revisiting 911 truth in the Obama days...

[rhys 0]

Quote

So I'm curious, what is your estimation of the total head count of people necessary to pull off this "conspiracy"? 100? 1000? 10,000?

Once again I am being asked for an assumption, how do I know these things? Did I spend 20 million dollars investigating it? No.

To work them out you have to work backwards from the result and investigate thoroughly the sequence of events that took place rather than choosing a result and making a model to fit that decision.

I simply observed what I saw, I was not completely shocked about it as intrigued as I was (my peers included) but was sure that the buildings also had explosives from the rate and direction in which they fell. I felt this way before any conspiracy theory came to rise, found it obscure that the investigation stated otherwise and shocked to find the US people were so behind attacking Iraq due to the attack when they apparently played no part in it whatsoever.

We all waited years for some sort of decent report to come out of it, by this stage Iraq was already levelled due to stupid deliberate assumptions from the GWB admin.
They let the USA be attacked; they let a projectile hit the pentagon an hour after the first hijacked plane hit the WTC? And they continued to put the USA at more risk of attack than ever before while decimating the power, affluence, and stature that the United stated of America had while Americans wave little flags at them with pride.

I was called all sorts of things in these forums when Iraq was being invaded for stating that it was a mistake, look what happened years later, the very individuals that ridiculed me for implying the USA/GWB admin was corrupt and bullshit artists, now share that same standpoint as me on the subject.

Go figure?

You may or may not know my standpoint on religion as well as these matters. It does not surprise me that the majority of USA, believes this bullshit story as they also believe the bible as well.
A believable story to ease the mind and stop people from thinking for themselves.
Majority rules right?

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[rhys 0]

Quote

Sorry. I just came to the realization that this is your religion, and I'm arguing with someone over their religion. For me this is just an interesting exercise in structural forensics, but for you it's something much, much more. I'll leave you to it.

religion?

bwa hahahaha

you are avoiding science again and you claim that as your forte. I do not.

So in your world of structural forensics, you accept that moulten aluminium glows orange rather than its usual silver reflective colour even while falling hundreds of feet through cool new york morning air?

NIST seem to think so, and you seem to agree with them.

or was it moulten steel falling down

I suppose you could continue to avoid explaing yourself and jump on the tin foil hat bandwagon?

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

you are avoiding science again and you claim that as your forte.

I'm confident that billvon is not the one avoiding science.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[billvon 3,006]

>I suppose you could continue to avoid explaing yourself and jump on
>the tin foil hat bandwagon?

Nope. You clearly feel very strongly about this, so I'll bow out and leave you to it. I have no desire to make you angry for no reason. It doesn't mean that I think you have a tinfoil hat.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

but was sure that the buildings also had explosives from the rate and direction in which they fell.

So when are you going to explain how all those people working in the WTC every day didn't notice the thousands of pounds of explosives, miles of cable, dissasembled interior walls and the teams of people for the months it would take to wire up the buildings?

Quote

rather than choosing a result and making a model to fit that decision.

That's exactly what you have done, yes.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rhys 0]

Quote

So when are you going to explain how all those people working in the WTC every day didn't notice the thousands of pounds of explosives, miles of cable, dissasembled interior walls and the teams of people for the months it would take to wire up the buildings?

[sarcasm]I'm pretty sure you are right, it would have been such a small community in those buildings that everyone would have known exactly what each other were up to, and new york is such a caring place, where everbody cares about the people around them[/sarcasm]

no one has explained the speed in which the buildings fell. until that happens demolition will always be a possible hypothesis.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[rhys 0]

Quote

Nope. You clearly feel very strongly about this, so I'll bow out and leave you to it.....

before you go, please answer 1 simple question.

Do you think NIST's assertion that the moulten liquid falling from the dameged area of the building just prior to the collapse could in fact be aluminium, is correct?

I know for sure it is not as I have done plenty of casting. It will only glow orange when the heat is held from a oxy acetylene torch or similar in a dark place, not in brad daylight while cooling!

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

Quote

So when are you going to explain how all those people working in the WTC every day didn't notice the thousands of pounds of explosives, miles of cable, dissasembled interior walls and the teams of people for the months it would take to wire up the buildings?

