Sunday, November 27, 2011

9/11 Truth Versus The BBC



My video editing software hasn't been working for months, then all of a sudden it inexplicably came to life about three weeks ago (although it's still really slow), so I decided to finish a video that I started literally over a year ago. I thought it was time to go back to my roots and make another 9/11 video. At nearly 22 minutes in length, not only is this my longest video by far but it's also the longest I've stretched out one single piece of music. The music is some extended remix of the BBC news theme I found ages ago. Hopefully it won't get on people's nerves too much!

The video contains clips from the following "debunking" sources:

The Conspiracy Files - 9/11. Aired February 2007.
The Conspiracy Files - The Third Tower. Aired June 2008.
The Conspiracy Files - The Third Tower (Updated). Aired October 2008.
The Conspiracy Files - 9/11: Ten Years On. Aired August 2011.
9/11 Conspiracy Road Trip. Aired September 2011.
National Geographic - 9/11: Science and Conspiracy. Aired August 2009.
NECSS 2009 - "The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe" Panel. Filmed September 2009.

It also contains a clip from Ventura's Pentagon episode and footage of me burning the 9/11 Commission Report on 9/11/2010!

BBC claims addressed:

"The official story is "unequivocal"."
"There was ONE routine exercise taking place that morning."
"The planes couldn't be intercepted because their transponders were turned off."
"NORAD only looks outwards."
The straw man that the 9/11 truth movement denies a plane hit the pentagon, thinks the phone calls were fake etc.
"The hijackers could have easily flown the planes into the targets."
"The south side smoke is proof WTC7 was a towering inferno."
"WTC7 did not collapse at free fall."
"The eutectic steel can be explained as a result of burning gypsum."
"The iron microspheres could have come from cutting torches."
"The red-grey chips are paint."
"Thermite can't melt steel and has never been used in demolition."
The discrediting of Barry Jennings' testimony to stepping over dead bodies and his suspicious death.

As you may be aware, more emails from the University of East Anglia have been leaked. One of those emails completely exposes the BBC's bias on the climate change issue:
"We are constantly being savaged by the loonies for not giving them any coverage at all ... and being the objective impartial (ho ho) BBC that we are, there is an expectation in some quarters that we will every now and then let them say something. I hope though that the weight of our coverage makes it clear that we think they are talking through their hats."

~ BBC Environmental Correspondent Alex Kirby to the University of East Anglia's Phil Jones, Dember 7, 2004
Considering all their lies about 9/11, from now on I shall refer to my national broadcaster as "The objective impartial (ho ho) BBC"!

Friday, November 18, 2011

9/11 Truth Movement Trying to Co-opt the Occupy Movement?

Edited 8/15/12 to remove unintended repetition and fix other errors.

Please spread to individual Occupy movement supporters, affiliated groups, websites, and forums.

This is a plea for the Occupy movement to drop any preconceived notions about, and take careful consideration of, forming an alliance with the 9/11 truth movement, specifically the OccupyBuilding7.org campaign, (an offshoot of the RememberBuilding7.org campaign) that is spearheaded by 9/11 family members.

Counter to cries that "9/11 truthers are trying to co-opt the Occupy movement" for our "own fringe uses," these issues are arguably inescapably intertwined and 9/11 truth is far from fringe anymore. I'll start with the latter.

In 2006 a hit piece published by Time magazine stated the perspective that government officials either "allowed the attacks to be carried out or carried out the attacks themselves" is "a mainstream political reality."

That same year it was estimated by 911 family member Bill Doyle, that of the 7,000 member strong communication network he headed exclusively for 9/11 victim's relatives, "probably half believe that 9/11 was an inside job to some extent."

The fact of the matter is, a plethora of polling data conclusively shows there is quite substantial and perpetually expanding skepticism of the official account of 9/11, and that an undoubtedly notable and also ever-growing percentage of this mass of doubters, suspects or is convinced to varying levels, of not just criminal negligence, but complicity and involvement by U.S. officials. This includes a recent poll commissioned by RememberBuilding7 showing that 48% of New Yorkers support a new Building 7 investigation, as well as a poll sponsored by the German magazine Welt der Wunder showing that 89% question 9/11.

A March 30, 2010 article published by the Centre for Research on Globalisation notes that "figures translate to about 100 million Americans that question or find fault with the official 9/11 story, far from a trivial number and far too many to dismiss as conspiracy nuts and part of the lunatic fringe. This is the important message that merits public appreciation." An article published the prior month demonstrated that indeed the blind disregard of the topic was waning due to the "increasing influence of the 9/11 truth movement," noting, "In the past year, in response to emerging independent science on the 9/11 attacks, nine corporate, seven public, and two independent media outlets aired analytic programs investigating the official account. Increasingly, the issue is treated as a scientific controversy worthy of debate, rather than as a 'conspiracy theory' ignoring science and common sense."

The problems with the official 9/11 story that have sparked this paradigm shift are many and include the fact that official government documents show no shoot-down orders were issued until after the attacks were already over, a timespan of over two hours. However, the only officials that could have given such an order, former President Bush and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, have lied and stated a shoot-down order was given earlier than it is documented to have been.

Then there is the physical and forensic evidence (the government admits doing no forensic tests) cited by the current 1,637 architectural and engineering professionals at ae911truth.org, whose supporters have been reaching out to protesters at Occupy events.

And the 9/11 foreknowledge continues to stack up, for instance just this year a government whistle-blower revealed that intelligence activities between the summer of 2000 and June 2001 revolved around al-Qaeda's interest in striking the Pentagon, the World Trade Center, and other targets. However, this and other information was withheld from Congress.

Now, what do these movements have in common?

A 2006 post on GeorgeWashington.blogspot.com asked the same question still on many people's minds in 2011, "How did we get into the economic downturn?," as to the answer, GW writes:
Iraq

Let's start with Iraq. Why are we in Iraq? WMDs, you say!

Actually, President Bush's March 18, 2003 letter to Congress authorizing the use of force against Iraq, includes the following paragraph.

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001...

The economy is on everyone's mind right now. What possible connection can there be between the economy and 9/11 -- when 9/11 occurred years ago?

Well, many top economists - such as Nobel laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz - say that the high cost of war in Iraq is the cause of the current slowdown in the U.S. Therefore, if the false linkage of Iraq and 9/11 was the reason Congress "authorized" war, and if the war is the reason for the current economic downturn, then false statements about 9/11 are one of the reasons our country is currently in an economic slump.
On May 16, 2002, an MSNBC News report revealed that:
President Bush was expected to sign detailed plans for a worldwide war against al-Qaida two days before Sept. 11 but did not have the chance before the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, U.S. and foreign sources told NBC News.

The document, a formal National Security Presidential Directive, amounted to a “game plan to remove al-Qaida from the face of the earth,” one of the sources told NBC News’ Jim Miklaszewski.

The plan dealt with all aspects of a war against al-Qaida, ranging from diplomatic initiatives to military operations in Afghanistan, the sources said on condition of anonymity.
And the Seattle Post reported this stunning admission on January 12, 2004:
President Bush acknowledged for the first time yesterday that he was mapping preparations to topple Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein as soon as he took office.

Bush's comments came in response to former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill's contention in a new book that the chief executive was gunning for Saddam nine months before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and two years before the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
As lawyer and author Vincent Bugliosi has stated, "if there had been no 9/11 there would have been no war in Iraq, certainly not one the American people would have approved of."

See the recent article from WashingtonsBlog, "Iran War Threats, Militarization of American Police and Spying on Americans All Started BEFORE 9/11."

So, 9/11 was used to justify two economically debilitating conflicts, one of which has expanded to Pakistan, the other of which was based on a proven lie and both of which were planned pre-911.

It isn't crazy to view thesupposed coincidental convenience offered by 9/11-- for easily achieving goals (including the Patriot Act, written long before 9/11)which otherwise would have been hard going if not impossible -- as too astounding to be true and thus evidence for complicity.

As one of the original popular 9/11 truth protest signs reads, Expose the 9/11 Cover-up - Fiscal Ruin... Endless War... Only 9/11 Truth Will Set US Free.

From OccupyBuilding7:
The Occupy Wall Street movement is a much needed response to decades of growing inequality, financial deregulation, and zero accountability for the crimes that brought about our current economic crisis. Millions throughout the nation and across globe who feel they have no voice in our political system have come to embrace “Occupy” as an expression of their anger, frustration and hope.

September 11, 2001 - the day our country was hijacked and a permanent war was launched that will not end in our lifetime unless we the 99% stop it.

Ten years later the War on Terrorism has diverted trillions of dollars from more important uses and sunken our country into debt.

Building 7, which most people don’t know about, came crashing to the ground at 5:20pm on September 11th. Today, millions of citizens and 1,600 courageous architects and engineers are demanding an investigation into the suspect destruction of this skyscraper.

The government's absurd story that "normal office fires" felled this 47-story skyscraper is only the tip of the iceberg of the anomalies and inconsistencies we've been given about 9/11."
We aren't co-opting anything; we are the 99%.

