Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
WoodySt
Trad climber
Riverside
|
|
|
Nov 19, 2006 - 01:26am PT
|
Pelosi did it. Prove me wrong Klimmer.
|
|
woodcraft
Trad climber
Fairfax, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 19, 2006 - 02:35am PT
|
Healje-
Regarding the reasoning that explosive or cutting charges couldn't have been placed because there would need to be so much patching; Most of the office buildings that I'm familiar with have suspended acoustic ceilings. Above the ceiling tiles, the structure is readily accessible.
The report from the demo monitering company seems convincing, but if they happened to have monitering equipment running at the time, it's possible that they're part of the team.
I agree that the video of molten something is not evidence of thermite being used.
The conflicting reports of molten metal in the pit reminds of the Pentagon crash- witnesses saying there were no airplane parts at the scene, and later there are parts produced. Damage control?
|
|
Curt
Boulder climber
Gilbert, AZ
|
|
|
Nov 19, 2006 - 12:54pm PT
|
This entire thread is a great example of a little bit of knowledge being a dangerous thing.
Curt
|
|
Klimmer
Mountain climber
San Diego
|
|
|
Nov 19, 2006 - 07:10pm PT
|
WBraun,
You are absolutely right. Chuckcar, Graniteclimber, HJ, WoodySt, Curt, et al. all use the same kind of mis-reasoning and ill-logic as does Brent Blanchard when he attempts to refute CD of WTC Towers 1, 2, and 7, or for that matter anything that directly contradicts and invalidates the OCT as Jim Hoffman points out. That is why I called them OCT apologists at the start. And they all fail miserably.
A Critical Analysis of the Collapse of the WTC Towers 1, 2, & 7 from an Explosives and Conventional Demolition Industry Viewpoint
By Brent Blanchard
August 8, 2006
c-2006 www.implosionworld.com
http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf
Reply to Brent Blanchard/Protec's . . .
A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE COLLAPSE OF WTC TOWERS 1, 2 & 7 FROM AN EXPLOSIVES AND CONVENTIONAL DEMOLITION INDUSTRY VIEWPOINT
by Jim Hoffman
http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/blanchard/index.html
GC,
Yes, I readily admit I came on a little strong when I first jumped in, that’s why I included myself and said “Let’s try to keep it civil. Let’s keep it fact and evidence based.”
“Let’s” as in let us, that includes me.
You obviously didn’t watch and/or read all the articles regarding the issue between Prof. Woodward and Prof. Jones. Had you, you would know that he indeed did take it further in additional experiments and got the Aluminum very hot so that it started to glow salmon, then orange and then yellow, including the object that it was contained within. He says this plainly. But when in this state or phase, when poured through the atmosphere indoors or outdoors where the reflectivity (a property) of Aluminum comes into play with direct sunlight regardless of it’s temperature, very hot or just hot enough to melt, then it immediately goes silver once again, and it does so within just a few feet of falling. This is how Aluminum or Aluminum with lots of organic matter behaves.
The 9-11 Commission, NIST, FEMA all admit the fires didn’t get hot enough to melt Iron or Steel and turn it from a solid to a liquid state. You would not have flowing Iron or Steel as a result of Aviation fuel fires or organic matter fires. Just does not happen. However, the fires could have been hot enough to melt Aluminum. But with the experiments that Prof. Jones did, he proved what was molten and dripping out of the corner of the South Tower was not Aluminum as hypothesized by NIST. It just couldn’t be. So what could it be if the fires by themselves couldn’t get hot enough to melt Iron or Steel, and it can’t be Aluminum?
Well, with the found evidence and chemical signature of Thermite/Thermate and the visual evidence of pouring molten Iron out of the South Tower with the very characteristic wisps of Aluminum Oxide, which is a product from the thermite and Steel reaction, coming from the mixed in Aluminum that is used as a reactant within the original Thermite/thermate formula --- it is more than likely Iron which is the by product of the reactant Themite/thermate reacting with Steel. And the characteristic glow of dripping molten Iron as a product, and the temperatures needed to melt the Steel are easily achieved with themite/thermate.
The idea that it could be plastics dripping isn’t correct. Yes, plastics are easily melted, but they don’t flow bright yellow or orange at high temperatures. They are hydro-carbon based and they burn and turn black and get very sticky and cling to everything. Haven’t we all burned plastic at times, even in a camp-fire in the evening out climbing with friends? Oh, the toxic inhumanity of it all. We aren’t good environmentalists at times are we?
LEB,
The task of putting this altogether, summarizing, and bullet formatting the CTer arguments and evidence is going to be a big task. A task that I’m not looking forward to. But when I have the time I will try as I said I would.
|
|
Klimmer
Mountain climber
San Diego
|
|
|
Nov 19, 2006 - 07:27pm PT
|
Hey all OCTers,
"Pull it" as plainly stated by Silverstein is the very least of all the enormous evidence we have for CD. The fact that he said it, and the fact that it is used in context to pull buildings down by CD is without dispute. Yes, it can mean in addition, to pull down with cables. Isn't that the confussing beauty of the English language? One word can often have several meanings, but it is the context in which it is used that gives the meaning. In Silverstein's case he said what it meant by the context, and everyone who honestly listens knows what he is referring to.
