|
Post by shred on May 10, 2013 4:25:51 GMT -5
Ordinary controlled demolitions are noisy, VERY noisy. The collapses of the World Trade Centre buildings did not feature any characteristic loud bangs that controlled demolitions have.
Thermites being incendiary rather than explosives burn quickly but do not blast (for this reason they aren't used in controlled demolitions). Thermites key active ingredients are aluminium and iron and work by oxide transfer during combustion. The buildings were rich in Iron and Aluminium, so easy to create fake evidence of thermites and fool the faithful.
The faithful forget that whilst the fires started by the planes weren't hot enough to melt steel they were absolutely hot enough to weaken steel in the affected areas.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 10, 2013 7:42:26 GMT -5
What "thermite theory"? If you're referring to what was found in the 4 samples of WTC dust, it's nano-thermite, not thermite, both in reacted and unreacted form and lots of it. And the experts who discovered it tested it and found the nano-thermite particles to be highly energetic. It was independently corroborated. They also found numerous microscopic iron spheres, indicating a reaction with steel. It wasn't a theory, there's a peer reviewed paper on the subject. I posted the link.
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 10, 2013 11:17:50 GMT -5
What "thermite theory"? If you're referring to what was found in the 4 samples of WTC dust, it's nano-thermite. Jones paper says he found Iron Oxide spherules in four samples. Iron Oxide is RUST my dear friend. As for Nano Thermite 9/11 Conspiracy theorist Jesse Ventura commissioned New Mexico Tech to carry out a test of Nano Thermite on Steel. The test failed to cut it. Nano Thermite doesn't work. The Thermite/Thermate/NanoThermite theory exists because there's no signs or sounds of classic controlled demolition and the conspiracy theorists needed someone to invent themselves a way out of the intellectual cul de sac they'd gotten themselves into. Here's what one of Jones colleagues from Brigham Young University said about him:
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 10, 2013 11:32:19 GMT -5
They also found numerous microscopic iron spheres, indicating a reaction with steel. Er look mate, I realise you don't know your chemistry but IRON is found IN Steel. Iron is FE (Latin for Ferrite) Steel is FE3C. Finding microscopic Iron spherules with Steel is like finding flour in a bakery. One key factor you overlook is they did not find RDX, PETN, Dynamite, TNT, Semtex or any other high explosive used in controlled demolitions. Nor were residues of Amatol, Torpex or Tritonal found. All they found were naturally occurring ingredients that you'd expect to find in a skyscraper made of Steel and Aluminium.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 10, 2013 12:05:07 GMT -5
This peer reviewed paper speaks for itself. I don't need to defend its contents nor can I because I don't have the standing to do so nor do I want to. One either accepts it or rejects it as one pleases. I accept it because I have no reason to reject it. Those who did the work are experts in their related fields. It was independently corroborated by another expert and it was accepted by colleagues and rejected by no one (a successful peer review) prior to publication. Those who did the work have invited others to corroborate or refute their findings using the same materials (as required by the scientific method). The participants are listed at the top of the first page along with their credentials. www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.pdf
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 10, 2013 12:22:29 GMT -5
Peer reviewed eh ? Who reviewed it ? Conspiracy theorists or a proper science journal ? Show me who they submitted this crap to for peer review ?
A top industry metallurgist ? A respected journal like ASCE ? The usual (fake)journalof911studies cop out?
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 10, 2013 12:36:39 GMT -5
Peer reviewed eh ? Who reviewed it ? Conspiracy theorists or a proper science journal ? Show me who they submitted this crap to for peer review ? A top industry metallurgist ? A respected journal like ASCE ? The usual (fake)journalof911studies cop out? Sorry, I don't need to defend it, it's not my job. I posted it, you don't like it, no problem for me.
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 11, 2013 2:53:21 GMT -5
So you've made a claim but won't stand by it ?
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 11, 2013 8:47:10 GMT -5
So you've made a claim but won't stand by it ? What claim did I make that I won't "stand by"?
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 14, 2013 1:44:13 GMT -5
Your claim that that bogus paper was peer reviewed.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 14, 2013 7:40:49 GMT -5
Your claim that that bogus paper was peer reviewed. I haven't made that claim, the authors did. There's nothing "bogus" about the paper. The findings were independently corroborated and no one has been to contradict it using the same materials used by the authors. It's much more important to you to try to trash this rather than to trash obvious and blatant NIST fraud.
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 14, 2013 12:26:47 GMT -5
The authors are liars. There's everything bogus about the paper it's what we in Yorkshire would call toilet paper (except we prefer Andrex to wiping our backsides on computer screens)...
