Vanity Fair 9-11 Tapes Story
I've been remiss in not checking on this story. It's terrific. Although a good part of the story is about 9-11 mistakes, it still kicks 9-11 Denial butt! For example:
"When they told me there was a hijack, my first reaction was 'Somebody started the exercise early,'" Nasypany later told me. The day's exercise was designed to run a range of scenarios, including a "traditional" simulated hijack in which politically motivated perpetrators commandeer an aircraft, land on a Cuba-like island, and seek asylum. "I actually said out loud, 'The hijack's not supposed to be for another hour,'" Nasypany recalled. (The fact that there was an exercise planned for the same day as the attack factors into several conspiracy theories, though the 9/11 commission dismisses this as coincidence. After plodding through dozens of hours of recordings, so do I.)
The writer was a producer on the United 93 movie. He was interviewed on the Diane Rehm Show on Thursday. They get a couple of conspiracy theorist callers and he does not hesitate to disagree with them. When the subject of the numerous wargames going on comes up, he says quite simply that the military has wargames and exercises going on constantly. One particulary odd woman claims that Flight 93 crashed at 10:03:11 and wonders if the 3:11 is a hint to the Madrid bombings on 3-11-03.
posted by Pat @ 10:26 PM
79 comments
79 Comments:
One particulary odd woman claims that Flight 93 crashed at 10:03:11 and wonders if the 3:11 is a hint to the Madrid bombings on 3-11-03.
Dood - its soooo obvious! Keep believeing your "official story."
Truthout!
Wow. This blog is 10 kinds of wrong. I'd go as far as to throw one of your own terms back at yah and say anti-american. Blogs and sites created to COUNTER people that want a fair investigation? That makes no sense at all. None.
The Loose Changers and others have demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that they do not want a fair investigation, they want their conclusions to be reached, no matter what the evidence says. They are doing this for the own politcal and personal agendas, nothing more.
Anyone reading this blog picture this. A stockboy in wal-mart walks up to you with a boxcutter and says "give me your wallet or I'll cut you!" What would you do? I would laugh in their face too. Enough said.
Everyone is a Monday morning Chuck Norris.
Asking questions and wanting more facts is completely harmless. Let me repeat, asking questions and wanting more facts is 100% HARMLESS.
They aren't asking questions, they are making vile and nasty insinuations. They are encouraging a thought mode that discourages legitimate criticism of the government.
A building "pancaking" at freefall speed? Simply impossible.
Every Structural Engineer in the world disagrees with you. Can you please show your credentials as to why your comment has any validity? Oh, hey, I forgot, your just asking questions.
ASK QUESTIONS!
Questions have to be based in reality to be of any worth. When you ask "Why did the towers fall at freefall speeds", the part about freefall speeds is assumed to be truth, not merely a CT fantasy as has been shown. That is not asking questions, that is making conclusions, and they are wrong.
On one side is a competent scientific investigation carried out be hundreds of people, with the involvement of thousands of academics and working engineers.
On the other side are a bunch of folks who go around making up shit and ask "when did you stop beating your wife" questions.
Seems pretty simple to me.
"Anyone reading this blog picture this. A stockboy in wal-mart walks up to you with a boxcutter and says "give me your wallet or I'll cut you!" What would you do? I would laugh in their face too. Enough said."
I agree completely. And the fact that they claimed to have bombs is so unimportant that you wisely chose to just not bother mentioning it at all.
The fact that you repeat this argument exactly as your conspiracy theory websites tell it to you also demonstrates your independent thinking and wisdom.
Some parts of this post may contain sarcasm.
I just have to address this:
"You can nitpick at one point here or there all day long, but overall there are MANY unanswered questions that need to be addressed."
Yes. There are always unanswerable questions in any huge uncontrolled event such as a fire and building collapse. There are questions even when controlled scientific experiments are conducted. Deal with it. Rational people learn to live with uncertainty. They don't go around concocting bizarre hypotheses that defy Occam's Razor in order to account for every possible "unanswered question."
Oh, wait--maybe I'm being anti-American!
So you're saying groups such as the 9/11 truth movement DO NOT want a fair investigation? I'm sorry you got your facts wrong.
Nope. They do not. They have demonstrated a outright rejectiuon of scientists and relevant experts in the past in favor of fantasy and nonsense. They've also made clear their politcal agenda. They don't want anything resembling 'fair'.
.. And according to you everyone is a total coward.
Look up the DB Cooper hijacking sometime. He didn't even have a boxcutter, why didn't the passengers of that plane 'beat him to death with their luggage'? He was not alone in the tactic of claiming to have a bomb, and at least one caller from the plane said the hijackers claimed to have a bomb.
I'm just as offended by the way you portray all muslims as evil and wanting to kill. This could not be farther from the truth. I have many friends that are muslim AMERICANS and love America. Yet they're attacked because of their religion - one of the very things this country was founded to protect. Freedom of religion and from persecution.
I present nothing of the kind. So this is a strawman.
I was at the RNC protests in New York. I'm well aware of legitimate criticism of government. For that, my rights were violated and I spent over six hours in a run down bus garage. Never charged, I broke no laws.
I'm sorry this happened to you, and it was wrong. But it is not relevant to the issue at hand. I'm not saying what our government does is all sweetness & cream. I am saying you can't just latch on to every bit of wacky criticism just because it is attacking Bush & co.
Define what you view of legitimate criticism of government. I'd really like to know.
Voting. Protesting. Making your opinion known to politicians. Not grabbing anything to villify the current administration even if it doesn't make a single lick of sense from any angle.