Corbett Report Radio 011 – Occupy Building 7 with Ted Walter, Plus Updates on the Campaign

Wednesday, November 16, 2011

Corbett Report Radio 011 – Occupy Building 7 with Ted Walter, Plus Updates on the Campaign and Related Info

September 11, 2001 - the day our country was hijacked and a permanent war was launched that will not end in our lifetime unless we the 99% stop it.

Ten years later the War on Terrorism has diverted trillions of dollars from more important uses and sunken our country into debt.

Corbett Report Radio features Ted Walter of OccupyBuilding7.org, the latest idea from the Remember Building 7 campaign for raising awareness about WTC7, the third skyscraper to fall on 9/11/2001. ( Only covers Occupy Building 7 section. For full radio report: http://www.corbettreport.com/corbett-report-radio-011-occupy-building-7-with-ted-walter/ )





The Occupy Wall Street movement is a much needed response to decades of growing inequality, financial deregulation, and zero accountability for the crimes that brought about our current economic crisis. Millions throughout the nation and across globe who feel they have no voice in our political system have come to embrace “Occupy” as an expression of their anger, frustration and hope.

Source:

http://911blogger.com/news/2011-11-06/its-time-occupy-building-7

Wednesday, November 16 update from RememberBuilding7.org, formerly known as BuildingWhat.org: (Click here for a blog post demonstrating that responses from a prominent "debunker" to the evidence pages at RememberBuilding7 are very misleading and false.)

Stand with OWS Tomorrow, Occupy Building 7 This Weekend

Occupy Building 7 Will Go Ahead As Planned

Stand in Solidarity with OWS on Thursday, November 17

Stand in solidarity with Occupy Wall Street following their eviction from Liberty Plaza and join the explosion of Occupy energy this weekend by occupying Building 7 and demanding once and for all a real investigation into the events of 9/11.

Details:

Thursday, 7:00am (or anytime) until late: Show your support for Occupy Wall Street on the two-month anniversary of this historic movement’s beginning by marching from Liberty Plaza to the New York Stock Exchange. At 5pm assemble at Foley Square and march to the Brooklyn Bridge. Distribute Occupy Building 7 fliers to thousands of occupiers and other New Yorkers, and let them know we the 99% stand in solidarity with them. Click to download the Occupy Building 7 fliers.

11:00am Saturday: Begin assembling by the tall red sculpture at the southeast corner of Liberty Plaza (the corner of Broadway and Cedar St.). Hand out thousands of Occupy Building 7 fliers to occupiers and passers by, and invite them to occupy Building 7 with us.

Noon Saturday: Depart for the rebuilt World Trade Center Building 7, just four blocks away.

12:15-12:30pm Saturday: Occupy the park in front of Building 7 and remain there until nightfall.

2:00pm Saturday: Join the Occupy Building 7 General Assembly and be a part of shaping the future of Occupy Building 7.

Sunday: same schedule. Start assembling at the tall red sculpture at 11:00am. Depart for Building 7 at noon. Occupy until nightfall. General Assembly at 2:00pm.

If you are coming from out of town and looking for free lodging on Friday or Saturday night, email us at info@OccupyBuilding7.org.

This weekend will mark the beginning of something extraordinary. Inspired and in solidarity with the Occupy Wall Street movement, what we build will seriously threaten to bring the public’s full attention to the destruction of World Trade Center Building 7 and put the official account of 9/11 on its last legs. And in so doing we will contribute immensely to the Occupy movement’s push for economic and social justice. Let’s go make history.

OccupyBuilding7.org

Follow on Twitter - Like on Facebook - Visit OccupyBuilding7.org

Related Info:


My Hopes For The Occupy Movement - 911 Truth News

The One Percent - "This 80-minute documentary focuses on the growing 'wealth gap' in America, as seen through the eyes of filmmaker Jamie Johnson, a 27-year-old heir to the Johnson & Johnson pharmaceutical fortune." - Source

The Tea Party Is Wrong on Occupy Wall Street by David Franke - Franke was one of the founders of the conservative movement in the 1950s and 1960s.

Why OWS needs Michael Bloomberg - Countdown with Keith Olbermann on Current TV - In a Special Comment, Keith contextualizes Mayor Bloomberg's actions against Occupy Wall Street at Zuccotti Park and how they have - unintentionally - vaulted the movement from a local nuisance to a global platform for the disenfranchised.

Friday, November 4, 2011

Thermite Has Never Been Used in Building Demolition?

"Thermite has never been used in building demolition." - [9/11] Critical Thinking For Dummies - Controlled Demolition by "Juniversal" at the JREF Forum

Popular Mechanics Ignores Its Own Historical Records of Thermite Demolition: Destruction of Skyride Towers, Reichstag Dome Set Incendiary Precedent

Written by Eli Rika
Friday, 04 November 2011 13:41

The editors at Popular Mechanics have made a name for themselves as ardent defenders of the official 9/11 story. Editor-in-Chief James Meigs and contributing writers have presented articles in the magazine that dismiss the scientific evidence of controlled demolition of the WTC skyscrapers and characterize the discovery of thermitic residue in the WTC dust as insignificant. However, a recent review of the Popular Mechanics archives has revealed that this “world-renowned” publication reported on the use of thermite to bring down steel structures over 75 years ago...

A search through national news archives has brought up another famous example of thermite-assisted demolition... The steel-framed roof of the German Reichstag, which survived arson in 1933 and Allied bombardment during World War II, was felled by thermite charges in 1954.

Read the entire article here.

FAQ #7 – Sounds of Explosions?

This video, pulled from the NIST archives, reveals sounds of explosions that corroborate the eyewitness testimonies of explosive sounds at WTC7

Written by John-Michael Talboo
http://ae911truth.org
Friday, 04 November 2011 13:02

Question:
Why weren't the sounds that were heard during the destruction of the WTC skyscrapers on 9/11 as loud as the blasts heard in videos of acknowledged controlled demolitions?

Answer:
As 9/11 researcher Jim Hoffman points out at 911research.com, the continuous and rapid explosions of the Twin Towers would make distinct explosions nearly impossible to hear, except perhaps by those who were right next to the Towers. A news clip from Fox shows witnesses in midtown NYC stating that the explosive roar of the Towers’ demise sounded like “another large aircraft flying overhead.” These roaring sound waves were heard miles away.

Furthermore, sounds strongly suggesting explosions can indeed be heard in numerous videos of the towers' destruction, including these videos of WTC 1 and WTC 2 obtained via a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed against NIST by the International Center for 9/11 Studies. Similar sounds can be heard in videos of the destruction of WTC 7, such as this one, which has been analyzed by physics instructor David Chandler. These new videos of the Towers corroborate the many eyewitness reports describing loud pops and other explosive noises at the onset of the destruction. These reports were also obtained through an FOIA lawsuit, their release having been denied by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey when first requested by the New York Times.

Those who would still contend the sounds heard on 9/11 were not on par with acknowledged controlled demolitions should note a peer-reviewed paper by Danish chemist Niels Harrit, Ph.D., and other scientists, which documented that active thermitic materials were present in the WTC dust. The partially ignited and unignited residue of this energetic material indicates that thermite and nanothermite played a significant role in the destruction of the WTC skyscrapers. The literature on these materials states that their shockwave characteristics can be "tuned" for various purposes, which might include reducing the overall volume or sharpness of the blast sounds. Such a capability would make these materials ideal for use in “deceptive” controlled demolitions, in which the muted blast sounds would instinctively be blamed by at least some observers on the buildings' floors hitting each other as part of a "natural" collapse.

Thursday, November 3, 2011

The Trapping of Screw Loose Change

November 3, 2011
by Jeffrey Strahl
911truth.org

Dear Readers,
Please submit your comments on this article at the link at Amazon, here, as provided below by Mr. Strahl.
911Truth.org published this article; the author is not available to be reached through email to this site. We look forward to reading your comments there. – Ed.


In mid-October 2011, I posted a review of David Ray Griffin's new book, 9/11 Ten Years Later -- When State Crimes Against Democracy Succeed at Amazon, here.