[sarcasm]I'm pretty sure you are right, it would have been such a small community in those buildings that everyone would have known exactly what each other were up to, and new york is such a caring place, where everbody cares about the people around them[/sarcasm]

no one has explained the speed in which the buildings fell. until that happens demolition will always be a possible hypothesis.

So you have no explanation for how the buildings were wired with explosives while thousands worked inside?

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[rhys 0]

Quote

You seem to have missed the link in post 133 of this thread, which incidentally, came from the "peer reviewed" journal to which you linked.

There was no evidence of controlled demolition bringing down WT1, WT2, or WT7. None. The buildings didn't collapse into their own footprints. There was no seismographic evidence of controlled demolition related explosions, despite several seismographs operating in close enough proximity to have detected such explosions. There was no reported evidence of collapse due to controlled demolition within the rubble as it was being cleaned up, despite use of workers with enough experience with controlled demolition cleanup to be able to recognize such evidence.

Occam's Razor supports the official explanation of the building collapses, or one very, very similar to it.

It's not a search for truth when legitimate answers are discarded because they don't fit well with the conspiracy theory (and, no, the official explanation is not a conspiracy theory).

I wanted to study that in more depth before i commented on it, i have read it full and it does sound as though they are speaking truthfully and from experience.

They did not explain the rate in which the buildings fell, but I will not discredit them at this stage.

I have written to AE911truth and am awaiting reply, this is what I sent them;

Quote

Subject: "Brent Blanchard's critical analysis...."

Message: "Hi,

I have spent some time studying these events over
the last few years, recently I found your website
and joined your petition, I am serously
considering offering some financial asitance to
help you and your endeavours. I have had numerous
debates on the subject on this in the speakers
corner of my favorite website dropzone.com which
is a database for skydivers. The usual tin foil
hat comments come out, as well as other valid
points but i'm sure you have heard your fair share
of those.

I have been presented with this study by Brent
Blanchard of imposion world and it 'seems' to
refute the claims of explosives being used, if the
reader takes thier word for it. As they are
experienced demolition guys people including
myself will tend to do so.

http://www.jod911.com/WTC%20COLLAPSE%20STUDY%20BBlanchard%208-8-06.pdf

The most important apect for me is the rate in
which the buildings collapsed, the study seems to
omit this factor but does go at least some way in
explaining other anomolies.

Could you please refer me to some material thet
refutes B. Blanchards statements directly. There
is so much crap out there that it is hard to
filter through it all.

I am a New Zealander but I will be living In
Northern California in a month or so for a period
fo 6 months, i will be training in the San
Francisco wind tunnel and if possible I would like
to come to meet someone that may help some
unanswered questions I still have in person?

If I feel Mr. Blanchard's are incorrect then i
will then be happy to become a financial member of
your website :)

Good Luck at the AIA conference.

Sincerely,

Rhys Kempen"

this thread is really a clincher for me as the whether I donate to these guys and this study is the most respectful study that may refute my beliefs (don't get too excited yet) I am gong to wait and see what they have to say about it. I'm sure they know about it, and have had plenty of time to study, or experiment to refute it.

My thoughts at this stage are this; when I have seen footage of thermate melting steel or whatever, it does not seem to make an loud shockwave as such, but i have not seen a cutter charge. If the aircraft hit the building with explosives already there, what difference would it make to the result if the explosives were to be activated by the impact and resulting fires, and why did they fail to explain the rate in which the buildings fell considering the massive amount of enrgy trnsfer (drag) that wold have been taking place for the building to fall in such a way.

We'll wait and see what Mr Cage has to say about it!

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

[sarcasm]I'm pretty sure you are right, it would have been such a small community in those buildings that everyone would have known exactly what each other were up to, and new york is such a caring place, where everbody cares about the people around them[/sarcasm]

We're talking about hundreds of people dismantling walls and running miles of cable over the floor over a period of a couple months. I'm pretty sure that even an Aussie would notice something like that happening....but maybe not.