The law of falling bodies. Time it yourself.
I have. The towers do not fall as fast as you claim. And WTC7 only seems to fall fast when you start well after the penthouses collapse.
What do credentials matter when critics of the government story are immediately discredited anyhow?
Weak. Sorry, but this does not apply. To date not one relevant expert, EVEN IN COUNTRIES HOSTILE TO THE UNITED STATES, has said that the building collapses were anything unexpected.
Again the law of falling bodies.
The building fell at freefall speeds. That's not something I just made up, do the math, then time it.
I've time it dozens of times, as have plenty of others. It does not fall as fast as you claim. Simple as that.
You can nitpick at one point here or there all day long, but overall there are MANY unanswered questions that need to be addressed.
There will always be some unanswered questions in any investigation of any crime. What has happened is that random questions have taken the place of evidence. I can ask questions about any investigation when I just make stuff up that isn't true.
Oh, and Kate, some reading about your 'freefall' allegations.
http://www.911myths.com/html/freefall.html
How is it that debris falls faster than the tower you claim is falling in free fall.
Kate, most of what you say has been debunked so many times we are fed up with it.
Examples:
My uncle is a firefighter. He has two friends (NYC firefighters) that were at the WTC that day. Why would they swear they heard explosions if they really didn't? Funny part, they can't talk about it in public because of a gag order (no joke). How would them talking about it put national security in danger?
Explosion happen in any fire. Look at the things around a common office and think about what would happen if they were exposed to heat and fire. Then think of the stuff you don't see, like Tranformers and other nasty things.
Also, the fact that they lived to hear explosions and were able to get out and tell people about them. Demolition explosives don't give you time to escape.
jeb bush running security for the WTC complex,
Oh come on Kate, you can't even keep your Bush's straight. Jeb is the Guvner of FL. You are talking about Marving Bush, who did not run security a the WTC, but was a corporate officer for the company that did. at least he was, he left that position well before 911 and the position had nothing to do with day-to-day operations.
These are myths, Kate. You take a minor fact, and next think you know you've got people saying George himself strangled the bomb-sniffing dogs.
silverstein using the term "pull it" on that PBS program
So, ignoring the fact that he was talking about pulling out firefighters from the area, he admits to comitting a crime on National TV? How are these guys such evil geniuses and such blither idiots at the same time?
The actions at the RNC proves that.
The actions at the RNC have more to do with NY mayors and the NYPD than any Federal level of surveillance. Don't mistake me for someone who hasn't read the Critical Mass accounts of the events.
Maybe something really crazy and off teh wall like a second investigation might help.
Let's say you get one, for arguements sake. I, for one, have little doubt about its conclusions uless it is run by Fetzer and Avery. The conclusions will be much the same.
What will you do then? Scream until you get the results you want?
Do you honestly think I enjoy being called a wacko or crazy? I'm simply calling for a second investigation. You have yet to tell me what is so wrong about that.
The problem is that you are using myths and lies to support such an action. You've produced several of them already, and I've shown you how they were in error.
However, I personally wouldn't stop fighting legislation I feel is limiting or taking away my rights under the constitution.
I'm not asking you to. Nobody here is, I would suspect. I am asking that you put aside the 'Guv'ment did 911' junk. Its based on lies, it gives supporters of these laws ammunition to blast and belittle you with (since it is based on lies), and it is just plain the wrong thing to do. Bush is certainly guilty of taking advantage of 911, but that does not mean he caused it by any means.
Trying to insinuate otherwise on the basis of such flimsy evidence is an attempt to demonize one you perceive as a problem. I'm sure you complain that the 'other side' does this to you all the time, so why is OK when you do it to them?
Is it not enough that you fight against a politician who is taking your rights away, but instead you feel you are fighting some James Bond criminal mastermind? Why is that needed?
Kate, you've got a lot of talking points in there, and you write well. Would you like to take a shot at a guest post? Write me at the address given on the front page and we'll talk about it. Ask BG (Bill Giltner) if we treated him fairly on his guest post.
A large explosion seeming like it came from under the building right before it started to fall?
Come on, Kate. You can see in the video that the collapse starts much higher in the buildings rthan the basement. If the bombs went off in the basement, your Uncle would simply not be alive.
Now mind you, this ignores the HUGE logistical problem with planting enough explosives to bring the towers down, along with he complete lack of detritus (explosves leave a lot of telltale signs).
You can be close enough to hear them yet far enough away not to be hurt.
You've heard fireworks on the 4th and you're still alive to talk about it aren't you?
The descriptions are from people inside the building hearing explosions in the building. If you are outside hearing explosions, how is it that no video or other evidence picks up any sounds. If you are in a building that has enough explosives to demolish it, the explosives may not get you, the falling building will.
Yes thinking about how he declared a state of emergency BEFORE the attacks and didn't proofread it before I posted. You still didn't prove me wrong. He left before that so what, do you think explosives would have been planted day-of?
This doesn't change the fact that he had nothing to do with day to day operations. Audit Committee guys don't exactly have the power to order explosives to be planted.
Even though you obviously don't agree with me, I'm sure you can agree that if what I'm saying were true, it couldn't have been done day -of. Something like this would have to have been done well beforehand.
HOW well before-hand? Explosives have shelf lifes, and the longer you leave them in there the more likely they will be discovered.
All of this ignores the massive logistical problem of planting explosives is a heavily populated office building. This isn't the movies, you don't just plop a backpack full of Semtex and be done with it. No, demolitions requires that you place the charges directly on the support columns, which means that office workers would be coming back to their interior office walls being removed. The only alternative is to use such huge amounts of explosives that somebody would have easily spotted them.