[Related Info: David Ray Griffin's Fake Phone Calls from the 9/11 Planes Theory Debunked Again]

This review drew comments from James B, one of the two top people at Screw Loose Change, a leading "debunking" website used as a reference by many an internet opponent of 9/11 truth. The result was a major debunking of Screw Loose Change. This piece is intended to help those who in the future will go up against the likes of Screw Loose Change, since the trap's nature is both the content of the SLC argument as well as its form. The focus of our exchange was the evidence regarding events at the World Trade Center (WTC) on 9/11, where three steel frame high-rises were destroyed. This is the part of my review which is relevant to the debate:

Being someone with an engineering degree, it's no surprise that I find the strongest part to be Chapters 2 through 4, which deal with the three steel hi-rises which came down on 9/11. Chapter 2 has been posted previously on the web as an article, a challenge to left-leaning despisers of 9/11 truth to explain nine apparent miracles required to explain how the official story could be made congruent with the physical evidence. It is quite telling that none of the prominent left commentators mentioned have responded to this challenge. Not even the web "debunkers" such as Screw Loose Change have been able to explain how heat caused sudden onset failure, something which is impossible, given the nature of heat as heightened molecular activity which can only lead to gradual failure preceded by softening and sagging, in contrast to extreme cold (e.g. liquid nitrogen application) which sucks out energy from molecular activity, or of course demolition. None of them have been able to explain the presence of molten molybdenum and vaporized lead and steel, or even to make a coherent argument as to the presence of molten iron, even though NIST's own investigators failed to find steel samples subjected to fires which were heated to the point at which structural steel loses 50% of its strength, 1112 deg F, let alone melt structural steel. In fact, hardly any of the samples even made it to 500 deg F. And there has been little response to WTC7 falling at free fall acceleration for at least 2.5 seconds, something NIST said was impossible, or the horizontal ejections of large steel beams, or any of the other key bits of evidence.

In Chapter 3, Griffin takes on Bill Moyers and Robert Parry and their complete failure to deal with the WTC evidence. In Chapter 4, he discusses the Building What campaign to publicize the facts behind WTC7. Debunkers should be challenged to explain all this material.


A bit of background regarding the presence of molten iron and molybdenum, and vaporized lead and steel in the WTC dust and debris: A steel beam recovered from WTC7, the third tower which was destroyed on 9/11, though not hit by a plane nor subject to a serious fire, was examined by a team of engineering professors from Worcester Polytechnic Institute, which identified the beam as being clearly from WTC7 due to the type of steel used. They found evidence of a eutectic reaction, i.e., the penetration of the beam's steel by sulfur, which resulted in such severe erosion of the beam that the steel had holes in it. The presence of sulfur is itself a mystery, but so is the fact that this reaction required a temperature of 1,000 deg C (1,832 deg F), far in excess of what even NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology), the government agency which carried out the official investigation of the WTC, stated was present. By the way, NIST stated air temperatures during the fires as if they were metal temperatures, when in fact it takes a long time for a fire of a certain temperature to heat steel to the same level, given the high thermal conductivity of steel. In addition, the steel was partially vaporized, a phenomenon which requires a temperature of 2,861 deg C (5,182 deg F). The report on this beam was included in the 2002 FEMA report on the WTC, the initial government investigation. But NIST's 2008 report on WTC7, which noted the FEMA report and incorporated much of it, left out the part on the WPI investigation, and indeed stated that no steel was recovered from WTC7.

The dust created by the destruction of the WTC towers was analyzed by several different entities. One was the RJ Lee Group, a laboratory hired by Deutsche Bank, whose building's roof had lots of this dust deposited on it. The bank wanted to demonstrate that the dust came from the WTC for insurance purposes. The investigation, which verified the WTC origin of the dust, found a large percentage of molten iron in the form of spheres, 5.87%, vs. 0.04% iron content in normal building dust. This "normal" iron content also does not take the form of spheres. Such a form requires steel/iron to be melted and tossed in the air, which as with all fluids results in the liquid drops taking a spherical shape to minimize surface tension. This led the investigators to conclude that the iron had melted during the event. The melting point of iron is 1,538 deg C (2,800 deg F). RJ Lee also found evidence of vaporized lead, which requires a temperature of 1,749 deg C (3,180 deg F). The dust was also investigated by the US Geological Survey (USGS), which also found the extremely high level of iron, and also discovered evidence of molten molybdenum, which requires a temperature of 2,623 deg C (4,753 deg F). This was not made public until a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit by a team of scientists forced the disclosure. In addition, there were numerous reports of large pools of molten iron/steel under the site of the WTC towers, lasting for weeks. NASA satellites detected extremely hot spots underground.

Screw Loose Change (SLC) has managed to come up with "explanations" for just about everything that happened on 9/11, both the physical evidence and other. Most of these make no sense. Some are absolutely laughable. Those who would rather deny the fact that 9/11 was an inside job are OK with any explanation which appears to confirm their "skepticism," and gladly grasp onto anything, however spurious, offered as "9/11 truth debunking." But SLC has been totally silent, or at least evasive, regarding the evidence for molten and/or vaporized metals. I believe this is because this evidence is the Achilles heel of the official story.

Without knowing a full inventory of the weapons in the arsenal of the US armed forces, including special operations units and the CIA, and without having full access to the evidence, one cannot reach a complete conclusion as to what created such high temperatures. Nanothermite was indeed detected in ample amounts in the WTC dust, but it may not represent the full story. This is why I avoid attributing the evidence to any particular weapon. Such attribution is unnecessary. We do know that only three possible explanations are possible: volcanic activity, proximity to a hot star like the sun, and explosives and/or incendiary devices. The first two causes can be ruled out. By deductive reasoning, this leaves us with the third, however much we may not like the conclusion.

Links to the information I have provided can be found at the following two articles by David Ray Griffin: "The Mysterious Collapse of WTC Seven," September 14, 2009, and "Left Leaning Despisers of 9/11 Truth: Do You Really Believe in Miracles?," July 6, 2010.

What follows is the exchange, with some of my comments in brackets. I left out comments by others. I tried to keep the original exchange as complete as possible so one can get its full flavor. Some readers may wonder why all the repetitions have been kept intact. I'm doing so because leaving them in demonstrates how James B. and Screw Loose Change evade questions, repeatedly bring up arguments that have already been discredited in the specific debate, and attempt the same lying via quoting out of context and false attribution.

This is intended to help those who in the future will go up against the likes of Screw Loose Change, since the trap's nature is both the content of the SLC argument as well as its form. I edited down repeat quotations by both myself as well as James B, leaving them in full only where these quotes are necessary for context. I also left out most of my "trapped rat" remarks, which are OK in the context of the debate, but need not be repeated as often. The full exchange can, of course, be viewed at the Amazon review; the URL is provided at the very beginning of this article.

To offer feedback on this piece, please click the Amazon review URL and post comments there. Please make note if you are doing so as a result of reading this piece at 911Truth.org, and be sure to quote sections relevant to your comment, as appropriate.

James B says:

"Not even the web "debunkers" such as Screw Loose Change..... or of course demolition."

But it was a gradual collapse. If you read the NIST reports there are numerous photos showing the sagging trusses pulling the perimeter beams in. FDNY helicopters reported seeing the tops of the buildings start to sag minutes before the collapse. FDNY personnel at WTC7 detected the building leaning and making creaking noises hours before it collapsed. Why do you ignore all of this?

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

Fantasies. A "leaning" building does not fall down in perfect symmetry. NIST in fact did not in its report show any fires persisting more than a couple of hours in any part of WTC7. Videos do not show any of the towers with "sagging tops." For an actual case of what happens to a hi-rise overwhelmed by fire, see the Windsor Building in Madrid, about the same size as WTC7, burned for 24 hours, had some floors collapse, it demonstrated visible sagging, but it did not fall. "Gradual collapse" takes hours, not even a few minutes, pieces of the towers weren't falling off, one second the buildings were still, the next second they were going down.

And you have not explained in the least the presence of molten iron, molten molybdenum, vaporized lead, vaporized steel. Don't expect any help from Screw Loose Change on that.

The fires in all three buildings were asymmetric. This would result in asymmetric damage. Asymmetric damage cannot cause a symmetric collapse, simply physics. This is why demolition is a careful process, it's very hard to bring down a structure symmetrically.

Fact is, the steel samples NIST examined showed hardly any of them reached even 250 deg C (482 F), none reached the point (600 C, 1112 F) at which steel loses half its strength. The fires in WTC2 were so weak they were near going out when the building fell, two fire crews reported being able to easily take care of them on radio right before the destruction. People walked down past the impact zone without experiencing an inferno.

And why don't you explain the WTC7 free fall while you're at it? Or horizontal ejections? Or the tops of the two main towers being shredded at the very beginning of each destruction, precluding their acting as "pile drivers," the core of the official story? If you're planning a long process of nit-picking, it won't work.
And you have not explained in the least the presence of molten iron, molten molybdenum, vaporized lead, vaporized steel.

James B. Says:
"Fact is, the steel samples NIST examined ..... so weak they were near going out "

Uhh, which is it? You can't keep a coherent narrative for two paragraphs.
[This is very typical of how SLC deals with questions on its website, trying to insult the intelligence of anyone who diverges from its correct line, which is the official story]

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

No, it is you who cannot read. NIST examined samples of structural steel which showed fire damage, as i stated in the review. The fact that these samples didn't reach high temperatures at all, even for building fires, demonstrates that the fires didn't get all that hot, which makes the presence of the molten and vaporized metals even more of a blatant contradiction of the official story. The hottest possible hydrocarbon fires, under prime conditions (isolation, carefully regulated fuel supply, forcing of pressurized air) wouldn't be able to come up with the temperatures necessary to account for the molten/vaporized metals, but in fact these fires weren't even hot hydrocarbon fires. It's clear that something else caused those metals to melt or vaporize.