Quote

no one has explained the speed in which the buildings fell. until that happens demolition will always be a possible hypothesis.

Try again - until you can explain how the magic gnomes planted all those explosives without anyone in the buildings noticing it, demolition is NOT a possible hypothesis.

I remind you back to your own comment by way of illustration:

Quote

rather than choosing a result and making a model to fit that decision.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rhys 0]

Quote

We're talking about hundreds of people dismantling walls and running miles of cable over the floor over a period of a couple months. I'm pretty sure that even an Aussie would notice something like that happening....but maybe not.

a, i'm a Kiwi
b, do you have blueprints of the building or are you assuming again?

and example of a floor plan in one of the towers.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/plans/doc/pac1TowerA/A-A-148_1.png

there see to be plenty of column that are exposed.

Here is a recource for all of the north towers blueprints.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/plans/table.html

Show me where walls have to be removed to get to them?

You speak as though this has never been thought of. those buliding were HUGE and FUCKING STRONG. It would not necessarily take thousands of charges as some have stated here, but the coulms would have to give in at the same time to result in a collaspe as we saw without leaving at least a good proportion of the colums still standing and the floors collapsed below.

I am going to wait for a reply from AE911truth now.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

no one has explained the speed in which the buildings fell. until that happens demolition will always be a possible hypothesis.

Consider it explained

(For those unable to access YouTube, the gist of the video is that the speed at which the buildings collapsed was exaggerated, and were not "freefall speeds.")

So, there was no evidence of controlled demolition, and the buildings didn't really come down at "freefall speeds." What else do you have?

It seems like the 9/11 conspiracy folks aren't after the truth, they're after 9/11 truthiness.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

do you have blueprints of the building or are you assuming again?

You really didn't read the linked article in post 133 of this thread, did you?

If you are going to proclaim being after the truth, then you have to be willing to acknowledge valid explanations.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[rhys 0]

Quote

You really didn't read the linked article in post 133 of this thread, did you?

read post 159!

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

You really didn't read the linked article in post 133 of this thread, did you?

read post 159!

I've read all of the posts in this thread.

Re: collapse speeds

I'll assume that you've actually timed the collapses yourself, and not relied on Alex Jones or others' stated times. I'll also assume that you timed the collapses using multiple sources of footage for each building, to help ensure that the video speed had not been altered. As I'm sure you are aware, if the collapse times are to be used as evidence that the conclusions of the official investigations are incorrect, care must be taken to ensure that the correct collapse times are obtained.

At the occurrence of which specific event, for each of the three buildings, did you start your chronograph? Similarly, what event signified the end of each collapse, motivating you to stop your chronograph?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[philh 0]

What you are doing is what all conpiracy theorisst do. You anomaly hunt. On dramatic events such as 911 and the moon landings things arent always what one might intuitively expext them to be . So one looks for anomalies and unsuprisingly there are many. That doesnt mean these anomlies dont have a mudane explanation, but its fun for a fantasist to think they have uncovered a conspiracy.
I would highly reccomend you look at this on the moon hoax to give an example:
http://www.clavius.org/

I am not mettalurgist but I know of a guy who is Stephen Chastain , has written many books on foundaries and this is what he had to say:

"The emissivity of aluminum oxide is .44 and also appears orange in the melting temperature range of molten aluminum.

The emissivity of plate glass is .937 It begins to soften at 1000 F and flows around 1350 F. Silica has an emissivity of .8

Copper oxide also has an emissivity of .8. however I will assume that their effect is negligible.

Aluminum oxidizes readily in the foundry under ideal melting conditions. Large surface area relative to thickness, turbulence, the presence of water or oil greatly increases the oxidation of aluminum. A jet airliner is made of thin aluminum sheet and most probably suffered considerable oxidation especially in contact with an open flame and being in contact with jet fuel. If you don't believe this, try melting a few soda cans over coals or open flame. If you are lucky you will end up with only 50% aluminum oxide. However, the cans may completely burn up.