The above also ignored the detonation issues. Most demo work is done with det cord, which would require miles of the stuff all over the place. Radio transmitters have ben suggested but are unreliable.
See the problems here, Kate? You are talking about hours, days, months of work for a large crew, with nobody noticing. It.does.not.add.up.
Why pull IT and not pull OUT? Big difference.
Because you are pulling the building ('it'). You don't pull out a building.
'Pull' is used in firefighting jargon. The video showed this, had you actually watched it.
In demolition 'Pull' is used to describe a mechanical pulling of a building. Not with the use of explosives.
Also.. not only was marvin bush on the board of directors at stratesec before the attacks, stratesec itself is backed by the investment firm kuwait-american corp which is also linked to the bush family!
http://www.911myths.com/html/stratesec.html
What are you so afraid of?
A: The expense
B: A new investigation will never be enough for CTers, unless certain professors of philosophy and theology are brought on board.
Also, boxcutters are some of the weapons of choice in new york city. A buddy of mine has a nice scar from one. I don't appreciate you calling him a coward.
If only the CTers over at LC and the like would follow Kate's advice and quote from credible sources.
No they would rather invent their own journal (laughable), then have fellow Scholar members on the advisor board. then have other members submit papers, so they can instantly label them as "Peer Reviewed"
Yup, I think F&*king Fetzer and Griffin should alway "Peer Review" articles on Thermite and Controlled Demolition, I mean they are the "experts" in that field right...all laughable, just like 90% of the truth movement.
hey, Kate, are these guys just wise asses too, is this a Crdible enough source for you
http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/
MIT structural engineers, nah, there is no way they could no what they are talking about compared to one BYU Physicist...right...
Nice, we got another person (kate) who repeats points debunked to no end.
On one side is a competent scientific investigation carried out be hundreds of people, with the involvement of thousands of academics and working engineers.
On the other side are a bunch of folks who go around making up shit and ask "when did you stop beating your wife" questions.
Seems pretty simple to me.
So what you're saying is creationists are scientifically competetent? I know you didn't say that outright, but by saying the Truthers are leading a real scientific investigation you are saying creationists do as well and "evolutionists" are "making shit up".
How you people survived into adulthood is beyond me.
I say credible because anything that has "911 myths" or the like in it I'm not even going to consider.
I'm sure that's the same kind of skepticism we would find in a "fair investigation."
Have fun fighting the uphill battle against common sense from the comfort of your computer chair! :)
Have fun living in denial :)
Why would the term "pull it" be used to describe CD if it doesn't invole the same kind if CD that the CT's are talking about. Explain that one to me.
Or explain why debris from the towers falls faster than the towers if they are "free falling." I'm not going to play the stupid back and forth blog game. If you don't give me a solid answer you don't have the credibility to talk, period. I also take a non response or moving the question somewhere else or giving a BS "fact" that you failed to mention before, yet is so important now, as a sign of defeat.
Kate;
you didn't address my MIT Engineer post. Or do you feel it is irrelevant?
Good I am glad you are at city council. Does it make you feel good to belittle what others do like that.
Just because these people sit at a desk and post on blogs doesn't mean they are unimportant or trivial.
I post on this blog, and by day I work in health care.
Damian Penny Runs one of the biggest Blogs on the internet, and yet by day he is a lawyer.
You are arrogant and ignorant for assuming that those who post here are all mammas boys sitting in front of their computer all day, in the basement of their mamma's house.
I thought earlier, like some, that you were a good, honest debater, with some real good issues, but then you turn on people here. Were you baited into it, maybe, maybe not, but that doesnt excuse your comments.
However, I understand your frustration. I have vented and lashed out on a number of occasions myself.
Just don't assume that those who post here are all tech geeks with nothing better to do. There are alot of things I could be doing instead, but this issue is important to me.
oh and as far as people like us becoming the minority more and more each day...even the most recent polls that the CTers love to quote, sho that only 1/3rd (33%) feel the government had any role in 9/11, that leaves 67% (The MAJORITY) not feeling this way...
"Blowing the base supports of a building causes it to collapse from the bottom-up NOT from the top-down." Dumbest comment I've heard all day. Even though you don't make any sense at least you make me laugh. Cheers!
...actually, that's how every controlled demolition works. Stop living in denial.
It'll be sad when you morons are ever a majority. You completely disregard common sense, logic, and knowledge.
The "pull it" argument has got to be THE most retarded aspect of the 9/11 movement. As I've mentioned before, while conducting military operations I often use the term "pull it in!" when I want my men to close in on my location. According to Kate and her ilk, I'm really telling them to grab on to the nearest building and pull it over to where I'm standing. Right. Carry on Kate.
STILL have to explain why it wasn't yanked down with cables. Cuz that's what it means.
Killtown didn't buy this even when I showed him an article explaining that. In the same thread over at the SLC forum he also made his infamous "why do OCTers always know this stuff and CTers never do?" (paraphrasing).
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
"Funny how all OCTs 'knew the history of pull it' and no CT did. Kinda like how all OCT's (sic) [know] cell phones work in airplanes and all CTs don't."
Yet the fool keeps arguing.
Un-f***ing-believable.
If you read further I say that it's called "ignorance". He then has the gall to call the 'OCTs' ignorant.
Well, I've come back after being away for a while to find thast Kate has claimed even more knowledge than experts in the field, produced even more myths, poisoned the well for sites that counter her claims, and has even posted.