James B. Says:

Dude, either temperatures got that hot, or they didn't. You are proposing some Schroedinger's cat scenario where temperatures did not get above 250 degrees, but were somehow above 3000. So either NIST was wrong (or you are misquoting them, which you actually are, but I will skip that topic for the moment because it is fun screwing with idiots) or temperatures did not reach as hot as you are claiming. It can't be both.
[This is a common tactic of "debunkers," and even of some who call themselves "9/11 truth activists" who contend the WTC was not brought down by demolition. They attempt to respond to this contradiction by making it seem as if "truthers" are trying to have it both ways, have temperatures be fairly low and quite high at the same time. It's an attempt to obfuscate.]

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

No, you are either thick beyond belief or you are just trying to troll and are desperate. "Temperatures" in the abstract isn't the question here. The fire temperatures and fires-caused steel temperatures is one thing, whereas temperatures required to explain the molten/vaporized metals is totally another. The fires did not heat the vast majority (98%) of inspected fire-affected steel to 250 deg C (482 F), and none of it to the point where steel softens significantly (50% loss of strength), which is 600 deg C (1112 F). Yet there is evidence of molten and vaporized metals which require temps of 2800 deg F (molten iron), 3100+ deg F (vaporized lead), 4700+ deg F (molten molybdenum) and over 5000 deg F (vaporized steel). This evidence can therefore not be accounted for by the fires which erupted due to the plane impacts. Something else besides the fires melted and/or vaporized those metals. Surely this would be easy to understand even for someone with no science or math beyond 7th grade.

If someone traveled between two spots at a rate which suggested they had to move at over 1000 mph, and they allegedly did so by a car, and the car shows no evidence of being able to travel faster than 120 mph, and in fact no evidence it even reached 60 mph, there is no Schroedinger's cat scenario, they simply didn't travel with that car.

And do prove the "misquote," if you dare, the numbers are out of the NIST report. See http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html#exaggeration

James B. Says:

No, this happens because the average Truther has the reading comprehension of an overcaffeinated Chihuahua. NIST did not say that the beams were not heated above 250 degrees, but that the beams which had enough paint on them to be identified as having come from the targeted area were not heated above 250 degrees. Any beams heated above that temperature did not have paint, thus they could not identify where they came from.

This Truther logic is kind of like saying that the police interviewed the survivors from a mass shootings, and none of the survivors reported that they were fatally shot, therefore nobody died.

"It must be recognized that the examined locations represent less than one percent of the core columns located in the fire-exposed region, and thus these temperatures cannot be considered representative of general conditions in the core."

From the NIST report. You might want to try and read it.

http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire05/PDF/f05130.pdf

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

First of all, what temperatures the fires heated the steel to is irrelevant to the core argument i challenged you with. Not even NIST claims that the fires were hotter than some 1400 deg F (which does not directly translate to metal temperatures, see below). And even this temperature would still make it impossible to explain the molten/vaporized metals as being the result of these fires. Using the car analogy from above, even if you can prove the car did travel at 120 mph, that would still not explain how the person could have traveled between two points in such time as to have required a speed of 1000 mph. Nothing can explain such temperatures except explosive and/or incendiary devices.

NIST pleading the small size of the samples is like a guy murdering his parents and then pleading for mercy on the basis that he's an orphan. It was the decision of the US government together with the city government of New York to destroy almost all the structural steel except for these few samples, to ship it all off to China in violation of city, state and national arson laws, in the face of loud protests by Fire Engineering Magazine and other professional organizations.

NIST has no material evidence of steel heated to over 600 deg C., indeed hardly any of steel heated above 250 C. Its conclusion that steel was heated above that point is strictly the result of mathematical models, and we know thanks to whisteblowing that these models were tortured, manipulated to create such temperatures. NIST of course refuses to provide details of its models. We do know how NIST's video model of its WTC7 report is totally at odds with actual videos of WTC7's fall, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuyZJl9YleY
NIST also has tried confounding air temperatures during the fires and steel temperatures, as if structural steel doesn't conduct away heat very efficiently, as if it doesn't take a long time to heat steel, as if the fires were really that hot for very long, as if the fires actually lasted a long time at all.

But again, the key point is that the fires can in no way explain the molten/vaporized metals evidence. This is why Screw Loose Change has avoided the question.

James B. Says:

You claim it was heated above 3000. Make up your freaking mind. Your lack of comprehension is not my problem.

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

It was quite clear that i was talking about steel heated by fires, not of steel in general. Indeed, NIST has no material evidence of steel heated by fires to over 600 deg C (1112 F), and hardly any of steel heated by fires to over 250 deg C (482 F). And yet, there is evidence of molten structural steel/iron, vaporized lead, molten molybdenum, and vaporized steel. These require respectively temps of around 2800 F, 3100+ F, 4700+ F and over 5000 F. And i suspect you comprehend this perfectly well, but are simply trying to obfuscate matters and change the topic so you won't have to explain the molten/vaporized metals.

NIST knew perfectly well about a steel beam from WTC7 which showed evidence of sulfidation, with holes in it, investigated by a team from Worcester Polytechnic Institute, reported on in the FEMA 2002 report on the WTC and discussed even in the New York Times. The team knew this beam was from WTC7 and stated so, having recognized the signature of the WTC7 steel. Yet NIST's report on WTC7 claimed no steel was recovered from the structure, thus avoiding discussing this beam, which showed evidence of vaporization as well.

You are trying to avoid dealing with the molten/vaporized metals, Screw Loose Change has consistently done so. This is a clear signal that it cannot deal with this evidence, and hopes it goes away. It won't. I'll keep reminding readers that you are unable to deal with it.

James B says:

Actually we have done dozens, if not hundreds of stories on supermagiconanothermite, to the point that I got tired of discussing the subject. It is a magical amorphous subject which to Truthers can have any properties. It is an explosive, it is an incendiary, it can be painted on, it is invisible, it is fire resistant, it is undetectable by any known means! Arguing it with Truthers is kind of like arguing the properties of unicorn horns with a Harry Potter fan.

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

You are once again trying to change the topic, it won't work. Fact is, there was evidence of molten structural steel/iron, vaporized lead, molten molybdenum, and vaporized steel. These require respectively temperatures of around 2800 deg F, 3100+ F, 4700+ F and over 5000 F. All these temperatures are way in excess of any possible temperatures achievable in hydrocarbon fires (as in the fires which erupted in the buildings after the plane impacts, or in WTC7 supposedly due to debris from WTC1), let alone the temperatures that were actually observed in any of the steel samples examined by NIST. The melting and/or vaporizing of the metals was not the result of the fires, but of something else, and there is no logical alternative to the cause being explosive and/or incendiary devices. NIST knew of the evidence for these molten/vaporized metals, but avoided the question. And you are doing the same.

James B, you are like a rat caught in a trap which continues to bare its teeth and act as if it's capable of inflicting damage, fully knowing it cannot move. You will try to talk about everything, including the kitchen sink, in trying to avoid dealing with this, but you won't succeed. You are trapped. It is inevitable that when you defend a story full of holes, you will eventually fall into one of the holes.

James B says:

I think it was ground up unicorn horns. They are known to burn at high temperatures.

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

It's fun to watch the rat squirm and squeal and otherwise try to pretend it isn't hopelessly trapped. The more the rat does this, the tighter the trap's grip.

I have long told people that Screw Loose Change's obvious evasion of the molten/vaporized metals evidence shows the best thing to hit them with. Great to finally do so and watch them ground to a halt. Screw Loose Change is finished. My advice to them: shut down the site, open a new one under new names, this way they will able to get away with what they've been doing for a bit longer, till they're exposed again.

We could of course start talking about other stuff which will act as a trap for them, like WTC7 free fall. But it's too much fun watching them squirm.

James B says:

Uhh yeah, because I run my blog, and even my life based on the ignorant comments of random people on the Internet... Oh yes, you have caught me, if you keep us this cunning game the Truth movement will continue its 10 year success of accomplishing absolutely nothing other than breaking up marriages and embarrassing itself in front of relatives.

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

Watch the rat really squirm and squeal even louder as the trap holding it is lowered into a bucket full of water. It's obvious you have nothing to say to counter the molten/vaporized metals evidence. Even your joke about the unicorn horns was recycled, you wheeled it out months ago on your blog in an attempt to respond to a question about molten molybdenum, which you never responded to. At Screw Loose Change, you were able to get away with not answering. Here you won't. The world's watching. Screw Loose Change stands exposed as fraud.

James B says:

The world is watching? Dude, there are like 3 people commenting on this thread, and you and I are 2 of them. Have delusions of grandeur much?

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

A lot of people read this without commenting. And everyone who reads this or hears about it will find out that Screw Loose Change is totally tongue-tied when it comes to the evidence of molten/vaporized metals.

James B. Says:

Oh yes, I am well aware of Truther JAQing off, where you Just Ask Questions, without having to actually take a stand on anything, thus they can conveniently never be wrong! It is not science, science involves making falsifiable claims, it is religion.