The specific gravity of aluminum is 2.7. The specific gravity of aluminum oxide (Al2O3-3H2O) is 2.42 the specific gravity of Si = 2.40 and Glass is 2.65 these are all very similar and likely to be entrained in a molten aluminum flow. Don't believe it? lightly stir the dross into molten aluminum. The surface tension is so high is is almost impossible to separate them.

THEREFORE assuming that the flow consist of molten aluminum and considerable oxides, and assuming that the windows in the trade center were plate glass and also in a plastic state and that they were also likely entrained in the molten aluminum. I would expect the flow to appear to be orange in color. Especially since both the entrained materials have emissivities equal to or more than twice that of iron.

Also since dross cools to a gray color and glass with impurities also turns dark. I would expect that the flow would darken upon cooling.

I would also suggest that not only is the photo possible, but entirely likely.

Summary: The flow is not steel because the structural steel would fail well below the melting temperature. The flow is likely to be a mixture of aluminum, aluminum oxides, molten glass and coals of whatever trash the aluminum flowed over as it reached the open window. Such a flow would appear orange and cool to a dark color. "

An anomaly? Perhaps but a connspiracy , i dont think so. Its a typical trick, look for the anomalies but dont show any evidene to back up a conspiracy.

Please dont cofnuse our views on Bush with your views on a conspiracy. Im pretty sure most people (and Im sure of myself and Ill bet on Bilvon) who think the conspiracy is paranoid fanatsy do believ Bush misled the Us public on the Iraq, I never supported him or his war. Most poeple in the Uk (where I live) opposed the Iraq war, but do not believe in a conspiracy.

IF YOU LISTEN TO ONLY ONE THING I SAY, PLEASE CONSIDER THIS, GIVE YOUR MONEY TO A GREAT CHARITY LIKE (my personal favourite) MEDCINE SANS FRONTIERE:
http://www.msf.org/
You will save lives by giving to the above charity , you will achieve nothing by giving it to the tin foil hats .

[rhys 0]

Reading you post in it entirety, raises one question,

If you, a random poster on DZ.com can come up with a more plauseable theory than NIST (on the colour of the substance) not say I believe aluminium and glass can combine, never tried but I would seriously doubt it.

why do NIST not say the same as you?

20 million for a vague description of what you threw out in one or two paragraphs of the top of your head...

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[philh 0]

This is what the NIST says on their web site:

"Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface."

Thats pretty consistent with what the metalurgist said the aluminuim oxidesed and combined with other debris to create the orange glow .

[davjohns 1]

I'm interested in how this detailed analysis of small points of possible contention obviates the hundreds of eyewitnesses on location at the time of the event and the hundreds of thousands who watched it live on TV?

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[jakee 1,500]

Quote

I simply observed what I saw, I was not completely shocked about it as intrigued as I was (my peers included) but was sure that the buildings also had explosives from the rate and direction in which they fell. I felt this way before any conspiracy theory came to rise, found it obscure that the investigation stated otherwise

Aha! So you admit that you had a strong pre-conceived notion of what happened before you started researching, and surprise surprise, you've dismissed evidence that contradicts that pre-conceived notion.

Why were you sure that the buildings had explosives in? What experience do you have with explosive demolition of high rise buildings? How do you know what such a unique collapse as the WTC towers should look like if it occured with or without explosives?

Have you read the link that JCD provided, the paper from your own bloody journal, from a highly respected demolitions company who had men on site and seismic equipment operating around NY at the time, that says the collapse looks nothing like a controlled demolition, and that the planting of explosives, covert or otherwise, under such conditions would have been impossible anyway?

What's your response to that?

Quote

I was called all sorts of things in these forums when Iraq was being invaded for stating that it was a mistake, look what happened years later, the very individuals that ridiculed me for implying the USA/GWB admin was corrupt and bullshit artists, now share that same standpoint as me on the subject.

Mate, you're hardly a lone fucking martyr on that front. About half the regular posters on this forum were opposed to the Iraq invasion from day one. Don't try and make out that we should all believe you this time because you were a sole voice of reason last time. That's bullshit.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[rhys 0]

Quote

Aha! So you admit that you had a strong pre-conceived notion of what happened before you started researching, and surprise surprise, you've dismissed evidence that contradicts that pre-conceived notion.