Kate, what you say is nonsense. Pure and simple. Some of your claims are even contradictory and you don't even notice. I won't bother going over it since others have already nailed you to the wall and sent you scurrying. But I always love when CTers replace evidence with arrogance.
People did hear explosions. Most of them firefighters who can't even talk about it!
And? It'd be odd NOT to hear explosions in a fire.
Man, you people are so ignorant. It really explains the entire Truth movement. A bunch of people who lacked lots of knowledge, and instead of educating themselves, filled in the gaps with their biases and illogic.
See the difference? Please, act like an adult.
How it is childish? It describes you people perfectly.
Yes it would. Although according to the story you stand behind there were no fires on either the ground floor or the basement levels where the explosion came from. See.. you need fires for what you said to make any sense. Without them it's called a bomb.
....
No, it's not called a bomb. Jet fuel went down elevator shafts.
Perfectly right into it's own footprint.
How you people can keep parroting this blatant falsehood is beyond me. It didn't fall perfectly, nor into its own footprint. It damaged other buildings, and rubble went across the street.
They don't because they can't. Again, without fire it's called bombs.
Ok to Kate it's either A. a fire or B. a bomb - and Kate I'd like to introduce you to a logical fallacy called "false dichotomy".
Wow. I'll just assume you're kidding me.
Now I'll pull out the childish insults - you're an idiot. We know everything you people pull out. We've debunked them numerous times. The "molten steel" is a SECOND-HAND account. It's like saying "well, I hear from a friend of a friend that...". Don't try pulling your stunts here.
Yes it would. Although according to the story you stand behind there were no fires on either the ground floor or the basement levels where the explosion came from. See.. you need fires for what you said to make any sense. Without them it's called a bomb.
Explosions are reported in the vast majority of fires. Compressed canisters, electronics, even snapping beams and supports tend to create rather loud explosions. As for the first floor shit, as far as we can tell, any loud noises heard on the lower levels were created by objects falling down the elevator shafts. You've obviously never heard a chunk of concrete drop 40 floors, but trust me, it makes quite the bang.
To you maybe, not to me. It fell as if the center supports had been blown out, followed by the outer supports. Perfectly right into it's own footprint.
Obviously you have no idea what the phrase "cantelevered over a power station" means.
Wow. I'll just assume you're kidding me.
Yes, it IS much easier to assume that then it is to actually go out and try to find evidence of molten steel. Especially when no such evidence exists.
Not true. Both of my uncles friends were under national security orders not to talk to anyone about it.
I guess your unles friends are something special because no firefighter I know has ever heard of such an order.
They don't because they can't. Again, without fire it's called bombs.
*sigh*
Speaking as someone who's spent lots of time around explosions of all types, I can assure you that you're absolutely clueless.
I think it's evidence of a controlled demolition.
That's the problem, you think it is, wheras the folks who actually perform controlled demolitions know that it isn't.
Kate;
Thank you for replying.
I have never condoned childish or malicious behaviour here or anywhere, and I agree that if these things were sent to your blog, and people hurled insults at you personally, than you are entitled to fight in kind.
As for our little issue...
you through out your challenge to all, where as my rebuttal was to you in particular, requesting an address from you. If you wish, I could find some references that address the molten steel. I am far from an expert in either field, so I rely on the opinion of experts for my information.
I'm done debating with you and I'm going to read right past your posts from now on. You've proven yourself to be little more than a child or a very immature adult. I'm not going to tolerate your childish insults.
"You destroyed my argument and now I'm going to ignore you so I can live in my little echo chamber."
Kate, I can translate conspiracy-nutese pretty well.
Hey, I may be immature (I'm not, you people leave me no recourse when you ignore your arguments being destroyed than to insult you), but at least I understand logic and critical thinking.
Sucks some "child" is smarter than you, huh?
Aluminum melts, the metal coming out of the WTC is probably the plane.
Molten steel is white, last I checked.
Concrete doesn't fall 40 floors on it's own. Something with enough force knocks it loose.
Yeah...it's called a plane.
That video clearly shows pictures of molten steel bouncing off of the side of the building as it's falling.
Molten steel is WHITE. It's almost definitely aluminum from the melting remainder of the plane.
The last pic actually shows molten metal dripping from the chunk he's picking up. Look again.
It's not steel.
out a few feet beyond that base of the building itself.
Have you ever seen a photo from above? It's not just a "few feet".
Why would fires in the rubble be unusual? You have a tone to your posts that make it seem like it is. So I have to ask, what do you think caused it? Thermate? How much would you need to have it burn that long.
What about pull it? If it can be applied to different circumstances and have different meanings like you said before then how does that support CD? By what you said Pull it can mean exactly what it did that day, pulling firefighters out.
Plus what's up with the rubble? If you look at the falling debris of each tower its falling faster than the tower itself. If the towers are free falling how can the debris fall faster than gravity would allow?
Answer those before jumping on any other points.
Kate;
you still didn't answer me. I am now kindly asking you for your opinion on the MIT paper, written by a panel of structural and mechanical engineers, on the collapse of the towers. Have you read it. If so, what do you think. If not, do you plan on it, given you must agree, they are experts in that field.
I might also add that your first post is quite amusing. People having the freedom to argue is what America is all about. How is that un-American? Even claiming our government basically murdered 3,000 people is American. You have the right to do that. However we also have the right to show how wrong you are.
Plus, where do you live? I live in Jersey. I think I might just hop over the river and go ask some firefighters what they think of your claims or their "gag order."
Yes but alex we're talking almost an hour after the planes hit. Concrete doesn't fall 40 floors on it's own. Something with enough force knocks it loose.