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

More squealing from the trapped rat. The points at which metals melt or vaporize are known facts, and this is hard core science. The temperatures required for these are far above anything remotely possible with hydrocarbon fires. No way to produce such temperatures without direct human intervention, barring a volcano which somehow remained undetected by everybody, or a star like the sun approaching the WTC site.
The only possible explanation for this molten/vaporized metals evidence is the use of explosive and/or incendiary devices. Any such evidence at a scene of a fire would normally require an investigation for explosives or accelerants, per the national fire protection code. This is a firm scientific conclusion. I won't accuse you of "religion," you are simply trying to evade dealing with evidence which you obviously cannot deal with.

James B says:

Yes, I am well aware of Harrit's "science" in which he made the shocking discovery of finding rust and aluminum in the debris from a collapsed building. He then paid $800 to some online journal based out of Pakistan to get his paper published in such a sloppy process that the editor of said journal was not even aware of the paper and resigned in protest after the fact. That is what you call "science".

And yes, normally you would look for sign of accelerants, if you didn't know what caused the fire. In this case even the most dimwitted observer can figure out that the fire was caused by a jetliner crashing into both of the buildings. It was in the all papers.

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

This is not an actual rat trap, but a virtual one. Unlike with a real trap, the rat can actually leave any time. But at the same time, every time it comes back, it ends up trapped as tightly as it was when it left. A real rat which managed to escape a trap wouldn't return to it, but then we know that rats are smarter than some people. This virtual trap is in fact what a cat would design, as this way it can torture the rat forever without having it die, ending the fun.

James B talks of "religion." Given that he believes in some miracles, including the presence of molten and/or vaporized metals without apparent reason, he is the one relying upon religion, a mystical belief in the official conspiracy story.

"And yes, normally you would look for sign of accelerants, It was in the all papers."

So we see on TV someone getting punched in the face. An hour later, his head explodes. A dimwitted observer like James can figure out that the head exploded because of the punch. A more intelligent observer would inquire whether there's any evidence that the victim was shot in the head by something. An independent investigator has found bullet fragments in the brain. The dimwitted observer insists that these fragments mean nothing, in fact refuses to explain them.
Again, the fires caused by the plane impacts could not have caused metals to melt and/or vaporize. The finding of such evidence should have led investigators to inquire why it was present. The guidelines clearly state that evidence of molten (let alone vaporized) metals should lead to investigation, since the apparent causes *may not provide a full explanation.* In fact, they may have had nothing to to with what happened.
You keep trying to change the topic to the fires. Forget it, you've been trapped. The fires cannot explain this evidence. And neither can you. So keep squealing, it's fun to watch.

James B. Says:

Once again, you claim that NIST said that they found no evidence of beams being heated over 250 degrees. Additionally none of the thousands of firemen, police officers, demolition contractors, FEMA workers, NIST investigators or FBI agents found any signs of the use of explosives such as detonators, triggering devices, shaped charges, det cord, nor were there any recordings of the effects of these massive explosions such as warped metal or deafening explosions which should blow out every window within blocks. How can they respond to evidence which you say they did not find?

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

You are again trying to change the conversation. The evidence in discussion here is the evidence of the presence of molten/vaporized metals. Given the temperatures necessary to melt and/or vaporize these metals are FAR higher than anything remotely achievable via the hottest possible hydrocarbon fires, and the absence of either a volcano or a nearby hot star, only explosives and/or incendiary devices could have been responsible for the presence of these molten/vaporized metals. Do you dare deny the existence of this evidence?

As for your totally false assertions above.
" they found no evidence of beams being heated over 250 degrees." I have in fact repeatedly stated in this regard that this refers to heating *by the fires.* As for signs of the use of explosives, none of the investigators looked for such evidence, after all as a NIST spokesperson said that they knew it wasn't there, so why bother looking.

But this is besides the point here. There is indeed lots of evidence for molten/vaporized metals. You haven't been able in the least to explain this evidence, in fact you keep trying your hardest to not deal with it, to shift the conversation. It won't work. Your further squirming will only tighten the trap.

James B says:

The whole site was looked through with a fine tooth comb. They trucked all the debris out to Fresh Kills where the FBI literally sifted through it, pulling out remains and such. Somehow they missed all that det cord. I have seen thermite used in military grenades. Aside from the fact that it is not used in building demolitions, it produces very distinctive marks. As do shaped charges (aside from the unmistakably loud boom). There is no way thousands of first responders could have missed these distinctive signs on thousands of beams. One beam which was sulfidized in a eutectic reaction, which in no way was related to the actual collapse of the building, does not a controlled demolition make.

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

Your claim that the sulfidized beam due to a eutectic reaction is "not related to the actual collapse of the building" is an assertion not backed by anything. There is also the fact that NIST failed to mention it and instead claimed that no steel was recovered from WTC7, when the team investigating this beam stated that it was easy to tag as being from WTC7. And there is no mention of the temperature required for such a reaction, far higher than any fire temperatures claimed even by NIST. Nor is there a mention of the fact that this beam was "partially vaporized."

And besides, this beam is not the only evidence of molten/vaporized metals, far from it. Again, the squealing trapped rat tries to shift the conversation away from the topic at hand. Let us remind him and anyone who might be fooled by him what this topic is: the presence in the dust and site debris of molten and vaporized steel/iron, vaporized lead, and molten molybdenum. These require temperatures far in excess of what hydrocarbon fires are capable of producing. James has totally failed to address this or even acknowledge it.

James B. Says:

Dude, it is in the FEMA report. You are basing your argument off of it, have you even bothered to read it? The temperatures required are much lower than you claim. Well within the reach of an normal office fire, much less one resulting from two airplane crashes.

"It is much more difficult to tell if melting has occurred in the grain boundary regions in this steel as was observed in the A36 steel from WTC 7. It is possible and likely, however, that even if grain boundary melting did not occur, substantial penetration by a solid state diffusion mechanism would have occurred as evidenced by the high concentration of sulfides in the grain interiors near the oxide layer. Temperatures in this region of the steel were likely to be in the range of 700-800 �C (1,290-1,470 �F)."

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

Nice try, James B. You left out certain parts of that report.

"Summary for Sample 1
The thinning of the steel occurred by a high-temperture corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation.
Heating of the steel into a hot corrosive environment approaching 1,000 �C (1,800 �F) results in the formation of a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen, and sulfur that liquefied the steel.
The sulfidation attack of steel grain boundaries accelerated the corrosion and erosion of the steel...."
This is closely followed by
"The larger sulfides further into the steel are the more stable manganese sulfides that were formed when the steel was made. The smaller sulfides that have formed as a result of the fire do not contain significant amounts of manganese, but rather are primarily sulfides containing iron and copper. These sulfides have a lower melting temperature range than manganese sulfide. (Here is where your quote starts) It is much more difficult to tell if melting has occurred in the grain boundary regions in this steel as was observed in the A36 steel from WTC 7. It is possible and likely, however, that even if grain boundary melting did not occur, substantial penetration by a solid state diffusion mechanism would have occurred as evidenced by the high concentration of sulfides in the grain interiors near the oxide layer. Temperatures in this region of the steel were likely to be in the range of 700-800 �C (1,290-1,470 �F)."
So the temperature you are trying to pass off actually applies to one region of the steel, the inner part. The outer part required a temperature of 1000 deg C (1800 deg F) for the evidence to be explained, far higher than anything even NIST claims. Not to mention that what NIST passes off as steel temperatures are actually air temperatures due to the fires, it takes a while to heat steel to such temperatures due to its conductivity. You must be a used car salesman.
Best of all, James B, *you totally fail to explain the partial vaporization reported not only by the Worcester Poly team but also by Dr Astaneh-Asl of UC Berkeley. This requires a temperature of 5182 deg F. *
And why did NIST totally leave out this part of the FEMA report, and state that no steel was recovered from WTC7, when the Worcester team stated that this beam was clearly from WTC7 due to the steel used to make it?!!!!

You also fail to account for the nearly 6% molten iron spheres content of the WTC dust, or for vaporized lead or for molten molybdenum. Squeal, squeal, trapped rat. Every time you come back, the trap will be as tight.

James B says:

Aww, Truther "anomaly hunting" whereby Truthers take any perceived anomaly or unexplained phenomenon and use that as a license to create the most elaborate speculative explanation, regardless of whether it is inconsistent or even possible. "Hey, what are my keys doing on the dresser? I know I left them in my coat pocket. The only explanation must be that time travelling gnomes using their cloaking shields snuck into my house and stole my keys, used them to play pranks on people and then replaced them without being seen. But I am too smart for them!"

I am reading Michael Shermer's the Believing Brain, which explains why otherwise intelligent people believe in things like ghosts, faeries, homeopathy and 9/11 conspiracy theories. You guys might want to read it sometime.

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

James B.: You are apparently not very bright, coming back into a situation in which you were caught in an outright lie. You quoted the FEMA report out of context, making it seem as if the steel beam examined by the WPI team was subject to temperatures of "only" 700-800 deg C (as if such temps were present anyway), when in fact the full quote shows otherwise.