Why were you sure that the buildings had explosives in? What experience do you have with explosive demolition of high rise buildings? How do you know what such a unique collapse as the WTC towers should look like if it occured with or without explosives?

The buildings esantially exploded did they not, The discintegrated infront of all of us. Show me anything close to that in history? Yes they were 110 storys but by the time the buildings had collapsed a few floors there was (heavy) shit flying everywhere and in all directions, it simply looks like an explosion. Remeber how many times we watched that shit when it happened, shitloads!!! and we analised the fuck out if it and from there this whole debate began.

I am not debating this to be stubborn i realy want answers, and yes if you have a pre concieved standpoint it is hard not to support it. That is a fact of life.

Quote

Have you read the link that JCD provided, the paper from your own bloody journal, from a highly respected demolitions company who had men on site and seismic equipment operating around NY at the time, that says the collapse looks nothing like a controlled demolition, and that the planting of explosives, covert or otherwise, under such conditions would have been impossible anyway?

What's your response to that?

you will find a few posts back that I have already responded. Go and see I bet your surprised with my reaction?


So yes I have read it and yes it seems valid. We finally seem to be getting somewhere with this.

Quote

Mate, you're hardly a lone fucking martyr on that front. About half the regular posters on this forum were opposed to the Iraq invasion from day one. Don't try and make out that we should all believe you this time because you were a sole voice of reason last time. That's bullshit.

I never said I was alone, but I was ridiculed right here in these forums by the very people that try to ridicule me this time, that type of conduct/conversation never really achieves anything really does it?

I found these guys;

http://representativepress.org/

Gotta watch this, not quite relevant but still connected to the issue is some respect.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SB4V1sDjyI&feature=PlayList&p=F5026117E154555E&index=0&playnext=1

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[philh 0]

"I'm interested in how this detailed analysis of small points of possible contention obviates the hundreds of eyewitnesses on location at the time of the event and the hundreds of thousands who watched it live on TV? "

it doesnt

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

Quote

For the 3rd time, what do you mean by the term "freefall speed"?

The amount of time it would take an object to fall from a height, with the assistance of gravity, without any significant resistance, aside from the usual resistance of the earths atmosphere.

A strange question from a skydiver?

So, you're saying that "freefall speed" is a measure of time?

A strange answer from a skydiver.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[jakee 1,500]

Quote

The buildings esantially exploded did they not,

No they did not, they fell down. They may have looked like they exploded when the planes hit them, but that because planes hit them.

Quote

Yes they were 110 storys but by the time the buildings had collapsed a few floors there was (heavy) shit flying everywhere and in all directions, it simply looks like an explosion.

Can you even comprehend the forces involved when 15+ storeys of a huge steel and concrete skyscraper start to fall onto the floors below? What experience do you have in the field of explosive demolition that qualifies you to decide that it looked like explosive demolition, not collapse from damage sustained in the crashes and ensuing fire?

Quote

you will find a few posts back that I have already responded. Go and see I bet your surprised with my reaction?

No, I'm not surprised. You've written to your heroes begging for information that could cast doubt on the findings of the genuine experts in the field, and which will therefore allow you to once again ignore anything that doesn't fit your pre-conceived notion.

Quote

I never said I was alone, but I was ridiculed right here in these forums by the very people that try to ridicule me this time, that type of conduct/conversation never really achieves anything really does it?

Nothing will achieved anything with you. Some people have been rude and ridiculed you, others have been polite and used facts, physics and serious research. The end result has always been the same.

(And since you've also ridiculed anyone who doesn't share your paranoid delusions, you should get down from your high horse and stop whingeing.)

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[rhys 0]

Quote

So, you're saying that "freefall speed" is a measure of time?

A strange answer from a skydiver.

"they fell at virtual freefall speed" meaning from when they started to fall until the completed falling.

Terminal velocity would be questionable here due to the displacement of air and the obstruction of fragments of the building and the structure itself.

Still very peculiar, The rate in which they collapsed that is.

If it does turn out to be demolition it was not standad demolitin like WTC7 is more akin to. but in reverese order.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix