Interesting Read on Post 9-11 Bureaucracies

[Weasel]

Just saw this and thought of this thread...

LiveLeak.com - Loose Change vs Popular mechanics

[JCL]

Originally Posted by Weasel

Just saw this and thought of this thread...

LiveLeak.com - Loose Change vs Popular mechanics

That is a short excerpt from the debate. You may want to watch the five parts that constitute the full debate, when the two moviemaker kids get owned. I guess they didn't take debating classes.

LiveLeak.com - 911 Debate - Loose Change Vs. Debunking 911 Myths Part 1

Quote: "this was the most studied structural collapse in US history". Apparently though, it needs more study.

[chilliwilli]

Geraldo follow up:

[chilliwilli]

Originally Posted by Weasel

Just saw this and thought of this thread...

LiveLeak.com - Loose Change vs Popular mechanics

That debate is almost 4 years old...a lot has transpired concerning the subject of that debate. PM should be ashamed to have been baited into such a subject with kids...if i recall correctly, the same gents from PM pulled out of a debate with Dr. Steven Jones et al later that same year...and have since refused. However, those kids held on to a trump card, an interview with a WTC7 survivor. The circumstances surrounding the video and it's late release are interesting, to say the least. Let's just say that the attorney whose life was saved by the survivor, now sings a different tune than what he sang that very day on news feeds, is alive. If interested, search for Dylan's interview with Barry Jennings.

Since and around the time of the debate in question...experts, academia, and intellects have been assuming the research that officials refuse to do, whilst providing evidence to encourage further investigations. Are the thousands of qualified experts all "nuts" or are they on to something? Only a thorough investigation will confirm if they are indeed off their meds...till then, imo, this debate will never die.

[JCL]

Originally Posted by chilliwilli

That debate is almost 4 years old...a lot has transpired concerning the subject of that debate. PM should be ashamed to have been baited into such a subject with kids...if i recall correctly, the same gents from PM pulled out of a debate with Dr. Steven Jones et al later that same year...and have since refused. However, those kids held on to a trump card, an interview with a WTC7 survivor. The circumstances surrounding the video and it's late release are interesting, to say the least. Let's just say that the attorney whose life was saved by the survivor, now sings a different tune than what he sang that very day on news feeds, is alive. If interested, search for Dylan's interview with Barry Jennings.

Since and around the time of the debate in question...experts, academia, and intellects have been assuming the research that officials refuse to do, whilst providing evidence to encourage further investigations. Are the thousands of qualified experts all "nuts" or are they on to something? Only a thorough investigation will confirm if they are indeed off their meds...till then, imo, this debate will never die.

Gee, with all this discussion about thermite, one could be led to believe that somebody actually found thermite at the site of the WTC. But they didn't. They say it so often in these videos, it sounds like some sort of a fact.

There certainly could have been localized thermitic reactions during the collapse, that would be expected with the ingredients that were on site during the fire, such as molten aluminum, oxides, calcium, sulphur, water, etc. But to suggest that somebody planted thermite is a case of having a conclusion, and then looking for tidbits to support it. I am waiting to see evidence of explosives being planted in advance of the airplane crashes.

I had hoped these folks were running out of steam, but I guess not.

Youtube, the last bastian of scientific inquiry.

[chilliwilli]

Where is your proof that they didn't discover thermite? The independent experts have already released the chain of ownership of the dust samples and steel, donated to them. Officials have yet to prove that thermite was not present...they hold in their possession whatever wasn't shipped off to China before analysis, yet they refuse to test for thermite/explosive samples. Last we heard, their explanation was something to the effect of 'it would be impossible to bring in that much explosives, undetected, so we won't test for it'.

It should be said that NIST did try to get a hold of the same samples the independent experts are studying...even though they (NIST) has unfettered access to their own samples(?).

Originally Posted by JCL

There certainly could have been localized thermitic reactions during the collapse, that would be expected with the ingredients that were on site during the fire, such as molten aluminum, oxides, calcium, sulphur, water, etc. But to suggest that somebody planted thermite is a case of having a conclusion, and then looking for tidbits to support it.

As if firsthand testimony of explosions before, during, and after the collapse isn't enough evidence...the collapse of WTC7 alone, is compelling (i recommend searching for the testimony of Barry Jennings). Let's not forget how quickly, almost 1,000 first responders deteriorated, health-wise from this same dust they breathed in...and are now dead. Not all have a short memory...if explosives were used in the 93 attack, what exempts explosives this time around? The officials themselves discovered sulfur INSIDE the steel beam remnants...this is all published.

I'd like to hear your educated assessment of what could be the root cause of the "localized thermitic reactions". Also, where, would each of the above bolded elements have come from, in particular SULFUR?

I am waiting to see evidence of explosives being planted in advance of the airplane crashes.

And i'm still waiting on Colin Powell's white paper...

Youtube, the last bastian of scientific inquiry.

Hey, why not? If it allots scientists themselves, the vehicle and opportunity to reach the masses...then God bless the internets!

[JCL]

Originally Posted by chilliwilli

Where is your proof that they didn't discover thermite? The independent experts have already released the chain of ownership of the dust samples and steel, donated to them. Officials have yet to prove that thermite was not present...they hold in their possession whatever wasn't shipped off to China before analysis, yet they refuse to test for thermite/explosive samples. Last we heard, their explanation was something to the effect of 'it would be impossible to bring in that much explosives, undetected, so we won't test for it'.