If someone is reading this and doesn't understand what you did, i'll provide them with another example. Someone (call him/her A) says "It's horrible that even in the 1950s, there were people who thought lynching is a good thing." James B would then accuse A of being a racist and present a "quote" in which he/she states "lynching is a good thing." You are a shameless liar, James B.

Of course, it's understandable. You have been caught like a trapped rat, unable to explain evidence of molten/vaporized metals, which would require temperatures FAR, FAR in excess of anything even NIST claimed were present, let alone anything for which there is evidence that the fires caused. This would obviously require explosives and/or incendiary devices, since there are no volcanos or hot sun-like stars in the area. It is not an "unexplained phenomenon." So, unable to explain it off, even with a nonsensical pseudo-explanation, you resort to prattling about Shermer's BS and all sorts of other stuff. That's nothing more than the squealing of a trapped rat. By the way, Shermer is a proven liar regarding 9/11, just like you.

(Edit to add this URL regarding Michael Shermer's record of lying and fraud, http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/sciam/)

James B says:

Whether sulfidation required 800 degrees or 1000 is irrelevant. Both are well within the range of temperatures produced by even a common housefire, much less a major fire produced by crashing jetliners. Yes, I understand Truthers don't like Shermer. I have even seen them heckle him at a book signing. Rationalism is to truthers like garlic to a vampire.

James B says:

And it is hilarious that you are citing Dr Astaneh-Asl as supporting your theories, considering he has been one of the leading proponents of the NIST explanation of the collapses. You get someone with his qualifications on your side, instead of theologians and failed designers of mini-malls like Richard Gage, and I will start to take you seriously.

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

Shameless lying and squealing by the trapped rat. 1000 deg F, 1832 deg F, is 4-600 degrees F above any temperature claimed even by NIST, whose claims are totally unproven. Hydrocarbon fires cannot achieve such temperatures (1800) except under carefully controlled environments, i.e. insulation, air injection,..... Even 12-1400 deg F fires require mixing and fuel supply conditions that are/were not present in the WTC fires. The claim that this can happen in common housefires is comedy. But besides, the beam was partially vaporized, *required a temp of over 5100 deg F,* as i pointed to you earlier, which you are still evading. And reading the link i provided shows how little credibility Shermer has.

James B says:

NIST was only concerned about the temperatures leading up to the collapse. The fires burned for weeks, it is entirely expected that at some point the temperatures would reach higher levels. There are plenty of studies showing higher temperatures during common building fires. 5100 is above the temperatures produced even by thermite, so assuming that these are even correct observations, your magical thermite argument does not work anyway.

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

The vaporization citation came not only from Astaneh-Asl, but from the WPI team. You're squealing some more, trapped rat.
AE911 Truth has on its team structural engineers, including some who have their own companies, even people with demolition experience. They include the designer of the PGE building in downtown San Francisco and the architect of Transamerica Pyramid, also in SF. Lots of lots of experience, unlike your total illiteracy in engineering. Astaneh-Asl by the way also complained of the destruction of the evidence. The new video Explosive Testimonies features lots of these people. By the way, there is zero evidence that Richard Gage is a "failed designer," but the claim that there are no structural experts on my side is 100% bogus.
So you quoted from the FEMA report trying to make it look like the sulfidized beam resulted from a temp of under 800 deg C. Then when you got caught you claim that 1000 deg C is not that different. So why did you leave out so much of that quote, trying to make it seem as if the temps required were lower?
And you left out the fact that the beam came from WTC7, as noted by FEMA, yet NIST claimed that no steel was recovered from WTC7.

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

More squealing by the trapped rat. Where did i make a "magical thermite argument"? I never mentioned thermite, aside from quoting your garbage claims. It is not at all expected that the fires would keep burning hot, as the jet fuel burned within a few minutes, and building materials do not support fires which create anywhere near the temperature of burning jet fuel. The persistence of extreme heat http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/index.html under the WTC site for weeks is in fact a total anomaly if one accepts the official account, given the lack of both oxygen and fuel for such fires. Show us studies of temps of 1000 deg C during common fires, if you dare.

And what's this "assuming that these are correct observations"? The iron spheres composing almost 6% of the WTC dust is in the evidence, so is vaporized lead, molten molybdenum and vaporized steel. More desperate thrashing by the trapped rat.

James B says:

"The new video Explosive Testimonies features lots of these people."

Ooh, goodie gumdrops for you. And everyone knows that YouTube editorials are the way "real science" is done. When shall I expect all of their peer-reviewed studies explaining how supermagiconanothermite blew up the World Trade Centers?

James B says:

"Where did i make a "magical thermite argument"? I never mentioned thermite, aside from quoting your garbage claims."

Well that is the primary theory proposed by AE911truth and Mr. Harrit, who commented below, all of whom apparently you support. If they are wrong, perhaps you should let them know? What do you think caused all of these anomalies you are complaining about? C-4. HMX? Nuclear Weapons? Star Wars Death Beams? You claim to be the expert, while I am just an uninformed commentor, take a stand.

James B says:

Of course there were molten metals at the WTC. That is a common sight at any major fire. All sorts of crap melts when it gets hot.

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

First of all, you don't in the least apologize for falsely attributing something to me, the same false attribution you have done earlier. This goes along with your quoting the FEMA report out of context, and when quote pretending that it doesn't matter anyway.
I don't know what caused those metals to melt and/or vaporize. I don't have access to the files of the Pentagon's secret weapons programs. But it is clear that the temperatures required for these results are far in excess of any fires, and they are not the result of a volcano or a nearby hot star. Hence, by deductive reasoning, they can only be explained as the result of the use of explosives and/or incendiary devices. If you see someone's head explode to dust sized particles an hour after being punched in the face, you know it's neither the result of the punch nor of spontaneous combustion, but of some weapon, whether you know or don't know what the weapon is.

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

"Of course there were molten metals at the WTC. That is a common sight at any major fire. All sorts of crap melts when it gets hot."

So you are saying temperatures hot enough to melt steel (almost 2800 deg F)occur at every major fire? Temperature hot enough to vaporize lead (over 3100 F)? To melt molybdenum (over 4700 F)? To vaporize steel (over 5100 F)? Your squeals are turning downright screechy. The trap gets ever tighter.

James B says:

LOL OK, sorry dude. It wasn't supermagicthermite, it was some unnamed supersekrit Pentagon weapon instead. My bad!

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

In other words, James B., you cannot explain the high temperatures required. Keep thrashing and squealing, trapped rat.

James B says:

You can't either! Saying it was some super secret magic invisible Pentagon weapon is no more scientific a theory than me claiming it was powdered unicorn horn.

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

Wrong. I stated it was an explosive and/or incendiary device. It certainly wasn't fire, nor a volcano, nor a star. This is called "deductive reasoning," James, see the analogy of the exploding head. That's solid science.

James B says:

No, the scientific method requires that claims be repeatable, testable and falsifiable. Making vague claims about mythical and amorphous military explosives and/or incendiaries is neither.

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

Being someone with an engineering degree, i know perfectly well about the scientific method, which by the way excludes quoting out of context and false attribution, something you've repeatedly done here. In fact, i have doubts about your science credentials.

It is a scientific fact that temperatures like those necessary to explain the molten/vaporized metals evidence are attainable only via special tools, explosives and/or incendiary devices, volcanos, or close proximity to an active star (which is of course a thermonuclear reaction). Volcanos and stars are ruled out, unless you wish to claim one of these was present without gaining notice. Special tools could possibly account only for molten iron, and certainly not in the quantity detected in the WTC dust (5.87%). And they cannot account for vaporized lead, molten molybdenum and vaporized steel. Hence, by deduction, only one choice is left.

Same with the video of the person whose head is seen exploding into tiny dust size pieces an hour after a punch to the face. One doesn't need to know what weapon was used to know that this was the result of the use of some weapon. A trained medic can tell that a wound is a gunshot without knowing what weapon was used.

James B says:

Uhh, dude, explosives don't vaporize metals. They aren't even particularly hot, just fast reacting. May not be a scientist, but I am retired army.

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

Then you learned very little in the army. My brother was an officer in the Corps of Engineers. If you're talking conventional explosives, you are right, but that's hardly all the explosives available, even per public knowledge.

And the secret research programs have an even wider "menu" to choose from. Most people in the army don't know what's going on there, you need a security clearance for that, and if you talk about what you know to unauthorized people, your pubic area would be subjected to hot sulfuric acid. If you were in that program, why, i'm sure you'd tell us everything. Ha, ha!!

A real rat knows better than to keep coming back to the same trap, and even worse, to get itself trapped even more with each visit. Now you've admitted to not being a scientist. And yet you've attacked the science credentials of all sorts of people. Well, doesn't take a scientist to understand that the temperatures required for molten/vaporized metals are possible as a result of only a very few plausible causes, and that once all of them except one are ruled out, the one remaining is the only explanation possible, regardless of how distasteful the conclusion may be.

