck Maria were the expressions on the men's faces. "They were like happy, you know ? They didn't look shocked to me. I thought it was very strange," she said.

...
So what does this tell us? "Maria" can't say exactly when she saw these guys "being happy," except that it came after her neighbor called (so it was sometime after the first plane hit). If we look at everything Maria says, though, we find out that she saw the van park after she'd been watching the WTC... so she could not have seen them film the first impact.

MARIA: She was sitting when she heard a noise, at the same time she felt like it--it shook--like the building shook, she said. She called me immediately. She said, 'You know, there's--there's something wrong, look at your window by the twin towers.' So I grab my binoculars and I could see the towers from my window.
And this is where I, you know, I'm looking. I saw the smoke from the top, just from the top of the towers.

MILLER: (VO) After watching for a little while, something caught Maria's attention in the parking lot below her window.

MARIA: Like a few minutes must have gone on, and all of a sudden down there I see this van park. And I see three guys on top of the van, and I'm trying, you know, to look at the building but what caught my attention, they seemed to be taking a movie.
(20/20 interview with Maria)

So she can't even tell us if they were there beforehand in or not... sounds pretty damning to me.

There are other questions raised by this story, but there isn't a single witness that saw those men filming prior to the attack and, if we take Maria's testimony at face value, we have one source who definitively claims that the Israelis arrived after the plane hit the building.

Again, there is zero evidence for your primarily claim, that people witnessed these men preparing to film the attack minutes before it happened.

As for your claim that they worked for Mossad, that may be true, but in the same 20/20 interview they talk to your same Vince Cannistraro. Look what he has to say:

MILLER: (VO) Vince Cannistraro is a former chief of operations for counter-terrorism with the Central Intelligence Agency. Now he's a consultant with ABC News. He says many in the US intelligence community believe that some of the men arrested in the white van were in the US working for Israeli intelligence. They speculate that Urban Moving was being used by Israel as an intelligence front.

Mr. CANNISTRARO: ...set up or exploited for the purpose of launching an operation, an intelligence operation, against radical Islamics in the area, particularly in the New Jersey/New York area.

MILLER: (VO) Under the scenario, the spying operation was not aimed against the United States, but at penetrating or monitoring radical fund-raising and support networks in Muslim communities like Patterson, New Jersey, which was one of the places where several of the hijackers lived in the months prior to 9/11.

Mr. CANNISTRARO: Israeli government has been concerned about activity of radical Islamic groups in the United States. There could be a support apparatus to Hamas and Islamic Jihad, two groups which are conducting the majority of the suicide bombings in Israel.

MILLER: (VO) The suspicion that some of the young men might be with Israeli intelligence, coupled with the account of their odd behavior on the van, raised serious questions for investigators.

Mr. CANNISTRARO: The fear of some of the FBI investigators in this particular case was that this group had some advanced knowledge of what was going to happen on 9/11. And once they understood that there was an Israeli connection--an Israeli intelligence connection--they became very disturbed, because the implication was that the Israelis may have had some advanced knowledge of the events of 9/11 and hadn't told us.
Sounds really damning. The same guy who is telling us that they were Mossad agents is also telling us exactly why the FBI thinks they were in New York. The same guy YOU CITE as evidence they're somehow involved in 9/11 is denying that completely.

Buuuut wait! There's more!
MILLER: (VO) Source tell 20/20 there is still debate within the FBI over whether or not the young men were spies. But many in the US intelligence commu-nity believe that some of the men were engaged in espionage for Israel. However, sources also tell us, even if they were spies, there was no evidence to conclude they had advanced knowledge of the terrorist attacks of 9/11.

Mr. CANNISTRARO: The investigation, at the end of the day, after all of the polygraphs, all of the field work, all of the cross-checking, the intelligence work, concluded that they probably did not have advanced knowledge of 9/11.
The witness who say these men standing on the roof of their van cannot claim that they were there before the attacks, because she only noticed them after the first plane hit. There is zero proof of any foreknowledge and, as we've seen earlier in this thread, your other claims of foreknowledge are also simply untrue (Brown is the one I distinctly remember you mentioning).

They may have been members of Israeli intelligence, but there is no evidence to tie them to 9/11. And I know you probably believe the FBI and CIA are in the conspiracy, but both those organizations do not believe they were involved either. Until we have facts, or even a shred of evidence, to point in the opposite direction this story offers us zero insight into the supposed conspiracy around 9/11
 

event8horizon

Senior member
Nov 15, 2007
674
0
0
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
There is the original 9/11 thread that you can put all your reviewed theories in.

This thread was supposed to be about new stuff; Everything you have presented to argue against the NIST report seems to be scientifically refuted multiple times or is based on people supposing without qualifications or true knowledge.

Everytime you put forwrd a theory and it gets shot down; you jump to another tangent.

Are you going to provide anything new to justify this thread being open.

If not this thread will be locked down on Monday.


Senior Anandtech Moderator
Common Courtesy
they still havent debunked these "red chips" that are the same makeup of thermite. and the spheres he found with the same characteristics. coincidence??? i doubt it.
http://video.google.com/videop...d=-4186920967571123147

or this metal they claim is aluminum when one can plainly see a hole towards the end that looks bright yellow. nist/fema sure hasnt had a good explanation for that nor the scientific experiments to turn aluminum into something that looks like that
http://video.google.com/videop...ompilation&vt=lf&hl=en

or this engineers take on a piece of steel from wtc 7 that he thinks vaporized first then buckled. read the context. beau will deny it. but the contex says it all.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/f...F931A35753C1A9679C8B63
One piece Dr. Astaneh-Asl saw was a charred horizontal I-beam from 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story skyscraper that collapsed from fire eight hours after the attacks. The beam, so named because its cross-section looks like a capital I, had clearly endured searing temperatures. Parts of the flat top of the I, once five-eighths of an inch thick, had vaporized.

Less clear was whether the beam had been charred after the collapse, as it lay in the pile of burning rubble, or whether it had been engulfed in the fire that led to the building's collapse, which would provide a more telling clue.

The answer lay in the beam's twisted shape. As weight pushed down, the center portion had buckled outward.

''This tells me it buckled while it was attached to the column,'' not as it fell, Dr. Astaneh-Asl said, adding, ''It had burned first, then buckled.''


 

ASK THE COMMUNITY