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 14, 2013 12:43:37 GMT -5
The authors are liars. There's everything bogus about the paper it's what we in Yorkshire would call toilet paper (except we prefer Andrex to wiping our backsides on computer screens)... Making up things doesn't change the FACTS but I'm sure you'll just keep on doing it. I'm not quite sure why after all my posts you're still trying to convince me of your nonsense. I don't suppose you'd care to enlighten me?
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 14, 2013 17:25:57 GMT -5
Making up things is what your heroes have done since day 1. The doctored video you posted is a great example of how they make things up. It was quite amateurish though. I could have done a better job of forging a video than they did. Here's how to doctor a picture properly (no pun intended) : Took 1 Hubble photo, artificially generated a planet and a Tardis in the foreground. Doctored photo of Glen Nevis: Original: The thermite theory is a made up load of twaddle. Basically no form of thermite has ever been used in controlled demolitions, it just DOESN'T work in that application. It doesn't explode it burns. Controlled demolitions use RDX high explosive. It blasts with such rapid force that the steel remains cold to the touch once it has been cut. No RDX residues or any other high explosive residues were found in the debris pile. The thermite theory was easy to invent as the debris pile was Iron rich as the buildings were made of Steel which is Iron rich and in fires Steel rusts (oxidises). It wasn't an inside job, it was kamikaze hijackings pure and simple.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 14, 2013 19:02:38 GMT -5
"Making up things is what your heroes have done since day 1."
I don't have any "heroes", I grew up long, long ago and quit reading comic books.
"The doctored video you posted"
I didn't post any doctored video.
"The thermite theory is a made up load of twaddle."
What thermite theory? I don't know of any thermite theory.
"It wasn't an inside job, it was kamikaze hijackings pure and simple."
I'm not interested in the official narrative that you constantly parrot, your opinions, your trashing of those who contradict the official narrative, or your made up stories. Haven't you figured that out yet? I must have told you that quite a few times, the concept is really not that difficult for you to understand.
|
|
|
Post by richardcavessa on May 14, 2013 22:50:17 GMT -5
if nothing else shred is consistant, know all the talking points, has tons of corroboration "evidence" but fails to see the tree despite the forest....shows great restraint, only until backed into a corner resorts to liar...but i still enjoyed the thread
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 15, 2013 5:14:47 GMT -5
I didn't post any doctored video. Mate, you did. It contained fake bangs and painted in flashes. IF your government had wanted to kill a lot of it's own civilians to in a fake terrorist attack to justify war with Afghanistan, a truck bomb in Times Square or near the New York Stock Exchange would have done the job. This convoluted and complicated conspiracy theory you have could not have been put into practice in real life there's just too many ways in which it would go wrong in real life. A truck bomb on the other hand would have been simple and would still have yielded substantial loss of life and public outrage. Your theory requires demolition teams to infiltrate 3 working skyscrapers to carry out time consuming and difficult work to rig them to blow without the planes destroying the charges in the crashes, it requires the infiltration / collusion of United Airlines and American Airlines, it requires planes to be modified, your theory requires NIST to be in on it & the NYFD, can't you see how absurd it is ?
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 15, 2013 7:20:35 GMT -5
if nothing else shred is consistant, know all the talking points, has tons of corroboration "evidence" but fails to see the tree despite the forest....shows great restraint, only until backed into a corner resorts to liar...but i still enjoyed the thread I disagree, I'm sure he sees the tree. I'm certain he has another agenda. In my opinion (based on his posts of course) he shows he's intelligent enough to know and understand the clear fraud by this government and its hires. No one who has any reasonable amount of intelligence can say that the official story is not full of huge holes, especially when the lies have been admitted to and documented by the storytellers themselves. No one can say everything fed by government and its hires is 100% correct, especially when shown the massive discrepancies. Shred sticks to his "100% correct" claim like a fly on s**t. This is not realistic.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 15, 2013 7:38:57 GMT -5
"IF your government had wanted to kill a lot of it's own civilians to in a fake terrorist attack to justify war with Afghanistan, a truck bomb in Times Square or near the New York Stock Exchange would have done the job."
A nuclear bomb in Times Square would have been even better in my opinion. What happened though is what happened. It was the "new Pearl Harbor" that the PNAC publication predicted and the authors required for their hegemonic agenda.
"Your theory requires ..."
I don't have any theory, I have opinions. The facts, evidence, science, logic and common sense clearly show that much of government's theory is impossible and that a lot of it is based on lies and other fraud. If you were genuine, you would spend your time and energy questioning what you've been fed rather than dismiss anything and everything that contradicts the official story. If you're really confident that their story is 100% correct, there would be no need for you to spend all this time and energy defending it, it would speak for itself. That you do makes you suspect. No one else in this forum is doing what you're doing to the extent you're doing it. And yes, these are all my opinions.