James B says:

Oh yes, those mythical super secret weapons, just like the hidden anti-aircraft missiles at the Pentagon and David Ray Griffin's voice morphing devices from Terminator 2. I think they used one of those laser cutting devices I saw in Mission Impossible. Isn't baseless speculation fun? Remember, everything in real life is just like the movies.
Do you think this post adds to the discussion?

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

More squealing and thrashing from the trapped rat. Right, there are no secret weapons programs.

Fact is, deductive reasoning is part of the scientific method. Applying deductive reasoning to the evidence of molten/vaporized metals, ruling out a volcano and a nearby hot star, only explosives and/or incendiary devices can account for the temperatures necessary to explain this evidence. And with each return to this trap, you are trapped ever tighter. You have two choices: leave this debate in humiliation, or keep returning and get further entrapped by getting caught in new lies. You've already been caught quoting out of context and making the same false attribution twice, the second time after being informed and acknowledging it. Each time you come back, your credibility is shredded even further.

James B says:

I am sure there are, but using that as an excuse to make accusations is hardly scientific. In the evolution/Intelligent Design argument this is known as the "God of the Gaps", where the ID'ers use any real or perceived unexplained issue in biology to say "well, then the only explanation is that God did it". While this is theoretically possible, it is hardly scientific. The Holocaust deniers do the same thing with their "No holes no Holocaust" argument. Science is about providing a falsifiable theory which better fits observations than the alternative, not just pointing out perceived anomalies and attributing them to mythical secret weapons or unseen deities.

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

I did not attribute them to any specific weapon, mythical or not, or to deities, seen or not. The only reasons that metals melt or get vaporized is extremely high temperatures. I already listed the temperatures required to create the evidence which was seen. There are only three causes of such high temperatures: explosives and/or incendiary devices (including but not limited to nuclear weapons), volcanos, and proximity to hot stars. The last two are ruled out, which leaves only the first.

The analogy with an unexplained issue biology is completely false, as the information regarding this issue is incomplete. The analogy with Holocaust deniers is completely nonsensical, i have no idea what "No holes" means, i doubt anyone else does, including you. And there is a huge amount of evidence for the Holocaust. On the other hand, there are only three alternative explanations for temperatures of 2800 to 5100 deg F. Two of them are ruled out, which leaves only one, regardless of whether you like it or not.

Again, an observation of someone's head blowing up into dust sized particles an hour after being punched can be deduced to be the result of the firing of a particular weapon at their head, whether that weapon is known or not. A wound can be ascertained by a trained observer to be the result of a gunshot, regardless of the specific weapon used. Your insistence that the weapon be identified is nonsensical, especially given the number of unknown (to the general public) weapons in the arsenal. And sure, there are no secret programs, the US never had a huge secret project to develop the A-bomb.

Unless you can come up with another cause for the temperatures required to explain molten/vaporized metals, you have just caused the trap to tighten some more.

James B says:

It is a reference to your old buddy Michael Shermer.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-shermer/911-truthers-a-pack-of-li_b_84154.html

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

I posted earlier a review of Shermer's article in Scientific American "debunking" 9/11 truth.
http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/experts/articles/sciam01/sci_am1.html
You can read his advancing of the "pancaking" explanation of the WTC destruction, right as NIST was renouncing the theory as being without evidence. You got good buddies, James.

And you have yet to answer to being quote with deliberate quoting out of context, and deliberate false attribution. Your believability is noted in its total absence.

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

And i looked at the Shirmer article. The lack of holes in the roof of the gas chamber does not preclude gas coming in from a different direction. But the presence of molten/vaporized metals has only three possible causes, and two of them are out of the question.

And Shirmer continues the same crap as in the SciAm article i posted a link to the critique of, of making it seem as if "truthers" are claiming that the official story is false because the fires couldn't melt the structural steel. It was in fact the first version of the official story (which is now on its fourth version) which explained what happened as a result of the fires melting the steel structure, as pointed out in the critique. The critique and many analyses since also point out the impossibility of all versions of the official story which rely upon the steel being weakened. The four different versions of the official story contradict each other, and are each contradicted by the facts of the evidence. It's quite amazing that some defenders of the official story are still peddling versions which have been discarded by the official purveyors, while others have gone along with the extreme changes in the story without batting an eye. It's easy to conform, takes zero brains. Straight out of Nineteen Eighty Four.

James B says:

I didn't take anything out of context. You were the one who repeatedly claimed that NIST said that the beams were not heated over 250 degrees, omitting the fact that they specifically said those were not representative of all the beams.

I would agree that Shermer is not an expert on 9/11 issues. He hasn't wasted much time taking on you idiots. Unfortunately I have. His work on skepticism and belief systems in general though is quite good.

As far as "molten metal" you are doing just like the other cranks and ignoring other possible answers and instead relying on the supernatural. Go to the hardware store, buy some steel wool and a 9-volt battery. Touch them together. The steel wool will spark, melt, and burn. No volcanoes, thermite or secret government weapons required.

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

You are truly a shameless liar. What i pointed out that you took out of context was from the FEMA report about the sulfidized beam, making it seem as if this phenomenon required temps of only 7-800 deg C to be explained. Do you really think everybody here is so stupid that they forgot how i illustrated your out-of-context quoting by posting the entire passage and showing what you left out? You think the readers here are like the ones at SLC?

"I would agree that Shermer is not an expert....... is quite good."

He has written an article for Scientific American and keeps speaking out on it. His complete acceptance of the official story, in fact of versions of it which have been disavowed even by NIST, shows how much of a "skeptic" he is. He is guided far more by belief than by science.

"As far as "molten metal" you are doing just like the other cranks and ignoring other possible answers and instead relying on the supernatural. Go to the hardware store, buy some steel wool and a 9-volt battery. Touch them together. The steel wool will spark, melt, and burn. No volcanoes, thermite or secret government weapons required."

This is your proof that fire can melt steel? You think the steel in steel wool is the same steel used for structural steel? This may go over with your ignorant readers at SLC, but i happen to have a degree in mechanical engineering, and i took courses in metallurgy. There are lots of different types of steel, different mixtures (carbon content is a big factor), depending upon the intended use. Steel wool is quite remote from structural steel. And it is also composed of very fine fibers, i.e. not in the form of thick beams. Thus, it has a large ratio of surface area per given unit of mass. Try doing this experiment with a thick structural steel beam. This comparison is strictly for glueheads. And besides, the evidence showed IRON spheres, iron doesn't melt till some 2800 deg F. But now you have trapped yourself some more by suggesting "other possible answers." So what are these answers? What can explain temps of 2800 deg F to 5100+ deg F? Show us how you can melt molybdenum or vaporize steel with this battery setup of yours.

James B says:

No, at SLC I would have more than 3 readers...

"Steel wool is quite remote from structural steel."

But you are the only one insisting that any molten iron comes from structural steel. There are literally millions of sources of iron, including human blood. Once again, the fact that you can't account for every phenomenon is a large chaotic situation does not give you the right to create your own fantasy to explain it.

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

As if i was talking about numbers. Anyone who reads SLC and takes it seriously most likely failed 8th grade science.

The iron in human blood is not in the form which would ever show up as molten iron spheres. Your assertions are strictly science for glueheads and paint thinner sniffers. On second thought, maybe it's not only your loyal readers who failed 8th grade science.

Regular building dust has only .04% iron content. The WTC dust contained 5.87% iron content, in the form of spheres, demonstrating that melting occurred during the event, per the lab which did the analysis (RJ Lee). And maybe human blood explains molten molybdenum and vaporized lead and steel as well, eh? And you compound your situation further by trying to attribute the evidence to chaos theory. You have just tightened the trap further. Now what, trapped rat?

Only three sources can account for temps hot enough to melt iron, vaporize lead, melt molybdenum and vaporize steel: volcanos, proximity to hot stars, and explosives and/or incendiary devices. Special tools could account for some molten iron, but not in the quantity detected in this instance, and cannot account for the other phenomena. The first two of the three are ruled out. This leaves the third. Maybe James B. will tell us that when someone's head is observed blowing up into dust sized pieces an hour after being punched that this doesn't necessarily mean he/she was shot in the head by something, that such a conclusion is unwarranted unless the weapon can be identified. Unless you can provide another explanation for such high temperatures, you have been caught in yet another lie.

And notice, everyone, how James B. didn't even try to further contest the fact that he quoted out of context. His credibility has sunk below zero.

James B. says:

"Anyone who reads SLC and takes it seriously most likely failed 8th grade science. "

Possibly, we get a lot of comments from Truthers. We allow open comments. Skeptics are immediately banned from any Truther site. They don't seem to be too big on this whole free spech/open dissent thing. ironic.

Wait a minute, I just showed you that a cigarette lighter can produce molten metal under the right condition, now you are saying this can only be caused by explosives and incendiaries. ADD much?

James B says:

Wait a minute, you have been saying for days that this molten metal can only produced by volcanoes, stars, incendiaries or explosives, now you are saying that they are present in ordinary building dust, albeit in smaller quantities. So which of those 4 elements are present in a normal office building?