It should be said that NIST did try to get a hold of the same samples the independent experts are studying...even though they (NIST) has unfettered access to their own samples(?).

There is no evidence of thermite. There are traces of several elements in the dust samples that are contained in thermite, but only some of the elements required to make thermite, not all of them. Also, the percentages are not correct in the samples, ie the chemical signature is not that of thermite.

It isn't up to me to prove that it isn't thermite. If someone wants to postulate that there is thermite there, then the burden of proof is on them. So far they have not been able to prove the existence of thermite. They assumed that there was thermite, and then argue about how thermite could have caused molten metal. It is a strawman argument. First they have to prove that thermite was there.

[JCL]

Originally Posted by chilliwilli

As if firsthand testimony of explosions before, during, and after the collapse isn't enough evidence...the collapse of WTC7 alone, is compelling ........if explosives were used in the 93 attack, what exempts explosives this time around? The officials themselves discovered sulfur INSIDE the steel beam remnants...this is all published.

I'd like to hear your educated assessment of what could be the root cause of the "localized thermitic reactions". Also, where, would each of the above bolded elements have come from, in particular SULFUR?

I am not sure what you are claiming is the significance of reported secondary explosions before, during, and after the collapse. You couldn't mean that it signifies thermite charges, because thermite burns, it doesn't explode. If you claim it means charges were set, then I guess you need to find some evidence of charge residues. The fact that explosions happened during a fire is not at all surprising to me. I am pretty sure that explosions during a fire are not at all unusual. There were transformers, air tanks, fuel sources, and many other things that could have burned explosively. I would also suggest, though, that molten aluminum, when exposed to water, or oxides, would certainly cause explosions, as evidenced by the behaviour of molten aluminum in foundries when it contacts contaminants.

The collapse of WT7 is only surprising to those who didn't know that there was a third building collapsing the same day. Structual analysis has shown that the collapse was not surprising given the fires, the unique construction of the building, and the impact to the perimeter supports.

In '93 there was evidence of explosives. What exempts them this time around is the lack of evidence.

Thermitic reactions could have come from the aluminum in the building sheathing, or the airframes. The airframes had a lower melting point, given the alloy used. Oxides....well, there was lots of oxygen. Molten aluminum has a high afinity for oxygen. It produces violent and exothermic reactions when molten. Lots of metal oxides were present. Particularly when contaminants such as water enter the picture, you get explosive burns. Calcium? Well, all the gypsum wallboard that was in the WTC had lots of gypsum. Gypsum contains calcium. For thermite, you don't need sulphur, but if you want to turn it into thermate, you need sulphur. Gypsum? Check.

So, all the ingredients were there. All you need is molten aluminum. You get that at about 550C. Planes have melted in previous plane crashes, so we know that a plane crash can ignite the aluminum airframe.

If you have all the ingredients for local thermitic burns, and ignition, then why would they need to invent a theory of thermite charges carried out in a planned manner by a third party? If there was evidence of those charges, fine, that would matter. But there isn't.

[JCL]

Originally Posted by chilliwilli

Hey, why not? If it allows scientists themselves, the vehicle and opportunity to reach the masses...then God bless the internets!

Because they are using the internet as their source of evidence. They are analyzing photos and coming up with theories. Then they produce video versions of their findings, playing to the short attention span of the public, but also because they can't withstand peer-review in reputable publications, which is a standard applied to real scientific theories and articles.

They go to the masses with these videos of pseudoscience, claims that are presented as scientific but which do not stand up to scrutiny or follow valid scientific methodologies. Suddenly the masses are expected to tell the difference between the charlatans and the scientists. And truth is sacrificed for personal gain. That sucks, in the language of Youtube, and it is an insult to real science, and real logic, where arguments follow accepted forms and critical thinking matters.

[chilliwilli]

Originally Posted by JCL

There is no evidence of thermite. There are traces of several elements in the dust samples that are contained in thermite, but only some of the elements required to make thermite, not all of them. Also, the percentages are not correct in the samples, ie the chemical signature is not that of thermite.

It isn't up to me to prove that it isn't thermite. If someone wants to postulate that there is thermite there, then the burden of proof is on them. So far they have not been able to prove the existence of thermite. They assumed that there was thermite, and then argue about how thermite could have caused molten metal. It is a strawman argument. First they have to prove that thermite was there.

If the chemical signature is not of thermite, can you provide your educated guess of what they're a signature of? Or at least where else sulfer could've come from? If you indeed read their paper and at least watched their bastian of scientific inquiry videos i've posted...in their testing, they were able to ignite the red-gray chips with a calorimeter. That is not an assumption. Simply put: they've found enough evidence to warrant further investigation.

When it comes to the WTC buildings...i can't help but ask myself a few simple questions that can't be muddled...(as i used to lunch and listen to Jazz once a week, when in town, in the courtyards):
- What happened to, and, what pulverized all that concrete?
- Where did the 100+ floors go?
- Should'nt there have been at least 30+ floors of debris?

Again...i encourage you to watch the interview of Barry Jennings' account

I didn't require Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, to admit (many years after the fact) that the Gulf of Tonkin never happened, to know Vietnam was a fluke.
I didn't require E. Howard Hunt to confess on his deathbed, who was behind the JFK assassination, to know that the Warren Commission was a joke.

Look, we'll continue to disagree...but someday soon, perhaps one of us will be proven wrong. After all, everyone said Einstein was wrong...Everyone said Galileo was wrong...