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 15, 2013 10:28:22 GMT -5
What happened is 19 Muslim Jihadists hijacked planes killed the pilots took over the cockpits and deliberately crashed them. In doing so they structurally damaged the twin towers set them on fire and caused the structure to weaken and give way.
It has bugger all to do with PNAC. Accusing PNAC or your Government of doing this is like accusing Peter Sutcliffe of committing Levi Bellfield's murders.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 15, 2013 10:44:17 GMT -5
"What happened is 19 Muslim Jihadists hijacked planes killed the pilots took over the cockpits and deliberately crashed them. In doing so they structurally damaged the twin towers set them on fire and caused the structure to weaken and give way."
I've heard that hundreds of times before and quite a few times from you too. Repeating the official narrative ad nauseum doesn't make it true.
"It has bugger all to do with PNAC."
Nah, just a $%#$@ing amazing coincidence, just like 3 steel framed buildings totally collapsing all on the same day when nothing like that ever happened before or after, just like 4 alleged hijackings taking place over an hour and a half totally unmolested for the first time in history, just like lost black boxes for the first time in history, just like so many thousands of amazing coincidences all on the same day. The odds of all those coincidences happening are almost incalculable but amazingly, they all happened.
"Accusing PNAC or your Government of doing this is like accusing Peter Sutcliffe of committing Levi Bellfield's murders."
Nah, like I said, it was all an amazing coincidence, nothing to even think about, at least not if you don't want to think.
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 15, 2013 12:06:30 GMT -5
Repeating your conspiracy theories doesn't change what 19 men really did.
You neglect to mention: 3 steel framed, structurally damaged, fire weakened tube in tube buildings. No other steel tube in tube buildings have ever been subjected to comparable damage.
You're always missing the key details out.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 15, 2013 14:40:34 GMT -5
"Repeating your conspiracy theories doesn't change what 19 men really did."
I never cited any conspiracy theory other than the government's, which is what you parrot all the time. But you're right about one thing, nothing changes what 19 men really did.
"You neglect to mention: ..."
Yeah, I neglect to mention many things that have nothing to do with what I'm posting at the time I'm posting it, so do you. And?
"You're always missing the key details out."
I post all the details I have available that's specific to the subject I'm posting about. You often want to add details that are irrelevant to what I'm discussing, it's just another one of your bulls**t tactics.
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 15, 2013 15:13:42 GMT -5
If you were a coroner investigating a murder, what would be more important the 16 bullet wounds including one through the head of the victim, or checking the blood for poison ?
That's effectively what you're doing, looking at a bullet ridden corpse trying to find some kind of rare unusual poison. You're ignoring the obvious.
You ignore the hijacked planes. You ignore the structural damage and fire caused by crashing those planes. You ignore the weakening effect of the fires and you've gone looking for evidence of controlled demolitions, which you won't find because structural damage + fire brought down the building.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 15, 2013 16:32:03 GMT -5
"If you were a coroner investigating a murder, what would be more important the 16 bullet wounds including one through the head of the victim, or checking the blood for poison ?"
I'm not a coroner but any true investigator has to be open to anything. Just because a body is riddled with bullets, it does not necessarily mean the person died from bullet wounds. For instance, the body may have been filled with bullets after death to cover up a poisoning. And it doesn't have to be a "some kind of rare unusual poison", it could be arsenic or cyanide for example. What's more important is irrelevant other than the objective, which in this case is to find the exact cause of death.
"You're ignoring the obvious."
I'm not ignoring anything. In fact it's you who's ignoring many things as far as investigations and 9/11 goes. There would never be a need for any investigation if one were to just assume that planes hit the towers, they caught fire and collapsed as a result. Or a body is riddled with bullets so the person died as a result of bullet wounds, no need to look any further. What you're advocating is for simpletons, not reality.
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 15, 2013 17:12:12 GMT -5
If loads of eyewitnesses saw the person being killed by gun shot it's pointless looking for poison. Similarly loads of eyewitnesses video evidence and forensic metallurgical evidence proves structural damage + fire brought down the towers. Metallurgical study of WTC steel available here, including micrographs of WTC steel showing damaged Martensite consistent with exposure to high temperatures: www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0711/banovic-0711.html
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 15, 2013 17:27:01 GMT -5
"If loads of eyewitnesses saw the person being killed by gun shot it's pointless looking for poison."
Obviously you're not an investigator and you know nothing about conducting an investigation.
"Similarly loads of eyewitnesses video evidence and forensic metallurgical evidence proves structural damage + fire brought down the towers."
There is no similarity and nothing has been proven without an investigation. Try a different brand of toilet paper, you might get a better result.