Comparing normal building dust to one of the largest building disasters in the world is a rather bizarre comparison anyway. That is like going to an airplane crash and saying, "A normal landing does not have near this amount of ripped body parts and debris. What could account for that?"

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

Sure you allow open comments, greeted with abuse and pushed out. SLC doesn't even rise to the level of garbage.

"Wait a minute, I just showed......... ADD much?"

Typical of the personal insults you use at SLC. If anyone is showing attention deficit, it is you. The quote from me which you are responding to does not say "molten metal" in the abstract. It specifies four phenomena. Are you claiming that a cigarette lighter can melt structural steel, vaporize lead, melt molybdenum and vaporize steel? If so, you have reached amazing depths of ignorance. If not, you have just tried to lie your way out. Either way, you have tightened the trap further.

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

"Wait a minute, you have been saying for days that this molten metal can only produced by volcanoes, stars, incendiaries or explosives, now you are saying that they are present in ordinary building dust, albeit in smaller quantities. So which of those 4 elements are present in a normal office building?"

Deliberate false attribution number three on your part. Iron *powder* is what's present in regular building dust, not molten iron spheres, and certainly in much smaller proportions than what was observed. And vaporized lead, molten molybdenum and vaporized steel are not present in such dust, i never said anything of the sort. You are left with nothing but lies.

Another of your stupid comparisons, this one comes back to bite you. Ripped body parts and debris of course constitute evidence for a crash. A high proportion of molten iron spheres in dust likewise indicates that the iron melted during the event which created the dust, cannot be explained as something which was already present. This required a temperature of at least 2800 deg F. The other molten and vaporized metals required far higher temperatures. Keep squirming and squealing.

James B says:

LOL And you actually inspected all of that iron dust to make sure that none of them were in the shape of spheres? Or is your evidence based on the fact that you get to pick the synonym? I love Truther science. It is so... flexible.

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

If someone were to read this, they would be justified in thinking that i'm paying you to post here and look stupid. You got it backwards, the iron particles were ALL in the shape of spheres, exactly what happens when iron melts and is flung about, due to surface tension. The wording "spheres" is per the professional laboratory RJ Lee and the USGS, which did the examining, not per some "truthers." You got all your legs stuck in the trap, and now you've added your tail.

James B says:

I am talking about the "powder" which you claim to be perfectly natural, as opposed to the spheres which are created by supersekrit pentagon weapons. Go ahead and pay me, I could use the cash. I find you amusing, but I don't have any delusions that this conversation will change the world. In another 10 years, you will be in the same place you are now, posting incoherent rants on the internet and accomplishing nothing.

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

Before anything else, let's remind the audience that you quoted out of context, then asserted it didn't matter anyway, then tried to make it look as if my charge pertained to a completely different passage you quoted. A lie compounded thrice. And you have falsely attributed stuff to me three times. You haven't got a shred of credibility left.

[quote of previous post]

Such spheres are created by metal melting and then being flung in the air, which is what gives the molten metal bits a spherical shape, surface tension due to its moving in liquid form, just as with falling water drops. Melting metal in a furnace and the flinging the fluid would also create such spheres. Iron powder requires neither melting nor flinging in the air, you can get iron powder for instance by rubbing the metal with emery cloth. Melting by itself isn't enough to create spheres, neither is flinging in the air, of course. I'm sorry i attributed to you 8th grade science knowledge, you obviously didn't get that far.

And your last two sentences are nothing more than an attempt to extricate yourself from the trap. As i've said previously, you can leave any time, this being a virtual trap, not a real one. But any time you come back, the trap will be as tight as ever. And any time you come back and open your mouth, you in fact cause the trap to tighten by putting forth more lies and more garbage. The whole world will be able to come here and observe how one of the principals of Screw Loose Change is trapped like a rat, whether you leave now or keep coming back.

James B. says:

"Before anything else, let's remind the audience "
Audience? Look at the line right above the posts:
"Tracked by 3 customers"
Delusions of grandeur, much?

Jeffrey G. Strahl says:

You tried this before, James, it drew a bunch of comments. Your lying and complete cluelessness are here on exhibit for the world to see, which people will, at the time of their own choosing.

[For many more refutations of James B from the Debunking the Debunkers blog click here.]

Wednesday, November 2, 2011

9/11 Theories: Expert vs. Expert - Aluminum Water Explosions Took the Towers Down?



I'm glad Jonathan Cole included the part about the new theory that water and melted aluminium from the aircraft was the cause of the explosions in the Twin Towers. I just recently learned of this myself and was planning on posting about it anyway.

I found the theory interesting because in purposing that aluminum water explosions took the Towers down, scientist Christian Simensen is acknowledging (unlike the government and "debunkers") that explosions equal in power to those observed in controlled demolitions did indeed take place.

As noted in a 2009 paper entitled Safety Coatings to Prevent Molten Aluminum-Water Explosions:
Aluminum Water Explosions

Casthouse explosions are occurring at a significant rate. There were at least 18 deaths reported last year, all which are attributed to molten aluminum trapping water. Any time you mix two liquids with vastly differing temperatures an explosion can occur. Mixing liquid aluminum (1300F-700C) and water (50F-10C) results in a steam explosion. This explosion is rated as Force 1 through Force 3. A Force 1 causes metal, less then 10 pounds (4.5Kg), to be thrown a short distance, usually up to 15 feet with little if any property damage. A Force 2 is a violent steam explosion. The metal is thrown 15 to 50 feet (6.4m-12.8m) and involves a considerable amount of metal. Fatalities and serious injury can result from this type of explosion. A Force 3 explosion is a catastrophic event. Metal is thrown more then 50 feet and extensive property damage and injury can result. There will be a white powder present indicating the reaction of aluminum with oxygen. In this reaction every pound of aluminum equals 3 pounds of TNT.
When I asked blog contributor Adam Taylor if he had heard of this he replied:
Here's what I wrote to someone who initially sent me the article:

I don't think this guy's theory makes much sense. According to NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology), the sprinklers were not operating on the main fire floors because the planes severed the water lines. There was water running down through the building from the severed water pipes, so the molten aluminum could theoretically have gone down through the buildings. But the problem there is that the collapses did start near where the planes impacted, i. e. the fire floors. Plus, the collapse of the North Tower started on the 98th floor, and only the tip of the starboard wing went into that floor. Also, this person doesn't seem to understand NIST's theory on the cause of the collapse. It's not the beams that were supposed to be over-heated, but the floor trusses, which then pulled on the exterior walls, causing them to bow inward and then break. Now I don't believe fire caused that, but I don't see how his aluminum-water theory accounts for that. This just seems to be a weak attempt to explain the accounts of explosions in the Towers that could be evidence of demolition. I've seen similar arguments in the past.
Cole wrote at the time:
Remarkably...

...that airplane aluminum, after it was initially shredded precisely like shot from 15 blasts from a 12 gauge shotgun, ripping off every stitch of insulation even on the backside of the columns, reformed itself into larger pieces as it heated up in that fateful hour. Suddenly the sprinkler system sprang to life, with its soothing water focused directly on that molten aluminum which had ample time to coalesce into series of pools at critical columns, creating a cacophony of explosions that previously went undetected by NIST.

Coincidently one intrepid aluminum pool managed to escape that cooling water, and poured outside about 7 minutes before the south towers final destruction, combining with wood paneling and desks, causing it's molten flow to look exactly like molten iron. Incredibly the pulsating jets of water, synchronistically timed as it exploded those aluminum pools, blew out the floors thrusting massive perimeter panels hundreds of feet, while turning acres of concrete into powder. Yet small gobs of aluminum doggedly clung to key points on the spire of core columns which stood tall long after the main floors fell, finally exploding from the humidity, dropping those very last remnants of a once proud icon, straight down.

Alas dear reader heed my warning, and be ever vigilant when flying a jet plane with hot engines through a rainstorm, or this same tragic fate could happen to you.
On an article from physorg.com "amhippi" comments:
Well, well, well. Seems the establishment needs a new theory to explain the volumes of molten metal seen and hundreds and hundreds of explosions heard. Remember, none of this is the official story on what cause the collapse as the official story denies that there even was any molten metal. The problem with this whole story is that the idea that the molten metal seen and discovered was actually aluminum has been tested, peer reviewed and falsified (even by a NIST scientist himself working independently with Steven Jones). Sorry, molten aluminum is not orange / red as the molten metal found in the WTC. Organics and aluminum do not mix and aluminum is ALWAYS silver in lab experiments, no matter what is mixed with it. The official story has crumbled so much so now that people are turning to pure fantasy.
In short, Simensen's theory is untenable, but in his attempt to account for the actual collapse features, he at least shows that he has an understanding of what 9/11 "debunkers" can't seem to grasp. But it doesn't take a scientist.

Even Children Understand What 9/11 Debunkers Can't Seem To Grasp



Related Info:

Slicing Through Every Single 'Debunker' Argument, One at a Time