Notices
Results 1 to 33 of 33

Thread: 9/11 Conspiracy Theory - Thermate - Debunked

  1. #1 9/11 Conspiracy Theory - Thermate - Debunked 
    Forum Freshman The Vegan Marxist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    20
    As a former "conspiracy theorist", & pro-scientific thinker, I can't help but notice the major errors in the theories on 9/11. When it comes to the inside job theories, I just can't take it as truth any longer. In which I feel the only credible argument the conspiracy theorists held was of a mere misunderstanding - the finding of Thermate chemical signatures in the Twin Towers.

    Steven Jones has done plenty of speeches about this in which he points out the chemical elements found within the debris. These elements pointed out are as such: iron, sulfur, aluminum, potassium, manganese, fluorine, & titanium.

    Yes, most of these elements can be found in thermate. Jones had this one right. So what's the problem here? Well, like any proper scientist who would conduct studies on these elements, they'd first try & find any natural sources in which these elements could come from. And guess what? They all check out for other natural sources:

    Sulfur: The third most common ingredient in the WTC construction was gypsum-based drywall, which is 18.62% sulfur.
    Iron: Used in paint & electronic devices.
    Potassium: Used in concrete.
    Manganese: Used in the structural steel, paint, batteries, & ceramics.
    Fluorine: Used in Freon. 200,000 pounds of Freon cooled the WTC complex. This was the largest air-conditioning system in the country.
    Titanium: Used in paper & paint & made up 2% of each of the 767's. WTC7 was also clad in polished steel & titanium.

    I find the idea of Jones claiming these elements were uncommon & only found within thermate quite disturbing, & at the least illogical.

    So what would any professional scientist do next? Well, they would check if these elements were presently in their correct, signature quantities.

    According to Steven Jones' own estimates, "about 1,000 pounds of explosives would be sufficient [per tower]". For both towers & WTC7, this would equal about 3,000 pounds of thermate. Thermate is 2% sulfur, in which calculates to about 60 pounds of sulfur. Approximately 1 million tons (2 billion pounds) of dust blanketed lower Manhattan.

    So, based on Professor Jones' estimates, a thermate reaction would cause the WTC dust to be approximately 0.000003% sulfur. Correct? (don't worry, it's text. You can get a calculator if needed)

    Yet, this would then be highly unlikely for such a low percentage to be detectable, especially when compared to USGS dust samples in which showed as much as 5.4% sulfur!

    And finally, what is the last important thing a scientist would need to do in order to confirm the presence of a chemical device? Well, they would need to ensure that all of the elements of thermate are present. So, are all elements present?

    I would say no! For the two main byproducts of thermate are aluminum oxide (41%) & barium nitrate (29%). Both are especially unique to thermate & would have no reason whatsoever to be found within the WTC - unless, that is, thermate was in the twin towers.

    However, neither the USGS nor Steven Jones himself report finding any traces of either of these elements - the two main ingredients of thermate! Yes, Jones does point out the presence of aluminum, but there's a huge difference between aluminum & aluminum oxide (which has 3 oxygen atoms). Not to mention aluminum was common through its use in the WTC's facade, the 767's, & vehicles.

    The presence of all elements pointed out through natural sources within the WTC complexes, & the very lack of aluminum oxide & barium nitrate just completely destroys the theory that thermate was in the WTC!


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,376
    I hope you don't mind, but the forum where we discuss and expose pseudoscientific thinking is the Pseudoscience subforum. I've moved your thread there, but it is in know way to be considered a "pejorative" action.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    7,958
    http://www.rense.com/general75/thrm.htm

    [quote"Article"]The Thermite reaction produces an extremely hot reaction (up to 2500 C or 4500 F), which creates molten iron and aluminum oxide. The molten iron produced from Thermite is white hot and the aluminum oxide is a white smoke.
    [/quote]

    If the aluminum oxide is in gaseous form, then you're probably not going to find a lot of it in the wreckage, would you? I guess it should leave residue on the walls, like smoke normally does, but I would think that most of it would rise into the air with the other smoke.


    Quote Originally Posted by Article Above
    The FEMA-sponsored Building Performance Study of 2002 contains evidence of melted steel caused by sulfidation and oxidation. This is found in the "Limited Metallurgical Examination" written by Professor Jonathan Barnett. The NIST report, however, fails to address the evidence of sulfidation found in the structural steel from the WTC.

    ...

    Professor Jones points to Thermate, with 2 percent sulfur, as being the most likely culprit. The oxidation and sulfidation of the steel requires the oxygen and sulfur being "intimately in contact with the metal at high temperature," Jones said.
    The problem isn't that sulfur was found. It's that it was found in the molten steel, where apparently it shouldn't have been.

    Quote Originally Posted by Article Above
    From the NIST report the reader gets the impression that these were normal office floors with "desks and chairs," although that was definitely not the case with the 81st floor while the contents of the 82nd and 79th floors remain unknown.

    Fuji Bank was the tenant of floors 79-82, yet for some reason the NIST researchers were unable or unwilling to provide any description of the contents of these crucial floors * four years after 9/11.

    A former Japanese bank employee recently came forward and explained that the 81st floor was an entire floor of server-size computer batteries:

    Fuji Bank had reinforced the 81st floor, he said, so the floor could support more weight. The entire floor was then filled with server-size Uninterrupted Power Supply (UPS) batteries.

    These units were bolted to a raised floor about 3 feet above the reinforced 81st floor. "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 or were they Thermate?

    "It's weird," he said. "They were never turned on."

    See: http://www.iamthewitness.com/Bollyn-Fuji-WTC.html
    I wonder if this guy from Fuji Bank got debunked and/or discredited or turned out not to exist (a possibility with conspiracy sites) later on or something. If he's on a level and exists, then his testimony certainly answers the question of how one might go about sabotaging the whole floor in broad daylight without anybody noticing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,913
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    http://www.rense.com/general75/thrm.htm

    [quote"Article"]The Thermite reaction produces an extremely hot reaction (up to 2500 C or 4500 F), which creates molten iron and aluminum oxide. The molten iron produced from Thermite is white hot and the aluminum oxide is a white smoke.
    If the aluminum oxide is in gaseous form, then you're probably not going to find a lot of it in the wreckage, would you? I guess it should leave residue on the walls, like smoke normally does, but I would think that most of it would rise into the air with the other smoke.[/quote]Fun fact kojax, Thermite results in 2 liquids, not a liquid and a gas. boils at nearly 3000 degrees Celsius, not 2500.


    Quote Originally Posted by Article Above
    The FEMA-sponsored Building Performance Study of 2002 contains evidence of melted steel caused by sulfidation and oxidation. This is found in the "Limited Metallurgical Examination" written by Professor Jonathan Barnett. The NIST report, however, fails to address the evidence of sulfidation found in the structural steel from the WTC.

    ...

    Professor Jones points to Thermate, with 2 percent sulfur, as being the most likely culprit. The oxidation and sulfidation of the steel requires the oxygen and sulfur being "intimately in contact with the metal at high temperature," Jones said.
    The problem isn't that sulfur was found. It's that it was found in the molten steel, where apparently it shouldn't have been.
    Drywall contains sulfer, which, among many other things, would be found in solidified steel that was molten when it came into contact with the drywall. It should be expected to be found, along with a variety of other elements that were present in the presence of the molten steel.

    Quote Originally Posted by Article Above
    From the NIST report the reader gets the impression that these were normal office floors with "desks and chairs," although that was definitely not the case with the 81st floor while the contents of the 82nd and 79th floors remain unknown.