No, structural failiure can occur at any point in time once enough damage has been inflicted. For instance, I once saw a concrete balconey collpase 5 hours after the building was initialy damaged. You'd have to be more than a little..."simple"...not to understand that structures can and do fail over a long period of time.
I asked for proof in case you missed it. Telling me I don't know what cantelevered over a power station means doesn't prove your point.
You asked for proof AFTER I already made my statement. What are you on? It was obvious from your initial response ("it looked like the center columns failed!") that you had no idea what he was talking about. So I pointed out your ignorance on the matter, hoping you'd go and educate yourself. Then AFTER I did so, you asked him for evidence. You then proceeded to chastise me for daring to point out your ignorance before you thought to ask for evidence. Who does that?
Sure does, already posted it. Why you close your eyes to it is beyond me. Unless of course you're not after the truth then it would make perfect sense.
You posted it AFTER I made that statement! Jeezus CHRIST woman! What are you living on a different temporal plane or something?
Unfortunately they're not. Which makes me that more upset about it. How many NYC firefighters that survived have you talked to?
3. And I've seen interviews with at least 3 or 4 more. None of whom seem to have a problem talking about what happened. And all of whom seem to have a lot of difficulty keeping themselves from beating self-rightious revisionist gluebags such as yourself into bloody piles of goo.
Good, because I'm not looking for you to assure me of anything I do or do not know. I'll let facts do that.
Alright, let me rephrase. As someone who has plenty of experience working around explosions of all types, I know for a fact that you speak out of pure ignorance. Those I work with would also see you for the waste of skin that you are. Educate yourself before opening your mouth, it'll save you a lot of emberasement in the long run.
once again, I have been mislead. I thought you were gonna have honest debate. Before you go, care to tell me what you thought of the MIT paper.
here is the link
http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/
Ok, so Kate here has once again reminded me just how anoying it is to have to go over the same arguments over and over again every time a new looser sticks his/her head into the forums. So here's what I'm thinking. I'd like to design a site with a searchable database of all the CT talking points, and the related information as to why they're wrong. For each segment I'd like to create a comments thread with a rating and moderation system, allowing for the information to be updated by anyone presenting (verified) new information. Sort of like a 9-11 wikki. That way when one of these rejects pops in here yelling "DERE WAZ DANCING JOOOOZ!", you can pop over to the site, type "dancing israelis" in the search box, and have a link to the relevant info ready to go in seconds. I've been thinking about starting something like that for a while, but I'm in the middle of a fairly demanding tasking with the mil, so I don't have much time to work on it. Anyone here competent with PHP any SQL who'd be interested in collaborating?
No, never seen it, but I'll check it out, thanks. If it's any good maybe I can talk them into letting me borrow their code. Would save me a lot of work.
What does a person have to do to get an answer here. I act civil, and ask civil, and I get nothing.
Maybe I should start bad mouthing, then maybe you would reply
Here's before the building even fell.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=545886459853896774&q=molten+steel+WTC
Seen it. There's not proof that that is molten metal. Given that it falls and cools so quickly means it might be anything but molten steel. Quite frankly, it looks like the old 'firefalls' they used to do at Yosemite, and those were just coals.
Picture showing red hot metal with molten metal dripping off
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/hotSlag.jpg
Nope. That's just hot metal. Molten steel would not look like that and it would also not drip off a piece of merely red hot steel. This pic has been done to death and it isn't what you think it is.
Overhead shots of the site done with heat sensitive cams
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/thermal.r09.html
Not one of which demonstrates temperatures sufficient to melt steel. Hot spots are to be expected after any fire.
. And to quote from the page above in case some of you don't read the whole thing..
"Analysis of the data indicates temperatures greater than 800F"
Not enough to melt steel. Heat it for certain, but not make it molten.
BTW, since when to explosive charges make molten metal?
That video clearly shows pictures of molten steel bouncing off of the side of the building as it's falling.
No Kate, it is not steel. The stuff drifts in the wind very easily. Look again.
So now tell me, how exactly do you, your knowledge of explosives, and your friends know for a fact I'm speaking out of pure ignorance?
1) I'm going to make an assumption here and say you've never actually HEARD a bomb go off. Not many people have. I, and "my friends", have.
2) Whether or not you know what explosives actually sound like, you certainly weren't there on 9/11, so you're relying on second hand testimony.
3) Not only are you relying on second hand testimony but are, for the most part, relying heavily on statements which were meant as metaphors. When someonse says "Ben Johnson could run like the wind", it doesn't mean that the guy literaly turned himself into a gust of wind. Similarily, when someone says "it was like bombs going off" it also doesn't mean that this person beleives that bombs were going off.
4) You assume that only two events could account for "explosions"; either fire, or bombs.
Like I said, ignorance.
Better yet, how do you and your friends KNOW it was not bombs or thermite?
It wasn't thermite because thermite doesn't explode.
It wasn't bombs because explosives tend to have a very distinctive sound. They also generate concussion, which you can feel, not just hear. I wasn't present so I cannot say 100% for certain that no such concussions occured. However, the police officers on the scene, as well as the firefighters and even the civilians, would have described the feeling as well as the sound. Certainly some of the personnel present would have said "there must have been explosives", instead of saying "it was like an explosion".
Furthermore, placing explosives in the basement has absolutely zero logic to it. The building collapse began at the point of impact. Bombs in the basement would have cause a collapse at ground level. You would have seen a completely different type of fall.
Well there you have it. Half the jet fuel burned off outside the building right after impact. That's my first problem with it, along with countless others.