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 15, 2013 17:35:01 GMT -5
I'm a trained engineer and understand the engineering principles. Pointless going on a wild goose chase. Airliners were hijacked. Hijacked airliners were crashed into buildings. Buildings were structurally damaged. Each plane crash created a fire across 4 square kilometres of floor space in a matter of seconds. Think about all the furnishings in that floor space, all the office equipment, desks, chairs, carpets plastics and paper. It all ignited. The crashes cut through steel columns and core stairwells. Drywall was smashed. Sprayfoam which can be mechanically damaged by the touch of a hand isn't strong enough to withstand the thermobaric blast of an aviation fuel explosion. All the evidence is right there. Structural damage + weakening by fire brought down the twin towers. WTC7 was structurally damaged by the collapse of WTC1 caught fire was weakened by fire and collapsed. There have been many investigations by true experts that all found the same thing. Here's an investigation peer reviewed by the Journal of The Minerals Metals and Materials Society: www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.htmlThey did an investigation into WTC7 steel also: www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Biederman/Biederman-0112.htmlThey found evidence from microstructural analysis of steel samples, that WTC7's steel was exposed to temperatures of around 1000C. What do you think of that ?
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 15, 2013 18:32:28 GMT -5
"I'm a trained engineer and understand the engineering principles."
Yes, you claim to be a pilot, engineer, painter, garbage collector and anything else that makes it sound like you have authoritative standing. I'm just a poster in this forum and I know a liar and a fake when I read the liar's posts.
"Here's an investigation peer reviewed by the Journal of The Minerals Metals and Materials Society:"
Both articles you posted a link to were published in December 2001. That's only 2 months after 9/11. There's not a chance on earth that the author(s) had access to information that has been made available since. There's also no indication that either articles were peer reviewed, just your say so.
"They found evidence ..."
They didn't have enough time to have access to all the evidence that's been uncovered in the past decade+. Take my advice and change the brand of your toilet paper.
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 16, 2013 4:12:16 GMT -5
Back in my college days I did a BTEC in Civil Engineering which included a module in metallurgy, I used a Hounsfield tensometer I etched steel and microscopically examined Martensite. I know what I'm talking about. AE9/11 'truth' don't even talk about Martensite. They don't talk about it because Steel is Crystalline, it has Carbon Crystals suspended in it to add rigidity, when heated beyond 300 degrees those crystals start vibrating and changing and with that the Youngs modulus changes and the material weakens.
I'm a Glider pilot. There's no "Claim" about it chum. Winch launch procedure starts thus: C.B.S.I.F.T.C.B.E. Control check (elevator, rudder, ailerons, full and free movement ?), Ballast check, Straps (are they secure?) Instrument check (No broken glass, is power on ?), Flap check (if flaps fitted), Trim (full and free movement?) Canopy (closed and securely locked?) Airbrakes (full and free movement check, then close and lock), Eventualities (if cable break lower nose wait for 50 knots minimum to prevent stalling before attempting any turns, is it possible to land ahead ? If not turn away from airfield and start abbreviated circuit and land, if not possible to land at airfield pick safe farmers field).
Winch launch procedure, stick neutral, as glider picks up speed balance aircraft on main wheel until aircraft takes off naturally (looking out for other aircraft as one does so), wait for speed to build before entering first rotation, when speed is 55 - 60 knots rotate into 45 degree climb, once above 800ft do not exceed placarded speed as winch is pulling down on main spar and can overstress main spar. If Winch is giving too much speed, lower nose slightly to reduce tension on rope then with rudder pedals, full movement left, full movement right, full movement left and centralise pedals again to give winch wave off signal. Winch will then reduce speed. If winch still does not reduce speed, pull yellow cable release and detach. If winch too slow, lower nose wait for speed to build reestablish climb.
Procedure for landing: At 800 ft high key area trim for 50-55knots (on very strong wind days 60-65knots), carry out USTALL pre landing checks (Undercarriage down and fixed? Speed, Trim Airbrakes located, lookout, land) , commence circuit downwind parallel to runway, once one has passed the end of the runway (low key) commence crosswind leg, 45 degree diagonal turn towards airfield, (this provides the opportunity to look out for aircraft behind which may pose a hazard), proceed forwards for another 100 ft of descent and turn so glider is now at right angles to end of runway, this is now the BASE leg. As runway appears at right angles turn towards runway, deploy airbrakes 2/3rds, descend steadily towards the ground, just before ground roundout and flare the glider, hold off, and the glider shall settle onto the main wheel and tail wheel. Taking care to keep wings level steer with rudder, pull airbrakes to full (on K21's full movement of air brake lever operates the wheel brake).
Want me to tell you more about how to fly ?
As for your claims of controlled demolition 'evidence' I'm still waiting for you to produce some.
|
|