    Fuji Bank was the tenant of floors 79-82, yet for some reason the NIST researchers were unable or unwilling to provide any description of the contents of these crucial floors * four years after 9/11.

    A former Japanese bank employee recently came forward and explained that the 81st floor was an entire floor of server-size computer batteries:

    Fuji Bank had reinforced the 81st floor, he said, so the floor could support more weight. The entire floor was then filled with server-size Uninterrupted Power Supply (UPS) batteries.

    These units were bolted to a raised floor about 3 feet above the reinforced 81st floor. "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 or were they Thermate?

    "It's weird," he said. "They were never turned on."

    See: http://www.iamthewitness.com/Bollyn-Fuji-WTC.html
    I wonder if this guy from Fuji Bank got debunked and/or discredited or turned out not to exist (a possibility with conspiracy sites) later on or something. If he's on a level and exists, then his testimony certainly answers the question of how one might go about sabotaging the whole floor in broad daylight without anybody noticing.
    His testimony is likely bullshit, just like most testimonies present on conspiracy sites. The UPC's were likely always on, they just didn't seem like it to him, pending his existence that is.

    And OP, well debunked, although basic thermite is all that's needed, you don't really need thermate, or any other exotic form of thermite to take out a building. And thermite is simply composed of roughly 25% Al and 75% Fe2O3, and just a bit of sulfer to help bind if desired. The lack of resultants is the telltale sign that there wasn't any thermite (save the localized reactions with the plane and other portions of the tower that came into contact with rust at high temperatures.) present to destroy the towers. It was Jet fuel and a LOT of combustible material in the towers that took them down. That's all.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    1,586
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    7,958
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    http://www.rense.com/general75/thrm.htm

    [quote"Article"]The Thermite reaction produces an extremely hot reaction (up to 2500 C or 4500 F), which creates molten iron and aluminum oxide. The molten iron produced from Thermite is white hot and the aluminum oxide is a white smoke.
    If the aluminum oxide is in gaseous form, then you're probably not going to find a lot of it in the wreckage, would you? I guess it should leave residue on the walls, like smoke normally does, but I would think that most of it would rise into the air with the other smoke.
    Fun fact kojax, Thermite results in 2 liquids, not a liquid and a gas. boils at nearly 3000 degrees Celsius, not 2500.
    Alright. I was just going off the article. I don't pretend to know anything about Aluminum Oxide. Looking it up on Wiki I see the boiling point is 2977 C, just like you mentioned. So the question is: how hot would the vats of Thermate get? Perhaps the article writer is assuming the necessary temperature for gaseous form would have been reached.

    The wiki article on Thermate is kind of incomplete -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermate

    But the article on Thermite contains an interesting passage:

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiki Thermite
    "At the same time, its high boiling point (2,519 C (4,566 F)) enables the reaction to reach very high temperatures, since several processes tend to limit the maximum temperature to just below the boiling point."
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite#Types

    It seems to suggest that you're right and the boiling point for aluminum oxide of ~3000 degrees would not have been reached, so the aluminum oxide would have stayed a liquid or solid.



    Quote Originally Posted by Article Above
    From the NIST report the reader gets the impression that these were normal office floors with "desks and chairs," although that was definitely not the case with the 81st floor while the contents of the 82nd and 79th floors remain unknown.

    Fuji Bank was the tenant of floors 79-82, yet for some reason the NIST researchers were unable or unwilling to provide any description of the contents of these crucial floors * four years after 9/11.

    A former Japanese bank employee recently came forward and explained that the 81st floor was an entire floor of server-size computer batteries:

    Fuji Bank had reinforced the 81st floor, he said, so the floor could support more weight. The entire floor was then filled with server-size Uninterrupted Power Supply (UPS) batteries.

    These units were bolted to a raised floor about 3 feet above the reinforced 81st floor. "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 or were they Thermate?

    "It's weird," he said. "They were never turned on."

    See: http://www.iamthewitness.com/Bollyn-Fuji-WTC.html
    I wonder if this guy from Fuji Bank got debunked and/or discredited or turned out not to exist (a possibility with conspiracy sites) later on or something. If he's on a level and exists, then his testimony certainly answers the question of how one might go about sabotaging the whole floor in broad daylight without anybody noticing.
    His testimony is likely bullshit, just like most testimonies present on conspiracy sites. The UPC's were likely always on, they just didn't seem like it to him, pending his existence that is.
    The problem with treating witnesses/whistle blowers in this way, is you can't turn around and ask the typical anti-conspiracy question "why would nobody come forward?".

    If the witness doesn't have any special professional or academic status, then it is all too easy to discredit them. Accusations are too easy to make, and the person has no way to refute any of them, because most of their life isn't documented and so doesn't exist on paper.

    You can do anything you want in front of a person like that, and they either A: Won't come forward (for fear of losing what little credibility they have), or B: Will come forward but nobody will believe them anyway, because they don't have any special status.


    And OP, well debunked, although basic thermite is all that's needed, you don't really need thermate, or any other exotic form of thermite to take out a building. And thermite is simply composed of roughly 25% Al and 75% Fe2O3, and just a bit of sulfer to help bind if desired. The lack of resultants is the telltale sign that there wasn't any thermite (save the localized reactions with the plane and other portions of the tower that came into contact with rust at high temperatures.) present to destroy the towers. It was Jet fuel and a LOT of combustible material in the towers that took them down. That's all.
    Yeah. I've considered that too. The aircraft would have basically chattered on impact, giving us a lot of aluminum dust.

    Various online homemade thermite experiments tell you to just mix some aluminum dust/shavings with iron dust/shavings. It's not a hard reaction to create. (Which means it could happen on its own accidentally.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    7,958
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician

    The problem isn't that sulfur was found. It's that it was found in the molten steel, where apparently it shouldn't have been.
    Drywall contains sulfer, which, among many other things, would be found in solidified steel that was molten when it came into contact with the drywall. It should be expected to be found, along with a variety of other elements that were present in the presence of the molten steel.

    The paper that was referenced in the article I was posting about seems to support that. Here's the last part, where Barnett draws his conclusions. His article wasn't conspiritorial, but more focused on safety precautions for future long burning fires, and all of the reactions he identified were expected to have occurred at temperatures of 1000 degrees C or less.



    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.
    http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evid...WTC_apndxC.htm


    If it happened during the long term heating after the collapse, then there was probably a lot of drywall in the debris, right?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,913
    Yes, there would be a lot of a drywall present.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Junior Finger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    266
    I'm still waiting for someone to demonstrate that thermite (or thermate) can even cut through that much steel, let alone practically, let alone a vertical column.
    Artist for Red Oasis.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Freshman The Vegan Marxist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    I'm still waiting for someone to demonstrate that thermite (or thermate) can even cut through that much steel, let alone practically, let alone a vertical column.
    It can't from what I understand. Though, the conspiracists refuse to accept that. To be honest, though, they really don't get a lot of things. Like the fact that neither three buildings fell at free-fall speed, nor did they fall in a correct manner of a real controlled demolition. They even tried claiming that explosives were set off from the top to bottom - thus, in their view, a controlled demolition. Which is completely illogical.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Junior Finger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    266
    In construction, thermite is used for welding. But even then, it's not as good as an expert with a torch. It's used because it's cheap and fast when you need things to be cheap and fast, like in railroad construction. In the military, it's used in grenade form against machinery like tanks or artillery. It's described as a "messy" weapon like napalm or a dirty bomb. It doesn't really destroy things, it just "f*cks it up."