So what was your scientific method of counting how much fuel burned outside the building.
Lemme guess, you saw the big fireball and figured that had to be all of it, right?
Still waiting on the debris falling faster than the "freefall" towers....
ok, so problem one you have with it is over where the jet fuel went. You say half of it was burned outside the building...where is your proof. Where is your expert to prove that. I am not saying there isnt an expert to say that, I am simply asking you to show me a link to a qualified expert stating that.
Please go on, what other problems do you have with the study...with out bothering you too much as you seemed to be annoyed at discussing the peer reviewed paper by a panel of experts.
http://www.arcticbeacon.com/22-Nov-2004.html
This link says that, but does not provide a name or credentials of who made the comment.
http://www.911forthetruth.com/pages/RodriguezComplaint6.htm
another link stating it, no expert named for the claim
http://911review.com/attack/wtc/fires.html
another link claiming it without a reference.
like I said, maybe there is a reference, but I am having trouble finding a a credible expert claiming this.
http://www.septembereleventh.org/documents/rodgwtcpdf.pdf
now this guy alludes to a PBS program where there expert contends what you claim...so I will tentatively accept the argument.
Now show me how this effects the conclusions of the MIT study.
http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20II%20Inferno%20@%20WTC.pdf
I doubt you even read it, for if you had, you would have seen that the article of the Inferno of the WTC states that the planes were far from fully loaded with fuel, and that the jet fuel and impact would have "Triggered" the infernos.
half of the fuel seems to be more than enough to cause the infernos that resulted from all the other flammables within the building.
So the fact that "half of the jet fuel" was used up outside the building, doesnt even come into his calculations or conclusions, as his conclusions are based on the jet fuel fire only being the trigger for the infernos.
He does state that the fuel would have had to have spread to multiple floors, but I am sure that of the 10,000 Gallons (40,000L) of fuel the plane was carrying, the 5,000 Gallons that remained to enter the building, likely leaked into multiple floors, as we know a MINIMUM of 4 floors were on fire.
I agree, that half of the fuel burned up. I needed to find the reference myself, but once i found it, i conceded it (imagine...conceding a point once presented with real evidence).
My follow up question, however, is how does that fact come into play with the article. If one actually reads the article, you can see it has NO bearing on his conclusions.
i wouldnt go that far, at least kate said she'd accept the findings if a second investigation upheld the conclusions of the first
Saying and doing are two different things. For example, Fetzer says he would beat hijackers to death with his lugage....
You're right though, Kate's just ignorant and easily mislead whereas insync is a freakin' whacko.
Wrong again. Yes it can. Although I'm sure you'll want to get technical here and use that. Many, many things can be added and that changes the name. Thermite/Thermate can cause an explosive reaction at the right things are added. Basically the same reaction as slow burning only explosively fast. Care for proof you can deny on this as well?
That's a load of bull right there. Having actually handled the stuff in the Army I can tell you your dead wrong. Yes, technically if I throw thermate into something flamable and explosive that would set it off but thermate in itself isn't an explosive. It would also lose its purpose if it was spread by an explosion. So are you saying that thermate was the bombs or there was something else involved? Either thermate was used to cut steel (which it still can't do sideways) or pick a different explosive and try again....
As for the molten steel do you have proof that's what it is? Jumping the gun and saying "It has to be steel, it wasn't hot enough to melt steel, ergo CD" is jumping the gun a bit.
Ok so the towers were not falling at free fall speed, how does this support CD? Freefall was suppost to equal CD and now it doesn't? Get your facts together.
I also love how you accept that planes hit, referenced a study showing how the steels strength was lowered in the fires but all of that wasn't enough to bring the towers down.
To me it always made since that if the government was going to do something like that they would keep it simple. It's so much more possible to have a plane do all of that and still have a conspiracy. Why drag high explosives and thermate into the equation when physics proves you don't need it. Hell you don't even need the towers to fall to rally up support to invade a country.
My point still stands. If thermite is used as a high explosive (which is pointless) It wouldn't cut steel. Either it burns slow and melts its surroundings or it explodes. The military prefers the first option. So what you should be talking about is the use of thermite/thermate AND another explosive.
But you don't because you have no idea what your talking about. If you have better qualifications than a former US Army Armorer go right ahead and prove me wrong. otherwise keep sending me wikipedia links, I need a good laugh.
Wrong. I've been to serveral building demolitions. I've have heard, felt and saw explosives AND explosions first hand.
I find that rather dificult to believe considering your ignorance on the matter. However, I'll refrain from calling you a liar for now.
You didn't hear any statements saying "it FELT like a bomb went off"?
No. And the funny thing is, while I was trying to find quotes of someone saying that, I instead found this:
"It felt like an airplane hit the building," said Bruce Pomper, a 34-year-old broker.
The guy was talking about the actual bombing of the WTC, back in 1993.
Ah, the irony.
Proof of this can be posted of this if needed.
Please do. Preferably from a cop, or an ex soldier, rather than an english teacher.
I didn't mean it like that so I'll explain it again, for the THIRD TIME. I said that because that is what I BELIEVE, not fact all across the board. Get that? What I believe.
You're starting to sound like a religious nut. Get off the "I BELEIVE!!" bandwagon and start examining the facts instead.
To what? You and your "friends"? Absolutely, because you haven't proven anything at all. Nothing.
That's obviously another thing you fail to understand. I don't need to prove anything. YOU are the one making idiotic allegations. The burden of proof rests on you. Meanwhile I can sit back and occasioanly poke my head in to point out why your proof is inadequate, inaccurate, and just plain out wrong.
Wrong again. Yes it can. Although I'm sure you'll want to get technical here and use that. Many, many things can be added and that changes the name. Thermite/Thermate can cause an explosive reaction at the right things are added. Basically the same reaction as slow burning only explosively fast. Care for proof you can deny on this as well?
Well, yes, by that logic a rubber duckey could explode if the right things are added. Does that mean that someone packed a rubber duckey full of C4 and tossed it into the basement of the WTC?
Thermite doesn't explode. If it were to be used as a demolition tool (something it's not well suited to at all) it deffinitely wouldn't be laced with explosives. Making it explode would only render it even less useful.
First, the center of the building would have begun to fall, not the entire building.
Horse shit. Look at the construction of the WTC. If the central columns collapsed, the rest of the building would have followed a half second later. Don't tell me you seriously beleive that the outside steel cage would have remained standing!
Second, the blasts were slightly below the falling debris.
I don't know, I think the basement was WAY below the falling debris.
People purposely confused what I was saying above when I posted proof center supports are blown out first in building demolition.
Yes, if by "first" you mean a tiny fracion of a second before the rest of the columns. If the explosion in the basement had been the start of the demolition, there would have been no eyewitnesses because the building would have been fully collapsed about 13 seconds later.
First, that's if ALL of the fuel burned inside the building (no this is not referring to the temp part so stop right there). Second, there has to be enough fuel present the WHOLE TIME for it to reach those temps to begin with. Unless of course you think desks and chairs burn at well over 500F.
You really ARE something else, you know that?
"In only 3 1/2 minutes, the heat from a house fire can reach over 1100 degrees Fahrenheit."
Source: The Red Cross
I guess house fires MUST contain jet fuel.
In the video I posted molten steel is clearly coming out of the tower (obviously depending on who you ask).
Once again you speak out of ignorance. Molten steel is nearly white in colour. Why do you keep refusing to acknowledge that?
Add to that the FACT the first building took more a direct hit (more fuel) and that's all the more reason it should have fallen first.
More ignorance. A more direct hit is a reason for it NOT to fall first. Take two wooden chairs. Kick one right in the center. Kick the second one on one of the legs. See which one collapses first.
Anyone with more than half a brain can tell you that the corners of a structure are the weak point. They support the most weight meaning if you collapse a corner, most if not all of the building is coming down.
Doesn't it stand to reason that the building hit head on would fall first since (presumably) more fuel was in there? Yet it fell first. Next you're going to say "But the second plane was going faster!". Sure. How did you figure that out exactly?
It's becoming readily aparent that you don't actually posses the ability to reason.
It don't believe it pancaked. Certainly not in a little over 10 seconds. 30 seconds I can see, even 20 although that's streching it, but just over 10 seconds for a building that size to pancake completely to the ground? No way.
Why? Once again you rely on faith. "I beleive! I don't beleive!". Faith is irrelevant. Find the facts.
Events and debating the facts about the events is all I'm interested it.
Ah, the irony.
Saying things like "I beleive", "I don't beleive" and "it stands to reason" does not qualify as fact.
I can sum up all of the facts which you've provided in your post in one sentence:
".....so....how 'bout them Mets....."
Let me rephrase that - not the same amount but hot enough to melt steel. Again, NOT 4000F.
Who say's the steel needed to melt for the towers to fall, classic strawman.
As for invading a country I was saying that if you think 9/11 was caused to give us a reason to go into Iraq, you wouldn't need the towers to fall. The fact that there were plenty of mistakes made about pre-war intel and that there aren't that many good reasons for going into Iraq helps prove it wasn't a conspiracy. Why mess everyhing up when you could plant WMD's and say the Iraqis did 9/11.
The government is all about KISS
Keep it simple, stupid. The more complex you try to make something the better the chance you'll be found out.
No group that can secretly wire and destroy the twin towers in record time can make a stupid mistake like letting some thermite slip out. Hell why use the stuff when its never been needed before.
I'd go out on a limb and say I know more about anything than Prof Jones :)
I dunno, I'm pretty sure he knows more than you about...."altered mind-states" :)
My not accounting for other possible sources of sulfur in the debris his research is very biased.
By that and that alone I hold as much ground as your official story and experts do.
See, that right there tells me you truly are retarded. We saw the aircraft impact. We saw the towers collapse from the point of impact down. The figures for that are irrelevant because we know it happened. We have no way to actualy measure the speed, or the exact payload, or the exact ammount of fuel that burned off outside, or the hottest temperature the WTC reached. But we don't need to because we saw the aircraft hit, and we saw the collapse. We can make approximations, and as long as the math works out and the models work then it's close enough. We can even make suggestions for improvements in future building designs.
You, on the other hand, base your entire theory on explosives which
1) nobody saw.
2) only one janitor claims to have heard
3) there is absolutely no physical evidence of.
and
4) have absolutely zero logical reason for being there.
Ofcourse, in your eyes, both perspectives are equal. That's how I know you're retarded. You'd have to have a rather low IQ in order to put your conspiracy theory on the same level as the proffesional investigations.
Have you even watched Prof Steven Jones are read any of his research?
Oh yes, the part where he tried to convince us that a pile of concrete is cooled molten steel, and the part where he says that the 2nd law of thermodynamics means 'things topple over' would be hilarious.
Watch the video and read his research for yourself.
Research has to have some basis in reality, not fantasy types of thermite
Don't listen to people on here as fact. Research it and watch it for yourself.
And don't forget the popcorn, Jones was Ignoble worthy!
When was the last time you saw a chunk of sparks? When? Watching the video... there's a chunk of sparks that hits the side of the building and breaks apart into more sparks.
It's aluminum. Stop ignoring my posts, I know you're reading them. Molten steel is WHITE HOT. It's not red or orange.
Unlike you Kate, and Nesnyc, who must be structural engineers, given you seem to think you have the knowledge to question their science, I don't claim to. The thing that now bothers me the most about the "Truth" movement is also what will be their undoing...your arrogance. Perhaps I will send your questioning via email to the MIT people, so they can answer your questions.
As for your not accepting "what ifs" or estimations, there is noone who can use otherwise, given nobody was standing inside the WTC with thermometers, nobody was by the WTC measuring the exact amount of fuel burned, nobody was satnding around MEASURING ANYTHING!!!!
But I bet your little physics guy from BYU never uses any what ifs or estimates, does he KATE. Oh, and what I would love to see is J Woods and her keebler elf theory stand up to the MIT theory on the structure of the building and why it didn't topple over on its side.
And yes, I am a little annoyed, because I find it insulting to those people who have educated themselves for 8-10 years beyond high school, that someone with no experience in the field, would spout off conjecture on their facts.
You know if your science is so sure, Kate, it seems to me it will only be a matter of weeks before you will have hundreds of civil and structural engineers pledging to your cause right?
Oh no wait, i doubt it, because in teh paranoid world of the CT community, all those do not agree with you are bought off or scared shills/sheeple right...ya...ok
It's aluminum. Stop ignoring my posts, I know you're reading them. Molten steel is WHITE HOT. It's not red or orange.
I don't even think it is metal at all, it gets caught in wind gusts and moves far too easily. Molten Aluminum might do that, but I doubt it. Molten steel would never do that in the wind.
I suspect it is actually a mix of burning polymers. Ever burn a plastic army man as a child? Remember how flaming bits dripped off?
And yes, I am a little annoyed, because I find it insulting to those people who have educated themselves for 8-10 years beyond high school, that someone with no experience in the field, would spout off conjecture on their facts.
Truly the Eloi are telling the Morlocks how to run the world.
I wish more Morlocks would get hungry.
If she knew WTF she was talking about, she would know for starters that the word "Molten" does not necessarily mean melted, but rather it means:
#1 Made liquid by heat; melted: molten lead.
#2 Made by melting and casting in a mold.
#3 Brilliantly glowing, from or as if from intense heat:
Note definition #3. Infact, and metal taht is brilliantly glowing can be referred to as Molten.
SO the orange yellow could have been molten steel, but at a temperature much lower than the MELTING POINT of 2700 F
http://www.processassociates.com/process/heat/metcolor.htm
Check it out
It couldn't have been alluminum, as the melting point of alluminum is 660 C, which according to the metal heat color chart, would not glow to more than a red before turning into a liquid. ( I am assuming she is talking abou the solid glowing piece of metal in the mouth of the tractor on the WTC site that we have all seen.)
Yes, if you accept that definition of molten then it could have been "molten steel". However, that's deffinitely a misuse of the word "molten". "Red hot" might have been better.
I'm not an expert in the field, the only reason I know anything about the colour of hot steel is through using machineguns for way over the recommended rate/length of fire. After having about 600 rounds fired through it in quick succession, the barrel of a GPMG will turn roughly the same colour as the steel in the picture. However, the metal will retain it's shape, and once cooled the barrel can again be used. So no, steel that glows that colour is not "molten" in the classic sense of the word, it's still quite solid. Firing another 600 rounds through the barrel without letting it cool though will eventually give you a nice white glow, and the metal almost becomes translucent (I've only seen it once but it scared the crap outta me). At that point it's extremely dangerous to operate it any further because the metal has just about lost all of it's strength and a barrel explosion is quite possible. Also, the barrel will have deffinitely warped by that point, rendering it useless.
So, long story short, steel which is melted to the point of dripping will deffinitely be white. Steel that's glowing red still has a good portion of it's strength, and won't warp or bend unless subjected to external stress. So the stuff dripping out of the WTC could not by any means have been steel. And the beam in her linked photo could have been steel, but not anywhere near it's melting point.
I agree, but I think when CTers point to the whole "Molten Metal" claim, they must be using the alternate definition of "Molten" as they point time and time again to footage and photos of solid, but orangy yellow colored metal.
What is the point of molten metal anyways? They make it seem like only thermite/thermate could cause that to happen yet dismiss the amount of energy generated by the falling debris. How much thermate would be needed to cause those fires to sustain? I really don't get the point of arguing against science when a conspiracy theory could still survive without crazy stuff like thermate and holographic technology. It's like these people try to find the most complex way of doing something and run with it. Hell, I know a lot of religious people who apply that to creation. On the topic of creation they say
"Who says that God doesn't shape the universe by using the principles of science?"
I'm an athiest myself but I have more respect for that idea than saying God did it in 6,000 years.
It couldn't have been alluminum, as the melting point of alluminum is 660 C, which according to the metal heat color chart, would not glow to more than a red before turning into a liquid. ( I am assuming she is talking abou the solid glowing piece of metal in the mouth of the tractor on the WTC site that we have all seen.)
The original claim, put forht years ago by IndyMedia based on second-thrid hand info was that there were 'HUGE POOLS OF MOLTEN STEEL' in the WTC basement. The story also had them ridiculously being 'dipped' with an excavator (not a good way to preserve your equipment.)
The idea that they have gone form "HUGE POOLS' to 'Look, you can see some at the bottom...kinda' sums up all the promises of the denier movement.
Post a Comment
<< Home