WTC Tower 7 was not pulled down by cables. Don't even try to suggest that new dead-end and straw-man to confuse the issue.
|
|
Curt
Boulder climber
Gilbert, AZ
|
|
|
Nov 19, 2006 - 07:35pm PT
|
"...The 9-11 Commission, NIST, FEMA all admit the fires didn’t get hot enough to melt Iron or Steel and turn it from a solid to a liquid state. You would not have flowing Iron or Steel as a result of Aviation fuel fires or organic matter fires. Just does not happen. However, the fires could have been hot enough to melt Aluminum. But with the experiments that Prof. Jones did, he proved what was molten and dripping out of the corner of the South Tower was not Aluminum as hypothesized by NIST. It just couldn’t be. So what could it be if the fires by themselves couldn’t get hot enough to melt Iron or Steel, and it can’t be Aluminum...?
It is aluminum. Jones proves no such thing when he claims it's not. He is a crackpot hoping (I guess correctly) that naive and unsophisticated conspiracy wackos will believe his scientifically baseless drivel.
Curt
|
|
elcapfool
Big Wall climber
hiding in plain sight
|
|
|
Nov 19, 2006 - 07:39pm PT
|
Is this thread why the rest of the forum has been like molasses lately?
Kill it!
|
|
Curt
Boulder climber
Gilbert, AZ
|
|
|
Nov 19, 2006 - 08:49pm PT
|
What? Nothing from the National Enquirer?
Curt
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Nov 19, 2006 - 08:53pm PT
|
Intellectual dishonesty seems to be your trademark.
|
|
Curt
Boulder climber
Gilbert, AZ
|
|
|
Nov 19, 2006 - 09:11pm PT
|
Who, me? Just because I don't believe junk science?
Curt
|
|
stevep
Boulder climber
Salt Lake, UT
|
|
|
Nov 19, 2006 - 09:18pm PT
|
Jim Hoffman, who did that rebuttal to the paper by the demolition expert is a mathmatician and a software engineer. He may be very good at those things, but I'd inclined to take the word of an industry expert over his when dealing with building demolition and failures. I suppose it is possible that Blanchard is somehow involved in the coverup, but I guess at some point, that ever-expanding circle of individuals gets too big for me to believe.
Also, Hoffman attempts to refute Blanchard's statement that explosive demolition is always intitiated at the bottom of buildings to allow gravity to work better. He does this basically saying that it could have been done higher in the building by using GREATER amounts of explosives. I have a real problem believing that literally tons of explosives could have been installed without people noticing, and then also survive the impact and fire caused by the place crashes.
|
|
chappy
Social climber
ventura
|
|
|
Nov 19, 2006 - 09:46pm PT
|
You know guys I absolutely hate this thread. The back and forth bickering, name calling etc. We may never know the answer to this debate just as we will never know what may or may not have really happened to Kennedy. Personally I am sick of it and can't wait until it fades away. I am in favor of holding Bush and Cheney responsible for something far more easily determined and what I personally believe is an event that will ultimately prove(if it hasn't already) far more detrimental to the well being of this country and that is their complicity of dragging this country into a war on false pretenses. More dead Americans than 911 and 20,000 others physically maimed in some capacity. Add to this an unkwown number of dead Iraq citizens and a squandering of any post 911 good will towards America. What a waste. A waste of human life, good will, and money that I can't help but believe could have made a real poitive differance to this world. I wish the two of them and their whole admistration could be tried by the world at large as war criminals.
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
The West
|
|
|
Nov 19, 2006 - 10:39pm PT
|
yow 320 posts,
aren't those guys executed yet?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Nov 19, 2006 - 10:40pm PT
|
Hahahahaha good one Jaybro
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Nov 19, 2006 - 11:51pm PT
|
"yow 320 posts,
aren't those guys executed yet?"
They are always executin' That's why they call them the Executive Branch.
One things is clear. There is tons of disagreement out there about what happened. It's time to put a credible investigation in place that's not incomplete, inconsistent and that will finally address all the unanswered questions instead of ignoring them.
Not easy to do but the 9-11 commission definitely fell short and, by the admission of their own members, had political agendas in mind.
Peace
Karl
|
|
WoodySt
Trad climber
Riverside
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2006 - 12:17am PT
|
There have been sufficient studies of 911; more will make no difference. You could have a hundred more, and it would be futile relative to the conspiracy types. They will deny all that conflicts with their beliefs because they want to believe the government was behind the attacks. It's part of their nature, their emotional needs. It's religion with them, and they will hold on to their fantasies into the grave.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!