    I have never, ever, heard of it used to cut anything. Cutting requires a fairly high degree of both control and precision, two things that a thermite reaction has very little of. But if it's as easy as the conspiracy theorists say, then it shouldn't be hard for these one of these "truth" organizations to do a demonstration, testing their theories. They've got plenty of money from all the book, DVD, and T-shirt sales.
    Artist for Red Oasis.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    7,958
    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    I'm still waiting for someone to demonstrate that thermite (or thermate) can even cut through that much steel, let alone practically, let alone a vertical column.
    If you're speaking of the theory presented in the website I was posting from, then what is claimed is that lots of thermite was placed on the impact level inside of objects proported to be Uninterruptible Power Supply batteries for a bunch of big computer servers.

    In that event, their role would be to add to the heat of the fire on that floor so as to ensure that temperatures rose past the limits of what the pillars could withstand, and stayed there. (Whereas the official story posits that the combustion of ordinary office supplies was responsible for that). No, one, specific pillar would have been targeted, per se.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    His testimony is likely bullshit, just like most testimonies present on conspiracy sites. The UPC's were likely always on, they just didn't seem like it to him, pending his existence that is.
    There's nothing suspicious about a company loading up a bunch of new computer hardware into a building over the summer and then waiting to turn it on until several months have passed. That sort of thing happens all the time in big business. Sometimes the whole project gets scrapped and the machines just get carried back out of the building, having never been turned on the whole time they were there.

    The point is that it wouldn't be hard for someone who knew the schedule to use the batteries as a way to smuggle in large amounts of something dangerous, confident that building security wouldn't go disassembling expensive computer equipment just to make sure there isn't a bomb in there.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Junior Finger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    266
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    If you're speaking of the theory presented in the website I was posting from, then what is claimed is that lots of thermite was placed on the impact level inside of objects proported to be Uninterruptible Power Supply batteries for a bunch of big computer servers.

    In that event, their role would be to add to the heat of the fire on that floor so as to ensure that temperatures rose past the limits of what the pillars could withstand, and stayed there. (Whereas the official story posits that the combustion of ordinary office supplies was responsible for that). No, one, specific pillar would have been targeted, per se.
    A demonstration would still be proof of concept. And as it stands, thermite doesn't do much more than make a spectacular mess.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    There's nothing suspicious about a company loading up a bunch of new computer hardware into a building over...
    Please, kojax, don't start this again. Making up stories isn't the same as finding evidence. I have no intention of repeating myself for several pages again in a completely new thread.
    Artist for Red Oasis.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,913
    I need to correct myself. Thermite is used to cut through the use of a linear driver. Generally, you have a small amount of thermite, being driven by an explosion.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wn-MC...eature=related

    The video shows the proof of concept on some steel rebar.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,913
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    His testimony is likely bullshit, just like most testimonies present on conspiracy sites. The UPC's were likely always on, they just didn't seem like it to him, pending his existence that is.
    There's nothing suspicious about a company loading up a bunch of new computer hardware into a building over the summer and then waiting to turn it on until several months have passed. That sort of thing happens all the time in big business. Sometimes the whole project gets scrapped and the machines just get carried back out of the building, having never been turned on the whole time they were there.

    The point is that it wouldn't be hard for someone who knew the schedule to use the batteries as a way to smuggle in large amounts of something dangerous, confident that building security wouldn't go disassembling expensive computer equipment just to make sure there isn't a bomb in there.
    But, the thing is, they'd be tested after being moved in. They most definitely would be turned on, at least once, to ensure that the massive server room they'd be supplying wouldn't fail in the first day or so of operation. And, as you said, it isn't suspicious to have a room full of UPS's, because they have a purpose and are often necessary. It's highly, HIGHLY, unlikely that someone with intimate knowledge of the building's scheduled installations would be a part of a conspiracy to bring down the WTC, and just adds an additional assumption to be made by conspiracy theorists. Seriously, what's more likely, a terrorist group that hates America is behind it, or the government of America is behind it and is implementing a massive conspiracy to frame the terrorist group that proclaims itself to hate America?
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Junior Finger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    266
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    I need to correct myself. Thermite is used to cut through the use of a linear driver. Generally, you have a small amount of thermite, being driven by an explosion.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wn-MC...eature=related

    The video shows the proof of concept on some steel rebar.
    I do not question that thermite could "cut" through half-inch rebar, I question whether it can cut through steel as thick as the World Trade Center columns (vertically or horizontally, practically or impractically.) That's the concept I'm talking about.
    Artist for Red Oasis.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,913
    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    I need to correct myself. Thermite is used to cut through the use of a linear driver. Generally, you have a small amount of thermite, being driven by an explosion.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wn-MC...eature=related

    The video shows the proof of concept on some steel rebar.
    I do not question that thermite could "cut" through half-inch rebar, I question whether it can cut through steel as thick as the World Trade Center columns (vertically or horizontally, practically or impractically.) That's the concept I'm talking about.
    with enough thermite, and enough explosives, of course. In the manner presented by popular conspiracy theories, of course not.

    You may be able to make a contraption that uses thermite to do exactly what happened the WTC column, but that would most definitely be a massive and sophisticated design. Not something that wouldn't have been noticed at all, and certainly not anything I've ever seen or even seen mentioned about.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    7,958
    You two are acting like the plane has to be a zero factor in order for the sabotage to occur. What happens if you attack a beam that is already suffering some measure of heat stress?

    The two competing theories are:

    1) - The plane impact, together with burning combustibles, brought down the tower.

    2) - The plane impact, together with burning combustibles, brought down the tower with the added help of some thermite/thermate.

    There's no need to discuss straw man option #3:

    3) - The plane impact and burning combustibles played absolutely no role whatsoever (perfect zero) in the collapse of the building. Saboteurs rigged it up in a separate, and independent way that didn't involve the plane, or impact at all.



    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    His testimony is likely bullshit, just like most testimonies present on conspiracy sites. The UPC's were likely always on, they just didn't seem like it to him, pending his existence that is.
    There's nothing suspicious about a company loading up a bunch of new computer hardware into a building over the summer and then waiting to turn it on until several months have passed. That sort of thing happens all the time in big business. Sometimes the whole project gets scrapped and the machines just get carried back out of the building, having never been turned on the whole time they were there.

    The point is that it wouldn't be hard for someone who knew the schedule to use the batteries as a way to smuggle in large amounts of something dangerous, confident that building security wouldn't go disassembling expensive computer equipment just to make sure there isn't a bomb in there.
    But, the thing is, they'd be tested after being moved in. They most definitely would be turned on, at least once, to ensure that the massive server room they'd be supplying wouldn't fail in the first day or so of operation.
    And, as you said, it isn't suspicious to have a room full of UPS's, because they have a purpose and are often necessary. It's highly, HIGHLY, unlikely that someone with intimate knowledge of the building's scheduled installations would be a part of a conspiracy to bring down the WTC, and just adds an additional assumption to be made by conspiracy theorists.
    That is a good point. It depends on a lot of things. Maybe their IT department was busy on another project, so they just had a moving crew bring everything up and leave it. Maybe the electricians weren't done wiring the floor to be able to deliver power for that many machines.

    I also agree with you pointing out that Al Quaida could have introduced the batteries them self using a well placed operative.

    Seriously, what's more likely, a terrorist group that hates America is behind it, or the government of America is behind it and is implementing a massive conspiracy to frame the terrorist group that proclaims itself to hate America?
    If you follow nuclear politics at all, the only way one country can get away with invading another in today's world is to either be attacked first, or at least appear to have been attacked first. We can't just plain up and declare a war of aggression because we want to. The UN would be all over that so fast and other countries would start staking similar claims.

    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    There's nothing suspicious about a company loading up a bunch of new computer hardware into a building over...
    Please, kojax, don't start this again. Making up stories isn't the same as finding evidence. I have no intention of repeating myself for several pages again in a completely new thread.

    It's called "debunking". It's not intended as an attempt to introduce new evidence. It's about taking your opponent's smoking gun and showing that there really isn't any smoke coming out of it. The anti-conspiracy side does it all the time to conspiracy assertions. It's fair play for those arguing the conspiracy side to do it back.

    If one side has to prove it's case, and the other side doesn't, that is called : "asymmetric rules of evidence". That's all well and good in a court of law (the accused is presumed innocent), but it's mostly just useless and tiresome in this kind of a discussion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Junior Finger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    266
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    It's called "debunking". It's not intended as an attempt to introduce new evidence. It's about taking your opponent's smoking gun and showing that there really isn't any smoke coming out of it. The anti-conspiracy side does it all the time to conspiracy assertions. It's fair play for those arguing the conspiracy side to do it back.
    No. What's happening here is exactly what happened in the other thread for several pages. There isn't any evidence at all for what you're saying so you're imagining up excuses as to why the burden of proof doesn't apply to you. That's called "special pleading."

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    If one side has to prove it's case, and the other side doesn't, that is called : "asymmetric rules of evidence".
    Both sides have to prove their case, kojax. Even in court. But the problem for you is that the case for the standing theory, that the towers collapsed from the plane crashes and the subsequent fires, has already been made while the "sabotage" theory has nothing on its side and must rely entirely on assumptions. So really, it's you who's demanding an "asymmetrical rule of evidence" as you call it, where you've granted yourself exemption from having to justify anything.

    There, I've repeated myself once more. I will not do it again. Provide actual evidence in support of the claims you make and we can have a discussion. Continue making shit up, and I will not respond.
    Artist for Red Oasis.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,913
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    You two are acting like the plane has to be a zero factor in order for the sabotage to occur. What happens if you attack a beam that is already suffering some measure of heat stress?

    The two competing theories are:

    1) - The plane impact, together with burning combustibles, brought down the tower.

    2) - The plane impact, together with burning combustibles, brought down the tower with the added help of some thermite/thermate.

    There's no need to discuss straw man option #3:

    3) - The plane impact and burning combustibles played absolutely no role whatsoever (perfect zero) in the collapse of the building. Saboteurs rigged it up in a separate, and independent way that didn't involve the plane, or impact at all.



    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    His testimony is likely bullshit, just like most testimonies present on conspiracy sites. The UPC's were likely always on, they just didn't seem like it to him, pending his existence that is.
    There's nothing suspicious about a company loading up a bunch of new computer hardware into a building over the summer and then waiting to turn it on until several months have passed. That sort of thing happens all the time in big business. Sometimes the whole project gets scrapped and the machines just get carried back out of the building, having never been turned on the whole time they were there.

    The point is that it wouldn't be hard for someone who knew the schedule to use the batteries as a way to smuggle in large amounts of something dangerous, confident that building security wouldn't go disassembling expensive computer equipment just to make sure there isn't a bomb in there.
    But, the thing is, they'd be tested after being moved in. They most definitely would be turned on, at least once, to ensure that the massive server room they'd be supplying wouldn't fail in the first day or so of operation.
    And, as you said, it isn't suspicious to have a room full of UPS's, because they have a purpose and are often necessary. It's highly, HIGHLY, unlikely that someone with intimate knowledge of the building's scheduled installations would be a part of a conspiracy to bring down the WTC, and just adds an additional assumption to be made by conspiracy theorists.
    That is a good point. It depends on a lot of things. Maybe their IT department was busy on another project, so they just had a moving crew bring everything up and leave it. Maybe the electricians weren't done wiring the floor to be able to deliver power for that many machines.

    I also agree with you pointing out that Al Qaeda could have introduced the batteries them self using a well placed operative.
    Now, again, there is no evidence that supports that, and I didn't say anything remotely resembling that. There is no evidence that there was an Al Qaeda sleeper cell infiltrating America through either a delivery service, nor an IT company. Let alone, something of that nature, there is no way of knowing when said companies that are infiltrate will be asked to do anything involved in an American landmark (WTC), if they are at all, and there is also no way of knowing if the sabotage that is set up by said operative will not be fond out months prior to the bombing. The UPS's were there for a while before the towers fell. This argument that you're purporting is entirely unfounded kojax.

    Seriously, what's more likely, a terrorist group that hates America is behind it, or the government of America is behind it and is implementing a massive conspiracy to frame the terrorist group that proclaims itself to hate America?
    If you follow nuclear politics at all, the only way one country can get away with invading another in today's world is to either be attacked first, or at least appear to have been attacked first. We can't just plain up and declare a war of aggression because we want to. The UN would be all over that so fast and other countries would start staking similar claims.
    I see... So, there is a further allegation that this was not only done by the US government, but it was done for the purpose of being able to declare war. This is one more unsupported claim that has no evidence, and implies more assumption than there is reason to believe to be true.

    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    There's nothing suspicious about a company loading up a bunch of new computer hardware into a building over...
    Please, kojax, don't start this again. Making up stories isn't the same as finding evidence. I have no intention of repeating myself for several pages again in a completely new thread.

    It's called "debunking". It's not intended as an attempt to introduce new evidence. It's about taking your opponent's smoking gun and showing that there really isn't any smoke coming out of it. The anti-conspiracy side does it all the time to conspiracy assertions. It's fair play for those arguing the conspiracy side to do it back.

    If one side has to prove it's case, and the other side doesn't, that is called : "asymmetric rules of evidence". That's all well and good in a court of law (the accused is presumed innocent), but it's mostly just useless and tiresome in this kind of a discussion.
    The issue, kojax, is that there is ample evidence present for the explanation given as most likely true. It is the most logical conclusion to be made from the mountain of evidence present in the case of the bombing of the WTC on 9/11/01. Honestly, Any conspiracy against the official story has a massive burden of proof, as it is the allegation making a claim that is unsubstantiated. As soon as a conspiracy theory has valid facts and evidence in support of it's claims, it may be treated on par with the official story. However, any conspiracy theory makes FAR more assumptions and allegations than the official story, and as such needs FAR more evidence and factual basis to be on par with it.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    7,958
    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    It's called "debunking". It's not intended as an attempt to introduce new evidence. It's about taking your opponent's smoking gun and showing that there really isn't any smoke coming out of it. The anti-conspiracy side does it all the time to conspiracy assertions. It's fair play for those arguing the conspiracy side to do it back.
    No. What's happening here is exactly what happened in the other thread for several pages. There isn't any evidence at all for what you're saying so you're imagining up excuses as to why the burden of proof doesn't apply to you. That's called "special pleading."
    Except I said nothing of the sort. I said it applies to you equally, and that debunking someone else's evidence is a valid tactic, so long as both sides use it.

    You did the same thing in the other thread with Silverstein. The ink was barely dry on his purchase of the WTC lease, and suddenly tragedy struck. He went to court and argued that 2 plane strikes = 2 events, and the court rejected the argument, but he still did attempt to make the argument, and it would have been a windfall profit for him if he had won. In any other arson investigation, that would be valid circumstantial evidence. People have been sent to prison on life sentences with only circumstantial evidence. It is a valid point to raise.

    But, if you're not inclined to believe that he was complicit, then of course you'll discount it. There is a non-zero probability of it merely being a coincidence. But that's where the question of partiality comes in. Why is non-zero all it takes? We're talking about the one person who had the most access to WTC 1,2, and 7 of any human being alive.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    If one side has to prove it's case, and the other side doesn't, that is called : "asymmetric rules of evidence".
    Both sides have to prove their case, kojax. Even in court. But the problem for you is that the case for the standing theory, that the towers collapsed from the plane crashes and the subsequent fires, has already been made while the "sabotage" theory has nothing on its side and must rely entirely on assumptions. So really, it's you who's demanding an "asymmetrical rule of evidence" as you call it, where you've granted yourself exemption from having to justify anything.
    Arguing that evidence ought to be discounted because there is a non-zero probability of it occurring by chance, and arguing that it should be discounted because it is possible to pose a plausible counter scenario are absolutely identical forms of argument. Your plausible counter scenario for Silverstein is that the timing worked out the way it did because of dumb luck. ( And, of course, dumb luck is the key requirement in pretty much all other plausible counter-scenario arguments as well.)

    So: if you agree to quit making dumb luck arguments, I'll agree to quit making plausible counter scenario arguments.

    There, I've repeated myself once more. I will not do it again. Provide actual evidence in support of the claims you make and we can have a discussion. Continue making shit up, and I will not respond.
    I don't understand why you seem so angry.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,913
    kojax, fun fact, logically it's more plausible that it was dumb luck, not conspiracy. dumb luck just fits nicer with the given evidence.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Sophomore Killtown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    151
    For the record, not all of us 9/11 truthers believe in the thermite theory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,913
    Quote Originally Posted by Killtown
    For the record, not all of us 9/11 truthers believe in the thermite theory.
    9/11 truther? what exactly does that mean? conspiracy theorist?
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    7,958
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    kojax, fun fact, logically it's more plausible that it was dumb luck, not conspiracy. dumb luck just fits nicer with the given evidence.
    From the perspective of a lurker, this could be a very interesting thread to read, if you, me, Finger, and everyone else focus on actually presenting data to each other, instead of this kind of thing. How about instead of just saying "given the evidence", you actually present some evidence?

    Dumb luck only seems plausible if you're the kind of person who usually ignores statistical evidence. If you take that type of evidence seriously, then extraordinary coincidences always warrant additional scrutiny. Furthermore: the particular case I mentioned does not contradict any evidence in your pile. Nothing. It only contradicts your conclusion. And... of course... if I'm required to only present evidence that supports your conclusion, then we're not really having a discussion, are we?


    As for the OP, here's the NIST report on the fires themselves. http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-5.pdf It's a 50 megabyte download.

    An interesting point made in 8.4 is that the fires in WTC1 were very near the point of going out when the collapse happened. If the building could have just lasted a little longer......

    Quote Originally Posted by NIST 8.4, last bullet point
    In the simulations, none of the columns with intact insulation reached temperatures over 300 C. Only a few isolated truss members with intact insulation were heated to temperatures over 400 C in the WTC 1 simulations and to temperatures over 500 C in the WTC 2 simulations. In WTC 1, if the fires had been allowed to continue past the time of the building collapse, complete burnout would likely have occurred within a short time since the fires had already traversed around the entire floor, and most of the combustibles would already have been consumed. In WTC 2, the temperatures in the truss steel on the west side of the building (where the insulation was undamaged) would likely have continued to increase. These temperatures could have exceeded 600 C for about 15 min for large sections of the floor steel. The temperatures of the insulated exterior and core columns would not have increased to the point where they would have experienced significant loss of strength or stiffness.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Sophomore Killtown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    151
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    Quote Originally Posted by Killtown
    For the record, not all of us 9/11 truthers believe in the thermite theory.
    9/11 truther? what exactly does that mean? conspiracy theorist?
    It's the name adopted by those who theorize 9/11 was an inside job.

    Name

    "9/11 Truth movement" is the collective name of loosely affiliated organizations and individuals that question whether the United States government, agencies of the United States or individuals within such agencies were either responsible for or purposefully complicit in the September 11 attacks. The term is also being used by the adherents of the movement. Adherents also call themselves "9/11 Truthers", "9/11 skeptics" or "truth activists", while generally rejecting the term "conspiracy theorists".

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_Movement#Name
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,913
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    kojax, fun fact, logically it's more plausible that it was dumb luck, not conspiracy. dumb luck just fits nicer with the given evidence.
    From the perspective of a lurker, this could be a very interesting thread to read, if you, me, Finger, and everyone else focus on actually presenting data to each other, instead of this kind of thing. How about instead of just saying "given the evidence", you actually present some evidence?

    Dumb luck only seems plausible if you're the kind of person who usually ignores statistical evidence. If you take that type of evidence seriously, then extraordinary coincidences always warrant additional scrutiny. Furthermore: the particular case I mentioned does not contradict any evidence in your pile. Nothing. It only contradicts your conclusion. And... of course... if I'm required to only present evidence that supports your conclusion, then we're not really having a discussion, are we?


    As for the OP, here's the NIST report on the fires themselves. http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-5.pdf It's a 50 megabyte download.

    An interesting point made in 8.4 is that the fires in WTC1 were very near the point of going out when the collapse happened. If the building could have just lasted a little longer......

    Quote Originally Posted by NIST 8.4, last bullet point
    In the simulations, none of the columns with intact insulation reached temperatures over 300 C. Only a few isolated truss members with intact insulation were heated to temperatures over 400 C in the WTC 1 simulations and to temperatures over 500 C in the WTC 2 simulations. In WTC 1, if the fires had been allowed to continue past the time of the building collapse, complete burnout would likely have occurred within a short time since the fires had already traversed around the entire floor, and most of the combustibles would already have been consumed. In WTC 2, the temperatures in the truss steel on the west side of the building (where the insulation was undamaged) would likely have continued to increase. These temperatures could have exceeded 600 C for about 15 min for large sections of the floor steel. The temperatures of the insulated exterior and core columns would not have increased to the point where they would have experienced significant loss of strength or stiffness.
    and here's the problem. There was no extraordinary coincidence. so, there is no need for a lot of additional scrutiny. The extraordinary coincidence is only in the minds of the conspiracy theorists. You point out this "evidence" that in all reality is simply anecdotal and nothing more. Anecdotal evidence isn't exactly the strongest evidence, and anecdotal coincidence is easily dismissed when there is no physical evidence present to support it. You have all the access in the world to my evidence. The NIST report is my evidence. And now, my job is simply to point out if your evidence is flawed, or subjective, or anecdotal, or that your conclusions don't follow, or that your theories are bunk, etc. etc.

    You are asking me to post evidence for what is the accepted theory. Why? For the lurkers who can't type in "NIST 9/11 WTC" in a Google search engine? You've posted ideas that are outright wrong, and do in fact contradict the accepted evidence and theories. Thermite, for example. That is contradictory to what's accepted, and highly unlikely for specific reasons that have been stated already. You keep pushing variants of that theory with no logical step as to why you're new idea is more likely right.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    7,958
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician

    and here's the problem. There was no extraordinary coincidence. so, there is no need for a lot of additional scrutiny. The extraordinary coincidence is only in the minds of the conspiracy theorists. You point out this "evidence" that in all reality is simply anecdotal and nothing more. Anecdotal evidence isn't exactly the strongest evidence, and anecdotal coincidence is easily dismissed when there is no physical evidence present to support it. You have all the access in the world to my evidence. The NIST report is my evidence. And now, my job is simply to point out if your evidence is flawed, or subjective, or anecdotal, or that your conclusions don't follow, or that your theories are bunk, etc. etc.
    Then why do police present that kind of evidence in courts of law? Motive is a very important part of the case for any crime. Of course it doesn't absolutely prove complicity all by itself, but it's an important step on the road to it.


    You are asking me to post evidence for what is the accepted theory. Why? For the lurkers who can't type in "NIST 9/11 WTC" in a Google search engine? You've posted ideas that are outright wrong, and do in fact contradict the accepted evidence and theories.
    I'm asking you to point to specific parts.

    The problem with analyzing 911 is that there's a serious "where's Waldo?" effect, because there is just so much data, and most of it is meaningless and/or false. The NIST report is pretty reliable, though even it admits to being informed speculation in some sections (though it's quite authoritative in others).

    If you want to cite the report, then fine, but you should try and say what part of the report specifically supports your assertions. If you say "all of it", then I'm going to take it for granted that you've probably never even read the report and don't actually know what it contains.


    Thermite, for example. That is contradictory to what's accepted, and highly unlikely for specific reasons that have been stated already. You keep pushing variants of that theory with no logical step as to why you're new idea is more likely right.
    The report actually has nothing to say about the presence or absence of thermite. If you decide to actually read the report, which I posted a link to, you will see that none of their findings actually rule thermite in or out.

    They were able to determine that, with the fire proofing gone, the necessary temperature for collapse would have been reached in some parts of the building from the burning combustible office materials alone. They even arrived at a good estimate for how much material there was given the available ventilation and the rate the fire spread at. They did not, however, demonstrate that the temperatures reached inside were too low to have involved thermite reactions. They weren't able to put any upward limit at all on the internal temperatures, only a lower limit.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,913
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician

    and here's the problem. There was no extraordinary coincidence. so, there is no need for a lot of additional scrutiny. The extraordinary coincidence is only in the minds of the conspiracy theorists. You point out this "evidence" that in all reality is simply anecdotal and nothing more. Anecdotal evidence isn't exactly the strongest evidence, and anecdotal coincidence is easily dismissed when there is no physical evidence present to support it. You have all the access in the world to my evidence. The NIST report is my evidence. And now, my job is simply to point out if your evidence is flawed, or subjective, or anecdotal, or that your conclusions don't follow, or that your theories are bunk, etc. etc.
    Then why do police present that kind of evidence in courts of law? Motive is a very important part of the case for any crime. Of course it doesn't absolutely prove complicity all by itself, but it's an important step on the road to it.
    Because law is an imperfect system, and subjectivity still runs rampant. Also, if you haven't noticed, serious cases don't rely on anecdotal evidence, but anecdotes that are substantiated by physical evidence and have extraordinary coincidental inferences.

    No reputable court of law will make judgements solely on the "he said she said" argument. If you disagree, please, throw out the name of a court case that backs up your assertion. What court cases are decided on subjective evidence alone? And please, don't cite a small claims court case or divorce court case, since I assume you mean criminal court with you're statement that police do it.


    You are asking me to post evidence for what is the accepted theory. Why? For the lurkers who can't type in "NIST 9/11 WTC" in a Google search engine? You've posted ideas that are outright wrong, and do in fact contradict the accepted evidence and theories.
    I'm asking you to point to specific parts.

    The problem with analyzing 911 is that there's a serious "where's Waldo?" effect, because there is just so much data, and most of it is meaningless and/or false. The NIST report is pretty reliable, though even it admits to being informed speculation in some sections (though it's quite authoritative in others).

    If you want to cite the report, then fine, but you should try and say what part of the report specifically supports your assertions. If you say "all of it", then I'm going to take it for granted that you've probably never even read the report and don't actually know what it contains.
    Ah, I see the problem now. What assertions did I make?


    Thermite, for example. That is contradictory to what's accepted, and highly unlikely for specific reasons that have been stated already. You keep pushing variants of that theory with no logical step as to why you're new idea is more likely right.
    The report actually has nothing to say about the presence or absence of thermite. If you decide to actually read the report, which I posted a link to, you will see that none of their findings actually rule thermite in or out.

    They were able to determine that, with the fire proofing gone, the necessary temperature for collapse would have been reached in some parts of the building from the burning combustible office materials alone. They even arrived at a good estimate for how much material there was given the available ventilation and the rate the fire spread at. They did not, however, demonstrate that the temperatures reached inside were too low to have involved thermite reactions. They weren't able to put any upward limit at all on the internal temperatures, only a lower limit.[/quote]Right. But the issue is there is no evidence that there were thermite reactions. This is the problem, not that it contradicts the report in that they no where talk about it, but because there is no evidence at ground zero that a thermite reaction took place. You see, the lack of evidence in this case is evidence that it didn't happen. If a bomb explodes, you'll find residue all over the place that indicates there was explosive material, because it would leave the reactions products all over the place, unless it was a purely gaseous reaction. Thermite reactions are liquid at extreme temperatures. There is no gas portion as claimed in the theories on it, and there was no evidence of iron and aluminum oxide slag that would indicate simple thermite, at the least, reacting in any abundance as would be necessary to take out the building. There likely were small reactions, yes, but a big reaction? on the order of an entire floor full of thermite? no. There is no evidence that there was that much thermite reacting, because there was not that much slag in the remains of the building. Likewise, the thermate argument is total horse shit because there was no presence of barium nitrate in the remains at all either. Do you want me to link you an assessment of the contents of the dust and rubble at ground zero?
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    7,958
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician

    and here's the problem. There was no extraordinary coincidence. so, there is no need for a lot of additional scrutiny. The extraordinary coincidence is only in the minds of the conspiracy theorists. You point out this "evidence" that in all reality is simply anecdotal and nothing more. Anecdotal evidence isn't exactly the strongest evidence, and anecdotal coincidence is easily dismissed when there is no physical evidence present to support it. You have all the access in the world to my evidence. The NIST report is my evidence. And now, my job is simply to point out if your evidence is flawed, or subjective, or anecdotal, or that your conclusions don't follow, or that your theories are bunk, etc. etc.
    Then why do police present that kind of evidence in courts of law? Motive is a very important part of the case for any crime. Of course it doesn't absolutely prove complicity all by itself, but it's an important step on the road to it.
    Because law is an imperfect system, and subjectivity still runs rampant. Also, if you haven't noticed, serious cases don't rely on anecdotal evidence, but anecdotes that are substantiated by physical evidence and have extraordinary coincidental inferences.

    The reason criminal law proceeds as it does is because, if they used the full skepticism science uses about a defendant's guilt or innocence (assuming that "innocence" is defined as the non-theory), then hardly anyone would ever go to prison, and the law would be a big joke.

    That said, almost all criminal trials introduce motive evidence, and motive evidence is always as subjective as it is in this case. All a motive argument can ever establish is that the defendant would have stood to gain by committing the crime. Yet, a criminal trial that doesn't offer motive is likely to be thrown out of court.


    No reputable court of law will make judgements solely on the "he said she said" argument. If you disagree, please, throw out the name of a court case that backs up your assertion. What court cases are decided on subjective evidence alone? And please, don't cite a small claims court case or divorce court case, since I assume you mean criminal court with you're statement that police do it.
    But.... it's not "he said" "she said". Why would you ever think that? The timing of Silverstein's purchase is a matter of public record. No one anywhere is disputing it. He purchased the lease 6 weeks before the attack.

    He was required to get provisional insurance on the value of the lease itself (I can't tell whether the buildings were even included or not), and due to the fact that many of the various insurers (no one single company was willing to shoulder all the risk alone) had not yet finalized their agreements, but were relying on temporary provisional contracts while they worked out the terms of the final agreement, his "2 planes = 2 events" argument was partly successful, and he netted over a billion dollars more than the insured value of his lease agreement.

    If you look past the title, the articles listed here are pretty informative: http://www.911review.com/motive/docs...ance_scam.html

    Thermite, for example. That is contradictory to what's accepted, and highly unlikely for specific reasons that have been stated already. You keep pushing variants of that theory with no logical step as to why you're new idea is more likely right.
    The report actually has nothing to say about the presence or absence of thermite. If you decide to actually read the report, which I posted a link to, you will see that none of their findings actually rule thermite in or out.

    They were able to determine that, with the fire proofing gone, the necessary temperature for collapse would have been reached in some parts of the building from the burning combustible office materials alone. They even arrived at a good estimate for how much material there was given the available ventilation and the rate the fire spread at. They did not, however, demonstrate that the temperatures reached inside were too low to have involved thermite reactions. They weren't able to put any upward limit at all on the internal temperatures, only a lower limit.
    Right. But the issue is there is no evidence that there were thermite reactions. This is the problem, not that it contradicts the report in that they no where talk about it, but because there is no evidence at ground zero that a thermite reaction took place. You see, the lack of evidence in this case is evidence that it didn't happen. If a bomb explodes, you'll find residue all over the place that indicates there was explosive material, because it would leave the reactions products all over the place, unless it was a purely gaseous reaction. Thermite reactions are liquid at extreme temperatures. There is no gas portion as claimed in the theories on it, and there was no evidence of iron and aluminum oxide slag that would indicate simple thermite, at the least, reacting in any abundance as would be necessary to take out the building. There likely were small reactions, yes, but a big reaction? on the order of an entire floor full of thermite? no. There is no evidence that there was that much thermite reacting, because there was not that much slag in the remains of the building. Likewise, the thermate argument is total horse shit because there was no presence of barium nitrate in the remains at all either.
    Ok, so to be clear: some thermite residue is present, though apparently not enough to be significant by NIST's estimate. But an essential component of the thermate reaction is absent?

    Do you want me to link you an assessment of the contents of the dust and rubble at ground zero?
    Yes. I would like you to do that. That way this thread can be informative, instead of one of those pundit debates where everybody is just yelling at each other.

    I think most lurkers aren't super good researchers, and they would appreciate it. That is to say both people who agree with you would appreciate it (because it allows them to be informed in their views) and people who disagree would appreciate it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,913
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician

    and here's the problem. There was no extraordinary coincidence. so, there is no need for a lot of additional scrutiny. The extraordinary coincidence is only in the minds of the conspiracy theorists. You point out this "evidence" that in all reality is simply anecdotal and nothing more. Anecdotal evidence isn't exactly the strongest evidence, and anecdotal coincidence is easily dismissed when there is no physical evidence present to support it. You have all the access in the world to my evidence. The NIST report is my evidence. And now, my job is simply to point out if your evidence is flawed, or subjective, or anecdotal, or that your conclusions don't follow, or that your theories are bunk, etc. etc.
    Then why do police present that kind of evidence in courts of law? Motive is a very important part of the case for any crime. Of course it doesn't absolutely prove complicity all by itself, but it's an important step on the road to it.
    Because law is an imperfect system, and subjectivity still runs rampant. Also, if you haven't noticed, serious cases don't rely on anecdotal evidence, but anecdotes that are substantiated by physical evidence and have extraordinary coincidental inferences.

    The reason criminal law proceeds as it does is because, if they used the full skepticism science uses about a defendant's guilt or innocence (assuming that "innocence" is defined as the non-theory), then hardly anyone would ever go to prison, and the law would be a big joke.

    That said, almost all criminal trials introduce motive evidence, and motive evidence is always as subjective as it is in this case. All a motive argument can ever establish is that the defendant would have stood to gain by committing the crime. Yet, a criminal trial that doesn't offer motive is likely to be thrown out of court.
    You see, now this is different. Motive evidence isn't anecdotal, is it? And anecdotal evidence presented as means for motive, needs to be substantiated. Motives aren't inherent of guilt, just give reason to the crime. And by the way kojax, if there is no motive for the murder, but your fingerprints are on the proven smoking gun, you can bet your ass you will have to sit before a judge and jury.

    Thermite, for example. That is contradictory to what's accepted, and highly unlikely for specific reasons that have been stated already. You keep pushing variants of that theory with no logical step as to why you're new idea is more likely right.
    The report actually has nothing to say about the presence or absence of thermite. If you decide to actually read the report, which I posted a link to, you will see that none of their findings actually rule thermite in or out.

    They were able to determine that, with the fire proofing gone, the necessary temperature for collapse would have been reached in some parts of the building from the burning combustible office materials alone. They even arrived at a good estimate for how much material there was given the available ventilation and the rate the fire spread at. They did not, however, demonstrate that the temperatures reached inside were too low to have involved thermite reactions. They weren't able to put any upward limit at all on the internal temperatures, only a lower limit.
    Right. But the issue is there is no evidence that there were thermite reactions. This is the problem, not that it contradicts the report in that they no where talk about it, but because there is no evidence at ground zero that a thermite reaction took place. You see, the lack of evidence in this case is evidence that it didn't happen. If a bomb explodes, you'll find residue all over the place that indicates there was explosive material, because it would leave the reactions products all over the place, unless it was a purely gaseous reaction. Thermite reactions are liquid at extreme temperatures. There is no gas portion as claimed in the theories on it, and there was no evidence of iron and aluminum oxide slag that would indicate simple thermite, at the least, reacting in any abundance as would be necessary to take out the building. There likely were small reactions, yes, but a big reaction? on the order of an entire floor full of thermite? no. There is no evidence that there was that much thermite reacting, because there was not that much slag in the remains of the building. Likewise, the thermate argument is total horse shit because there was no presence of barium nitrate in the remains at all either.
    Ok, so to be clear: some thermite residue is present, though apparently not enough to be significant by NIST's estimate. But an essential component of the thermate reaction is absent?
    Yes. There was some pure iron, and some Al_2O_3, that indicates there was some micro aluminothermic reactions between rust and aluminum, akin to something like a sparkler. With a lot of gypsum around, there would be ample source for sulfur to lower the ignition temp required. This is somewhat expected in such a situation as an entire floor of an office building burning. there will be spots of peaked temperature due to the combustibles present and ambient heat around the area.

    USGS survey of the area
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    7,958
    I looked up the tenants of WTC 1 and 2. Clearly, in order to rig up a bunch of thermite vats on or near the impact floor, a conspiracy would either need the willing compliance of the tenant, or a really convincing cover.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...d_Trade_Center

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...d_Trade_Center


    In WTC 2 (which is the one that had the most liquid metal flows), Fuji Bank rented 4 floors, from 79 to 82. The main body of the plane hit right smack in the middle of them, between floors 80, and 81.

    In WTC 1, Marsh & McLennan rented 7 floors, from 93 to 99. The main body of the plane also struck the center of their rental as well, hitting floor 96.

    Unfortunately, all the information I can find on them right now that would indicate motive is just hearsay (not admissible in court ) A lot of conspiracy sites claim that Marsh wasone of the 3 main insurers of the WTC prior to Silverstein acquiring the lease , and had recently sold their insurance contract to Swiss Re & company. For Fuji bank, we've got that (possibly fictitious) "whistle blower". If I am able to find good, reliable sources on either of those allegations, I'll post them later.


    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician

    You see, now this is different. Motive evidence isn't anecdotal, is it? And anecdotal evidence presented as means for motive, needs to be substantiated. Motives aren't inherent of guilt, just give reason to the crime. And by the way kojax, if there is no motive for the murder, but your fingerprints are on the proven smoking gun, you can bet your ass you will have to sit before a judge and jury.
    Yeah. The main difference of perspective between the two camps is trying to decide whether the physical evidence is sufficiently overwhelming that it would be considered to totally eclipse things like motive.

    Thermite reactions are liquid at extreme temperatures. There is no gas portion as claimed in the theories on it, and there was no evidence of iron and aluminum oxide slag that would indicate simple thermite, at the least, reacting in any abundance as would be necessary to take out the building. There likely were small reactions, yes, but a big reaction? on the order of an entire floor full of thermite? no. There is no evidence that there was that much thermite reacting, because there was not that much slag in the remains of the building. Likewise, the thermate argument is total horse shit because there was no presence of barium nitrate in the remains at all either.
    Ok, so to be clear: some thermite residue is present, though apparently not enough to be significant by NIST's estimate. But an essential component of the thermate reaction is absent?
    Yes. There was some pure iron, and some Al_2O_3, that indicates there was some micro aluminothermic reactions between rust and aluminum, akin to something like a sparkler. With a lot of gypsum around, there would be ample source for sulfur to lower the ignition temp required. This is somewhat expected in such a situation as an entire floor of an office building burning. there will be spots of peaked temperature due to the combustibles present and ambient heat around the area.

    USGS survey of the area
    Thanks for posting that. That definitely tells us that any chemical residue that could be found would have been found. So, a lack of Barium Nitrate in their findings is pretty significant to any theory that requires it to be present.

    The three main possibilities then are:

    1: Thermite (normal kind)

    Fe2O3 + 2Al → 2Fe + Al2O3 + Heat

    Al2O3 has a melting point of 2072 C , and a boiling point of 2977 C

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium_oxide

    Fe2 has a melting point of 1538 C, and a boiling point of 2862 C

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron

    The thermite reaction usually stays just below 2,519 C (Though I wonder whether the reaction is self limiting or if the heat of the surrounding fires from jet fuel and combustibles would add to that.) )

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite

    I would think that, since Iron and Aluminum Oxide are both liquid at that temperature, that any liquid flows that resulted would be a mix of both materials. However, the density of Iron is 7.874 gcm−3, while the density of Aluminum Oxide is 3.95-4.1 g/cm3, so maybe they would separate by way of the Aluminum Oxide floating on the top of the Iron? I don't know what conditions are required in order to make the two liquid flows separate out before they solidify.

    2. Military Grade Thermite ("Nano-Thermite")

    The particle nature of nano-thermite greatly increases the heat it releases. So, perhaps both the iron and the Aluminum Oxide would take gaseous form initially, before condensing later (the parts that didn't escape anyway, since ventilation was far from perfect.)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nano-thermite

    3. Thermate

    According to Wiki, Thermate also burns hotter than thermite, but I don't know how much hotter, and it mentions Barium Nitrate as an optional part of the mix, not a necessary component.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermate

    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician


    Quote Originally Posted by Article Above
    The FEMA-sponsored Building Performance Study of 2002 contains evidence of melted steel caused by sulfidation and oxidation. This is found in the "Limited Metallurgical Examination" written by Professor Jonathan Barnett. The NIST report, however, fails to address the evidence of sulfidation found in the structural steel from the WTC.

    ...

    Professor Jones points to Thermate, with 2 percent sulfur, as being the most likely culprit. The oxidation and sulfidation of the steel requires the oxygen and sulfur being "intimately in contact with the metal at high temperature," Jones said.
    The problem isn't that sulfur was found. It's that it was found in the molten steel, where apparently it shouldn't have been.
    Drywall contains sulfer, which, among many other things, would be found in solidified steel that was molten when it came into contact with the drywall. It should be expected to be found, along with a variety of other elements that were present in the presence of the molten steel.
    Also, to clarify: the issue with Jones finding chemicals that can be Thermate residue is that he found them mixed together inside of iron spheres. Clearly all those chemicals would have been present in the WTC prior to the attack, but what he is claiming is that it is unlikely for them to all appear in a tiny molten sphere. (By which I mean that this was part of his original argument.)

    http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/200...-chemical.html

    The site also points out that there's no calcium in the spheres, which would have been present in the drywall along with the sulfur.


    Sulfur melts at 115.21 C, and boils at 444.6 C

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur

    Calcium melts at 842 C, and boils at 1484 C

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur

    So, if a difference of melting/boiling point were the reason for only one of them to be present, we should expect the sulfur would be absent, not the calcium.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    7,958
    On page 93 of the NIST reconstruction of the fire. (the 50 mb downloadable PDF), under 2.3.8 Other Structural Changes,

    the middle bullet point details their description of the molten metal flows.

    Quote Originally Posted by NIST Fires PDF

    Molten metal, presuming aluminum alloys that melt at 475 C to 635 C, pouring from the tops of open windows. A major instance occurred on the north side of the 80th floor at 9:52 and lasted 7 min. The sudden appearance of the flow at the top of the window was likley the result of the formation of a pathway from the 81st floor, where the aluminum presumably had pooled on the top of the floor slab as it melted. This, in turn, suggested that the 81st floor slab sank or pulled away from the spandrel at this time. At one point the flow shifted on window to the east, indicating that the 81st floor slab in the vicinity might have been shifting.

    http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-5.pdf


    It appears the main basis for choosing aluminum as a probable candidate is its low melting temperature, because very high temperatures would not be justified by NIST's model of the fires. This is also supported by the more detailed description of the fires given on page 163-194. The diagrams on those pages show temperatures that range up to 1000 C in some places, but a clarification later tells us that those higher temperatures would only have lasted 15-20 minutes. With an average closer to 400-600 C.

    Quote Originally Posted by Page 195, 6.7.2 Fire Temperatures
    The heat transferred to the structural components was largely by means of thermal radiation, which is roughly proportional to the fourth power of the gas temperature. The simulations and visual evidence suggested that the duration of temperatures in the neighborhood of 1,000 C at ay given location on any given floor was about 15 min to 20 min. The rest of the time, temperatures were predicted to have been in the range of 400 C to 600 C on floors with active fires. To put this in perspective, the heat flux onto a truss surrounded by smoke-laden gases of 1,000 C is approximately 150 kW/m^2, whereas it is 20 kW/m^2 for gases of 500 C.


    And then Alex Jones' perspective on the "flowing aluminum" theory.

    Quote Originally Posted by Article on Jones
    It could not have been molten aluminum as the federal government's Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers (NIST, 2005) speculates, Jones says, because, among other things, molten aluminum at that temperature would appear silver-grey in daylight conditions.

    Having tested pieces of hardened molten metal from the twin towers, Jones found that they were composed primarily of iron, not structural steel.


    http://www.rense.com/general75/thrm.htm


    So if Jones is right about it not being aluminum, then what other source of metal with a low melting point would conceivably be available in the requisite quantities? There weren't any metals like that in the construction of the building. Fuji Bank would have to have been keeping an awful lot of some kind of metalic objects on their floors. Maybe those servers, and/or UPS batteries contained a large volume of something that would melt and then glow red when it flowed out of the building?

    The other option is to accept that maybe temperatures on that floor had gotten much, much higher (at least in some places) than NIST's model allows for. (Indicating a heat source other than just office combustibles.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •