One of the WTC design engineers, Leslie Robertson, had denied that people saw molten steel in the Ground Zero rubble. A video surfaced recently showing that in 2002 he claimed he had seen "a little river of molten steel" himself.
Here's a thought (just a thought): take one box column; drill a hole in in it; pour a load of thermite/thermate through the hole and into the column; stand well back and set the fucker off (I don't know the technical term for this). Seems to me that the box column will do the job of holding the thermite/thermate in place as it works its melting magic. Or, perhaps you could place explosives inside the columns and the columns themselves would dampen the sound of their own destruction. Whae kens!
@kkkaldav "Seems to" you? Nice science. how about you demonstrate this. or demonstrate the silent explosives inside the columns. Given the number of engineers supposedly in the truth movement this should be very easy to do. And while you're at it explain how this thermate/explosive could be placed into the columns. And get those engineers to produce a theory about which columns were severed, how, and when that matches the visual evidence.
@LordDavidVader Well, legovideoman, re your analysis of my speculation: 1. The "seems to " was about the box column's sides containing the thermite, and I don't think many would doubt that the sides would contain it since the only way it could get out would be for it to melt its way out, and by the time it's done that the job's done, duh! 2. I did explain how the thermite/thermate could be placed in the columns. It was high-tech stuff though: you cut a hole in the column and pour the powder in.
Well I guess it's obvious we will never agree so I will leave you with the question you avoided answering (similar to all truthers) Where is the scientific flaw in NIST's report?
@LordDavidVader The scientific flaw in NIST's report is that there was no science. They withheld their data (photos and videos). They conducted no forensic examination and instead produced some cartoons without releasing the details of how they were produced. They increased temperatures and fire lengths for their models arbitrarily. They invented fuel sources without any supporting evidence. And they ignored all evidence that was inconsistent with their fire-driven-collapse speculation.
@kkkaldav "The scientific flaw in NIST's report is that there was no science." well with a comment like that I can tell there is no point in discussing anything with you. (your pathetic video of Mark Roberts "lying" confirms this)
@LordDavidVader Re the liar Roberts: Are you seriously suggesting that someone could wade into the ground zero rubble of 220 storeys and identify and collect the particular molten metal that fell from the particular window. And are you further suggesting that someone would have had reason to do this several years before that particular metal from that particular window became the focus of any attention at all.
@LordDavidVader The entire interview isn't going to explain how Roberts could possibly know that the stuff he held in his hands was the very stuff from the very window - he doesn't even try. The point though, is that it's ridiculous to think that anyone could have accurately identified it given the subsequent collapse of the towers. And since Roberts must know this he must know he's lying - even assuming he actually held anything in his hands, as opposed to fabricating the story in its entirety.
WOW if people cannot understand the logical fail of then supposed solution to "problem 2" you are beyond help. Holding a shaped charge to a vertical column is a bit different from holding thermite against a vertical column while it burns. Please do provide some evidence of how thermite can be used to sever a vertical column. When you do this please tell me how it could be placed. And then tell me which columns it would be on and how this would collapse the buildings.
@23456D Since there is no evidence that thermite/thermate was used and no one knows how it even could be used then what would they investigate? It's the truthers that say it could be used but they cant explain how.
The evidence is the building collapse. NIST's posited theory is absurd, and their support for it (it wouldn't ever necessarily happen again, even under identical circumstances!?) is unscientific. A lot of attention has been directed at thermate, and Sunder himself says that 100lbs of thermate could do it (engineering its adherence to a column is a feat I am comfortable assuming is possible) but there are other materials that could cause that collapse. Spheres in the dust.
@23456D actually he said 100lbs for a single column. So where is the scientific flaw in NIST's report? What is really absurd is accusing thousands of people of mass murder based on your comfort that an engineering feat that has never been demonstrated is possible. NIST did consider controlled demolition. It was quickly ruled out due to there being NO evidence of it. (except apparently that some non-experts think the collapse looked like controlled demolition)
I think people's reluctance to posit theories (interesting that the expression "conspiracy theory" has been effectively demonized to the point that it takes a moment for people to disassociate the "theory" part to address known conspiracies like Enron, al Qaeda, et al) is that the massive inadequacy of the theory offered by NIST leaves so many plausible alternatives. Bottom line is it's not citizens' jobs to explain 7's collapse to your satisfaction. It is NIST's job to mine.
@23456D name one plausible alternative. If there are so many I would think you could at least give some vague details on how it might have been accomplished. Just saying "controlled demolition" and then failing to even suggest any method of how it could be accomplished is really not enough to justify a new investigation.
On principle I normally don't offer theories, but what the hell. Tell me this is impossible:
At some point between 8:46AM and 5:20PM, one person entered WTC7, went to a few (call it 4 even though NIST says 1) columns, sliced into them with a torch, packed the cut with incendiary, and walked out.
@23456D OK. well first it would have to be some time way after 8:46 since the building was still being evacuated. 2nd. He would need foreknowledge that WTC7 was going to be hit by WTC debris starting major fires thus providing a cover story. He needs to get all the fire fighters to lie who all saw signs the building was going to collapse. And finally he still needs to employ an as yet unknown method of silently severing the columns. (only 4???) 100% proof? no. 99.9999999% i think so.
Good job. Interestingly enough Thermate/Thermite supposedly can be used in a paint as well. It can be painted on. Though that doesn't seem like it would be as controllable or effective as a shaped cutter charge. I have no clue. :)
You are a truther. Meaning that you are the one and only beholder of the trut. That makes anyone who disagrees with you a liar, a troll a shill or whatever name you can think of.
Wow, this video proves the complete ignorance of the members of the so called 'truth movement'
This video tries to explain to a young child how NIST actually states that thermite is a possibility. But the thing is, the narrater of this video hasn't got a clue what NIST is talking about.
Like showing explosive shape charts (which actually 'push' the metal away in a blast, not melting it) as a solution to connect the thermite to the steel (which has to stay connected till the center is reached).
Exactly, 23456D is not only an idiot, but has deliberately tried to mislead his viewers. When Dr. Sunders says that thermate is impossible to sever giant columns vertically, 23456D brings up a video about linear shape charges, which are nothing like thermate.... AT ALL, and they're incredibly loud.
This is the twoof movement at it's best. Misleading, with misinformation. They are all ignorant.
All I said was that "impossible" and "couldn't be silent" were false. They are. Intentional demolition was LOGICALLY ruled out by NIST, not scientifically, and their logic is baldly false. Not to mention that their ensuing "science" resulted in a result that was unprecedented and unrepeatable (Sunder is asked in this Q&A if identical circumstances would produce the same collapse and he says NO!) I do this because I don't want another false flag attack. Those opposed can't wait.
Sunders answerd that Thermite can't be used (whish is confirmed by the truth movement, as their experiment to destroy a large Truth sign with thermite completely failed) to make a large I Beam melt through, and that a CD would result in very loud explosins, which weren't observed
All you have against that is pictures of explosive cutter charges and explosions hours before the collapse.
" I do this because I don't want another false flag attack"
you should first prove this was a false flag. And you failed to do so. Also, a false flag to do what? Invade afghanistan? Its central govt begged the us and europe to intervene long before 911 happened. To declare war on terror? Reagan did that decades earlier without a false flag. Invade iraq? Bush could not even connect 911 to saddam, so he made up the wmd's.
This video is absolute bullcrap and reeks of misinformation and outright LIES.
First you claim that thermite/thermate could've been used (without evidence of course). Then when Dr. Sunders outs your claim by asking how you can adhere thermite to a vertical column, you bring up a video of demolition experts using LOUD LINEAR SHAPE CHARGES. Which is totally trying to mislead us viewers.
Linear shape chargers are not like thermate/thermite and are extremely loud.
Whoever made this video is either confused, or deliberately trying to mislead. First they try to demonstrate a silent explosive. Then when confronted with "how to keep it adhered to a vertical column" they show an explosive that is LOUD being shoved in a hollowed out concret reinforcement . (then imply you could "mute the audio" from the charge....utterly ridiculous). All of which assuming that conspirators could pinpoint the EXACT area of the building's weakest point to use minimal material.
I'm not going to nitpick or anything, but when the guy said someone would have to be there pushing the thermite, or thermate (not sure which we ended up talking about, he said both), I have to disagree. I have personally burned through doors, railroad tracks, and I-beams with thermite that was stabilized with clay.
No I was merely stating that you can indeed burn vertical things with thermite, saying you can't is stupid. I didn't say what you could burn, because that wasn't the quote in question. The guy said you couldn't burn vertical things with thermite, but I've done it. That was all.
And I didn't say you couldn't burn vertical things. I said you can't burn giant vertical things like critical support beams.
And again, comparing doors and railroads do not compare to massive critical support columns. Burning vertical isn't impossible, but it is for things as massive as the beams in question.
And if Dr.Sunders is only talking about the giant beams in question, than he can say burning vertically is impossible, because he is referring to the beams in question.
How much of the beams have to be burned away before they are no longer good for support? I'd think enough pressure on the right amount of thermite or thermate around the entire diameter could sufficiently weaken the beams. Why must they be burned all the way through? I don't think this is how it happened at all, I'm merely saying that using the word impossible is a bad idea. In the military things of this nature are burned all the time with pressurized thermate.
Honestly, I do not know how much is too much, we both don't. But you know what? Call me crazy, but I tend to trust a team of experts (almost all with PHDs). The NIST report on WTC7 explains in more detail. It's too long for me to type here in comments.
I know I've read it. My original comment was to the statement that burning vertical beams with thermate was impossible, like was said here, which it's not. I don't think it was used at all here, but it's not impossible to do.
It's not impossible when referring to the SIZE of the beams. The size was much to big for thermite to cut through.
It's possible for smaller applications like you referred to. But Dr. Sunders clearly referred to the giant steel columns, which are impossible due to their size. He didn't say "Burning vertically is impossible". He referred to that burning through beams of this size, vertically, is impossible.
seem to have touched a nerve with greywolf424. yes, silverstein is a prime suspect, being that he had access, means, and motive. you're probably right that he didn't do it openly. I'd even be willing to guess he used some...what's that stuff...oh yeah: MONEY to hire someone ELSE to do the actual demolition. we ought to ask him a few questions. and again, where's one person who says "Go ahead! He has nothing to hide!" You're not that person, are you greywolf? Didn't think so.
typical reply from a sheeple.. "LIAR!!" and thats all you people ever add to the discussion.. +++he isn't a suspect of anything by anybody who has actual authority, or an IQ above 35+++
get real some of the smartest people out there are conspiracy theorists. They do more research than 99% of the rest of the world, yet you just label them a 'liar' or 'retarded' because you dont agree with them.. typical.
how can he have NO authority? It was his building. He owns several buildings in NY so hes probably gotten to know the fire chiefs. He went on national TV and said he was in communication with one at the time, and he told them "to PULL IT".. thats up for interpretation, but dont go calling people liars because you refuse to have an open-mind. The fact that he has dodged any questions about it and still refuses to clarify it implies that hes hiding something. People have the right to question him.
Go down to the court house, present your evidence he is guilty and get a court order then. Oh right, you have no scientifically verifiable or legally actionable evidence of anybody doing anything even after 7 years.
+++PROVE there was any demolition, oh right, you can't because there isn't any+++ the fact that several steel buildings of the same size have sustained fires 100x more abundant, longer lasting, and hotter is enough proof for ANY court in the world to declare another investigation.. I guess u think it makes more sense to think that 7 was the 1st bldg. in history to collapse from fire, even when they were smaller then several other bldgs who experienced the same things.. bS
"the fact that several steel buildings of the same size have sustained fires 100x more abundant, longer lasting, and hotter is enough proof for ANY court in the world to declare another investigation."
And yet no one has, your lies are getting more and more pathetic liar
jeez, i cant even believe this is still being debated. The OWNER HIMSELF was in communication with firemen before the collapse, and he admitted on national tv that he told them to go head on collapse it. There have been several steel buildings with fires more intense and more abundant then there were in wtc7 that DIDNT come anywhere near collapsing. To this day, wtc7 is the only steel building to reportedly have collapsed.. nonsense.
"jeez, i cant even believe this is still being debated. The OWNER HIMSELF was in communication with firemen before the collapse, and he admitted on national tv that he told them to go head on collapse it. "
LIAR, he said no such thing, and didn't have the authority to tell the fire department anything. Twoofers are so pathetic.
The Truther Vilification of Larry: How Truthers Distort Silverstein's Words: v=o-IThuAtOsY
This is yet another issue about 9/11 that would have easily been answered in the most rudimentary of an investigation. The fundamental assumption of Sunder's refusal to address any intentional demolition scenario was that it was "unlikely" that someone could have gotten materials into the building. Silverstein is the single individual (that we know of) who has profited most from 9/11, so ask him a few questions and see how his answers fit with the evidence. Too busy paying him billions.
I mean, they're ready to install devices in airports and other public places that measure body heat to detect anxiousness and potential threat from EVERYONE. Can we put this huge beneficiary on a lie detector for five minutes? I mean, he DID have the access, and he HAS benefited. And if he's telling the truth, which debunkers seem SO certain he is, wouldn't this reenforce their argument? Again, it's "Don't ask that question" rather than "here's some evidence".
You too stupid to read what I wrote?, there is no reason to go after someone who never did anything, unless you are suggesting starting a totalitarian government.
Twoofers want to "go after" anybody and everybody. One little problem is that they have failed to come up with even one shred of evidence in seven years.
"This is yet another issue about 9/11 that would have easily been answered in the most rudimentary of an investigation."
It's a non-issue, there is nothing to investigate.
What, you what them to investigate the factless unfounded claims by twoofers that Silverstein somehow had something to do with the destruction of the towers based on a quote that was taken out of context and distorted? Or the fact he was required by law to obtain insurance before taking ownership of the towers?
Silverstein had no more authority to order the fire department to destroy the building 7 than you or I would have had. This is one of the most pathetic and desperate claims by the twoof movement. And you SERIOUSLY think anybody is going to waste a nickel investigating it?
I agree he had no authority to do it. Means it's pretty bad business if he did. Again, why so scared of these questions? How can you be so certain of the answers and yet so scared of having the questions posed? Why isn't there ONE among you who considers the danger of these issues being left hanging to be a worse choice than just investigating and proving what you're so certain of? If there's nothing to hide, nothing will be found, right? Waste of money?...
...we're developing full body scanners to check EVERY PERSON who tries to enter an airport for anxiety. All I'm suggesting is using a little of that money to find and bring the perpetrators of 9/11 to justice. There are a lot of people ready to pony up a nickel for that.
Here's one for you 23456D, you call one loud bang evidence of controlled demolition, right? even though you can't actually prove it happened seconds before WCT7 came down, you just hacked two videos together.
How many explosions do you hear before this 12 story building comes down? This is a building 1/4 the size of WTC 7.
Landmark Implosion: v=79sJ1bMR6VQ
Do you SERIOUSLY think one loud bang which could have been anything proves your point?
No, I don't call "one loud bang evidence of controlled demolition". I call video/audio evidence of explosions evidence that Sunder's statement that no such sounds were heard was false. That's all I sought to prove, and I proved it.
"...which could have been anything..." - including an explosive device. So YOU agree as well that Sunder's statement was false. We don't seem to be in disagreement. Remember that the first attack on the WTC was via a truck bomb in the basement...
"I call video/audio evidence of explosions evidence that Sunder's statement that no such sounds were heard was false. "
Liar, he never claimed there were NO explosions, he said there were no explosions related directly to the collapse of WTC7, hacking together two unrelated videos doesn't prove a damn thing
This a perfect example of the way you frame out the question rather than address it. "not one fireman or anybody else saw an exploded truck in wtc7" - you're implying that a truck would be the only possible delivery method of demolition materials, which ANYONE can see is an absurd insinuation. And it's exactly the same insinuation that Sunder makes describing why they didn't address the possible presence of any assistance to the collapse. If he were asked "Your assertion that it is "unlikely...
..that someone moved a 100lb bag into the building" aside, had someone done just that, could the collapse have looked like what we saw?" His answer would be yes, it could have. This is why he took straw man pains to frame out the question. It's not that you people are fundamentally lazy. If there was money to be made, I'm sure you'd do your own work and widen your lines of inquiry. Unfortunately (for the world), you (and Sunder) give up really easily looking for something you don't want to find.
"...Sunder's statement that no such sounds were heard was false."
Sunder never said that no sounds of "explosion" were ever heard. Obviously, there is testimony of loud bangs, creaking, etc. Sunder is specifically referring to explosions of a certain decibel level at a certain distance from WTC7 at/near the exact time that the building collapsed.
And I think it has been established - many times over, in fact - that no such sounds of the specific type to which Sunder refers were ever heard.
I do not disagree that, like you, Sunder frames the relevant questions in an extremely limited way without evidence (100lbs bag got into the building - "which was unlikely to have actually happened"...) to avoid addressing them. Like you, he is willing to compare the building collapses to a single specific format of traditional controlled demolition, but not to address the possibility that someone could have easily placed a few materials to contribute to the collapse. It's a false choice.
"of the specific type to which Sunder referred..." exactly. You (and Sunder) are saying "If you doubt fire caused WTC7's collapse without any intentional assistance, the only other option is a black round bomb with a wick sticking out and Boris and Natasha standing by with a match. And since the two people I'm saying it could have been are cartoon characters, this PROVES that it must have been a new scientific phenomenon." It's a straw man argument, and a transparently desperate one at that.
So 10 stories worth of weight falling onto 1 floor at a time and gaining the mass of each floor that it breaks needs help from a couple of bags of explosives?
The core did not collapse until well after the floors had been stripped away so what exactly were these "silent explosives" used to destroy?
Why is everyone stuck on a 100lbs.? It doesn't take 100lbs. of thermate to slice through a steel beam. It only takes a few pounds. For months before 911, there was extensive construction repair/work being done in all 3 buildings. How could the charges be set? Duh!
it's obviously a series of assumptions outside of NIST's scientific purview, and they HAVE to make them...as you say, they were tasked to support a pre-fab explanation. And the best they can do is, simultaneously: "New scientific phenomenon + no one could have gotten materials into the building."
"it's obviously a series of assumptions outside of NIST's scientific purview..."
Well, the entire concept of "thermate" as catalyst for collapse initiation exists outside of scientific purview. It is, quite simply, something somebody made up one day. Fact is, most truthers never even HEARD of thermate before 2006. Today, everyone is an expert.
The whole thing is a joke. And so I think that NIST gave the idea more than its due share of attenion before moving on to more substantive matters.
4:00 - 5:00: That doesn't look like 100 pounds of thermate around the column, D. In fact, they're not even talking about "thermate" at all. They're talking about several pounds of chevron/linear-shaped explosive charges that were placed in direct contact with the exposed steel columns (i.e., with the walls/flooring stripped away).
I think that if one were to rip out the walls of WTC7 in order to place 100 POUNDS of incendiary material around a steel column, it wouldn't have gone unnoticed.
Seems like NIST could have gotten SAIC (one of its contractors) to weigh in on thermate. After all, SAIC sells the stuff... kind of a coincidence that, even though thermate could be ruled out by virtue of the fact that NIST is so sure no one could have smuggled anything into the building, one of their contractors is a thermate vendor...
What's hilarious is that Sunder refers to the amount required, specifically; 100lbs.
How hard would that be to carry in?
Personally I think the NIST was given a particular task. They were charged with "proving" the official narrative with the best science they could muster. Unfortunately, the best they could do is; "Fire did it".
If nothing else, this illustrates how difficult it is to square the official narrative with reality.
It doesn't make any difference what it looks like.
"...is unlikely to have actually occurred" is outside the gentleman's purview, and not the question he was asked or the job he was tasked with. How unlikely? And how did he determine this? He talk to Silverstein about all the protocols in place in his building(s) and examine records to see who had access and when and any possible time someone MIGHT have been able to get materials in and WHO that might have been? No. He figured it didn't happen.
"It doesn't make any difference what it looks like."
Sure it does. It also makes a difference how the material will be applied to the columns (i.e., the delivery mechanism), what walls/floors would have to be ripped out, etc.
NIST's Q&A: "It is unlikely that 100 lbs. of thermite, or more, could have been carried... AND PLACED AROUND THE COLUMNS without being detected..."
Moreover:
"Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in therma/ite would not necessarily have been conclusive."
Well, they didn't even try to analyze the steel, so they won't ever know, now will they?
It's absolutely outside his realm, D is right. He isn't in a place to make judgments about the likelihood of security breach. His job was to evaluate the building itself, the structure, and what happened to it.
"Well, they didn't even try to analyze the steel..."
For thermi/ate? Why should they have? The entire notion consists of little more that wild and unsupported speculation on the part of a few individuals. Like most "theories" proposed by truthers over the last several years, it's a tactical response to previously debunked stuff. No basis for NIST to pursue any further.
"His job was to evaluate the building itself, the structure, and what happened to it."
"...it might make sense to, you know, examine pieces.."
And what if there are none available? What's the next best thing? Here's a thought: Examine the video/photographic and eywitness testimony. Which is exactly what they did.
"He didn't evaluate any physical evidence..."
There was no "physical evidence" available. So what you're suggesting, essentially, is that it's impossible to make a determination. We don't know what happenned to WTC7. We can't and we never will.
"We don't know what happenned to WTC7. We can't and we never will."
Probably true. The physical evidence could have existed in abundance but for our government's actions. And, with proper digging, there still is some available. In fact, there is one "rogue" scientist of whom you are probably aware who has examined some. But apparently it was too much work for NIST to obtain such materials.
"...it was too much work for NIST to obtain such materials."
In any event, the idea of thermate (as a catalyst for collapse initiation) is a wholly made-up concept, on par with directed-energy weapons. There never was any indication that such had occurred, much less anything which merited investigative follow up.
So if NIST's out-of-hand dismissal of thermate seems lacking in scientific basis, it's to no less an extent than the entire concept of thermate's use for CD in the case of WTC7.
What? How do you know there wasn't a death ray from space, or mini nukes for that matter? NIST didn't prove there wasn't any super secret killer satellites over the towers that day. And they surely didn't test for radiation from an atomic blast.
"How do you know there wasn't a death ray from space, or mini nukes for that matter?"
Any nuke, even the smallest one leaves radioactive material behind, because the chain reaction is never complete.
And to consider a "deathray" of some sort, you have to come up with some sort of hypothesis first. And I've not heard of a hypothesis including a "deathray" that differed much from the sentence "It was a deathray".
But maybe you can enlighten me, and I will comment on that.
This "debunkung" is interesting, but false. If I fart, can you proove methane on the floor? Aluminumoxide goes as white smoke.
And he didn't analyse the dust stochasticly, but he studied the spheres which were found in the dust. These contained the same amount of sulfur as spheres did that were produced by a thermate reaction.
If you then, consider the stochastic occurence of these spheres, you will come up with the numbers calculated in this weak "debunking" try.
If thermate was used there still would be traces of Aluminum oxide (41%) and barium nitrate(29%) (which you conveniently ignored)
"These contained the same amount of sulfur as spheres did that were produced by a thermate reaction."
Bullshit, the content in the dust was far higher, around 5.4% which would match the gypsum in the dry wall. Thermate is 2% sulfur which would have meant 0.000003% found in the dust.
Spheres, schmeres. There's no "prensence" of anything that cannot be explained by the materials already existing in the building.
Steven Jones is a kookburger. With chips and a Coke. And a brown paper bag and a flashlight. He is a disgrace to himself, and he is a disgrace to the scientific community. He couldn't even get anybody to peer-review his piece-of-crap treatise. And he was subsequently given the boot from his university of the grounds of "kook".
But, but, but, falcon, How do you know there wasn't a death ray from space, or mini nukes, or a couple thousand midgets with hacksaws for that matter? NIST didn't prove there wasn't any super secret killer satellites over the towers that day. And they surely didn't test for radiation from an atomic blast, and I KNOW they didn't look for midgets with hacksaws.
Are you able (with or without help) to contribute anything to this discussion, that might arouse the thought, by more than 1 person, that you are in posession of more than two braincells?
As I didn't sit on a PC all the time and had to buy groceries on my way home from work, it took me about this time to get home. Do you wanna know when I have to take a s..., too?
Of course he studies the dust, when he studies the contents of the dust.
The point I was trying to make is that you can't conclude from a stochastic assumption to the presence of a compound. As I will explain in another comment.
And sorry for being silly. I just had to echo your absurdity.
If you have a forest, that contains trees, I can stand in a clearing and won't have trees around me in a radius of 30 ft.
So if I cannot proove the existence of wood in my perimeter, that doesn't disproove the existence of trees. Also if I find wood on the ground, that doesn't match the average density of wood in a tree, that also doesn't disproove the exsistence of trees.
Oh so your saying even though there wasn't the two key components to thermate present aluminum oxide and barium nitrate that there was still thermate. OK then, and what planet do you live on?
oh, one little problem, thermate DOESN'T EXPLODE. And twoofers are always whining about explosions.
"Oh so your saying even though there wasn't the two key components to thermate present aluminum oxide and barium nitrate that there was still thermate."
Yes. The endproduct is more than one molecule and one of them is easily blown away (and there for harder to detect).
I don't know how else explain to you, that I am not talking about a homogenous distribution.
PROVE IT. Thermate has the same chemical compounds no mater who makes it. You have already displayed your ignorance in chemistry once, your little bluff isn't going to work.
The very FACT you once again ignored the FACT that there are two key components to thermate present aluminum oxide and barium nitrate displays your ignorance of chemistry once again. Your little bluff isn't working, back up your claim with verifiable proof.
You probably know that thermate is a variance of thermite.
As I stated above you will find, that Al and FeO are the KEY components of therMITE. TherMATE is a variance that contains sulfur and SOMETIMES Barium Nitrate.
Thermate TH3 is the military variance that actually contains barium nitrate.
proof:
en(dot)wikipedia(dot)org/wiki/Thermate
even though I don't trust every wiki article I'm pretty confident this one contains the basic information
I'm open if you have evidence to proove the oposite
You still have failed to take notice, thermite and thermate DON'T EXPLODE. Plus the fact if you ever seen a controlled demolition there are dozens of explosions in a rapid sequence before the building comes down, not just one loud bang that could have been anything as seen in twoofer videos.
There is also this little tidbit from that article you ignored:
"As both thermite and thermate are notoriously difficult to ignite, initiating the reaction normally requires trained human supervision and sometimes persistent effort."
"...if I cannot proove the existence of wood in my perimeter, that doesn't disproove the existence of trees."
No, but it renders as unlikely that the piece of wood that just whacked your head came from a nearby branch blowing in the breeze. Chances are, it was a two-by-four purchased from a local store being wielded by the gentleman standing behind you.
An examination of your injuries will yield wooden splinters, to be sure, but absent will be the spheres of tree sap common to these woods.
He couldn't get a peer-review because anybody who is not independent in his job, is afraid loosing it if he finds anything other than "the government story".
I can explain all I want, you don't want to understand. How convenient again, hiding behind some language on one of the last patriots in your country.
"He couldn't get a peer-review because anybody who is not independent in his job, is afraid loosing it if he finds anything other than "the government story"."
Right, that totally explains away this little tap dance.
Prof. Jones Evades Peer-Review Question: v=gRRfCAaEyLk
"...is a wholly made-up concept...there never was any indication that such had occurred, much less anything which merited investigative follow up."
Repeating things over and over again doesn't make them true. And I have to note how amusing these comments are in light of the fact that you BELIEVE that fire alone felled the building, and you accept the "evidence" provided in support of this.
"...you BELIEVE that fire alone felled the building.."
Well, by now, I've read some of the report. It's quantifiable to me now. I can point to it and say, "Ah, there it is".
I can't do the same with thermate. Because, you see, the notion that it was used to take down WTC7 only exists in the back of someone's mind. It's the product of pure, unsupported speculation. There's no scientific basis for it. Just a lot of mumbling about "molten metal".
"Tangible in the sense that it's crap printed on paper."
Have you read any of it? Why don't you cite the exact passages with which you have a problem in the space below, backed up with your own supportive facts and figures.
"someone had to be there constantly holding it to the column" suggests he is unaware of delivery systems for the substance.
"analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive"
-yeah, I noticed that this was the first thing he said too: even if it WAS there, you couldn't PROVE it because all the materials of thermate are in building materials...
this is a reason to be skeptical of thermate's presence, not evidence to demonstrate it wasn't there...
Hey spankie, thermate and shaped charges are two ENTIRELY DIFFERENT THINGS. You have done a wonderful job of displaying your compete ignorance on the subject
Wow, you really understood that? Great job. Now go ahead and read about shaped charges and what they do. They contain some material (e.g. copper) that is liquified and trough pressure caused by the detonation pushed in the desired direction. Now it doesn't have to be copper. Some aluminum powder and rust will do too.
This has been flagged as spam show
One of the WTC design engineers, Leslie Robertson, had denied that people saw molten steel in the Ground Zero rubble. A video surfaced recently showing that in 2002 he claimed he had seen "a little river of molten steel" himself.
See my video:
The 9/11 "Deep Mystery" and the Crazy Engineers
punxsutawneybarney 8 months ago
I've seen special needs children give better fake presentations than this.
charcoaljohnson 1 year ago
Here's a thought (just a thought): take one box column; drill a hole in in it; pour a load of thermite/thermate through the hole and into the column; stand well back and set the fucker off (I don't know the technical term for this). Seems to me that the box column will do the job of holding the thermite/thermate in place as it works its melting magic. Or, perhaps you could place explosives inside the columns and the columns themselves would dampen the sound of their own destruction. Whae kens!
kkkaldav 1 year ago
@kkkaldav "Seems to" you? Nice science. how about you demonstrate this. or demonstrate the silent explosives inside the columns. Given the number of engineers supposedly in the truth movement this should be very easy to do. And while you're at it explain how this thermate/explosive could be placed into the columns. And get those engineers to produce a theory about which columns were severed, how, and when that matches the visual evidence.
LordDavidVader 1 year ago
@LordDavidVader Well, legovideoman, re your analysis of my speculation: 1. The "seems to " was about the box column's sides containing the thermite, and I don't think many would doubt that the sides would contain it since the only way it could get out would be for it to melt its way out, and by the time it's done that the job's done, duh! 2. I did explain how the thermite/thermate could be placed in the columns. It was high-tech stuff though: you cut a hole in the column and pour the powder in.
kkkaldav 1 year ago
Well I guess it's obvious we will never agree so I will leave you with the question you avoided answering (similar to all truthers) Where is the scientific flaw in NIST's report?
LordDavidVader 1 year ago
@LordDavidVader The scientific flaw in NIST's report is that there was no science. They withheld their data (photos and videos). They conducted no forensic examination and instead produced some cartoons without releasing the details of how they were produced. They increased temperatures and fire lengths for their models arbitrarily. They invented fuel sources without any supporting evidence. And they ignored all evidence that was inconsistent with their fire-driven-collapse speculation.
kkkaldav 1 year ago
@kkkaldav "The scientific flaw in NIST's report is that there was no science." well with a comment like that I can tell there is no point in discussing anything with you. (your pathetic video of Mark Roberts "lying" confirms this)
LordDavidVader 1 year ago
@LordDavidVader Re the liar Roberts: Are you seriously suggesting that someone could wade into the ground zero rubble of 220 storeys and identify and collect the particular molten metal that fell from the particular window. And are you further suggesting that someone would have had reason to do this several years before that particular metal from that particular window became the focus of any attention at all.
kkkaldav 1 year ago
@kkkaldav Post the entire interview.
LordDavidVader 1 year ago
@LordDavidVader The entire interview isn't going to explain how Roberts could possibly know that the stuff he held in his hands was the very stuff from the very window - he doesn't even try. The point though, is that it's ridiculous to think that anyone could have accurately identified it given the subsequent collapse of the towers. And since Roberts must know this he must know he's lying - even assuming he actually held anything in his hands, as opposed to fabricating the story in its entirety.
kkkaldav 1 year ago
WOW if people cannot understand the logical fail of then supposed solution to "problem 2" you are beyond help. Holding a shaped charge to a vertical column is a bit different from holding thermite against a vertical column while it burns. Please do provide some evidence of how thermite can be used to sever a vertical column. When you do this please tell me how it could be placed. And then tell me which columns it would be on and how this would collapse the buildings.
LordDavidVader 1 year ago
@LordDavidVader
NIST should have answered each of the questions you ask here for comparison with their thermal expansion theory.
23456D 1 year ago
@23456D Since there is no evidence that thermite/thermate was used and no one knows how it even could be used then what would they investigate? It's the truthers that say it could be used but they cant explain how.
LordDavidVader 1 year ago
@LordDavidVader
The evidence is the building collapse. NIST's posited theory is absurd, and their support for it (it wouldn't ever necessarily happen again, even under identical circumstances!?) is unscientific. A lot of attention has been directed at thermate, and Sunder himself says that 100lbs of thermate could do it (engineering its adherence to a column is a feat I am comfortable assuming is possible) but there are other materials that could cause that collapse. Spheres in the dust.
23456D 1 year ago
@23456D actually he said 100lbs for a single column. So where is the scientific flaw in NIST's report? What is really absurd is accusing thousands of people of mass murder based on your comfort that an engineering feat that has never been demonstrated is possible. NIST did consider controlled demolition. It was quickly ruled out due to there being NO evidence of it. (except apparently that some non-experts think the collapse looked like controlled demolition)
LordDavidVader 1 year ago
@LordDavidVader
NIST's theory is that a single column was responsible for the collapse.
I'm only declaring that that at least one more person was likely involved than we've been told.
Your argument "an engineering feat that has never been demonstrated" applies precisely to the "thermal expansion" theory.
NIST ruled out CD by saying a person entering the building and placing materials was "unlikely".
Thousands of experts (ae911truth) are on record declaring that 7 was a controlled demolition.
23456D 1 year ago
@LordDavidVader
I think people's reluctance to posit theories (interesting that the expression "conspiracy theory" has been effectively demonized to the point that it takes a moment for people to disassociate the "theory" part to address known conspiracies like Enron, al Qaeda, et al) is that the massive inadequacy of the theory offered by NIST leaves so many plausible alternatives. Bottom line is it's not citizens' jobs to explain 7's collapse to your satisfaction. It is NIST's job to mine.
23456D 1 year ago
@23456D name one plausible alternative. If there are so many I would think you could at least give some vague details on how it might have been accomplished. Just saying "controlled demolition" and then failing to even suggest any method of how it could be accomplished is really not enough to justify a new investigation.
LordDavidVader 1 year ago
@LordDavidVader
On principle I normally don't offer theories, but what the hell. Tell me this is impossible:
At some point between 8:46AM and 5:20PM, one person entered WTC7, went to a few (call it 4 even though NIST says 1) columns, sliced into them with a torch, packed the cut with incendiary, and walked out.
23456D 1 year ago
@23456D OK. well first it would have to be some time way after 8:46 since the building was still being evacuated. 2nd. He would need foreknowledge that WTC7 was going to be hit by WTC debris starting major fires thus providing a cover story. He needs to get all the fire fighters to lie who all saw signs the building was going to collapse. And finally he still needs to employ an as yet unknown method of silently severing the columns. (only 4???) 100% proof? no. 99.9999999% i think so.
LordDavidVader 1 year ago
Good job. Interestingly enough Thermate/Thermite supposedly can be used in a paint as well. It can be painted on. Though that doesn't seem like it would be as controllable or effective as a shaped cutter charge. I have no clue. :)
futurewavecs 2 years ago
Nice job on the video.
Man did you see how big those cutter charges were? They must have been at least the size of a cigar! holy crap!
I'm sure any Clinton fans would know where a cigar size explosive could be placed.
But yea, they feel its "not likely" for someone to have put any charges in the building.
So, no need to check for them.
AlmightyJerk 2 years ago
A negative comment for you
honkietown 2 years ago
Shyam Sunder is a merceneray.
Reasonable99pct 2 years ago 2
Also, these (McMeaty and Esnir) are trolls. See my first video...
23456D 2 years ago
"Also, these (McMeaty and Esnir) are trolls."
of coursw we are.
You are a truther. Meaning that you are the one and only beholder of the trut. That makes anyone who disagrees with you a liar, a troll a shill or whatever name you can think of.
Esnir 2 years ago
Wow, this video proves the complete ignorance of the members of the so called 'truth movement'
This video tries to explain to a young child how NIST actually states that thermite is a possibility. But the thing is, the narrater of this video hasn't got a clue what NIST is talking about.
Like showing explosive shape charts (which actually 'push' the metal away in a blast, not melting it) as a solution to connect the thermite to the steel (which has to stay connected till the center is reached).
Esnir 2 years ago
Exactly, 23456D is not only an idiot, but has deliberately tried to mislead his viewers. When Dr. Sunders says that thermate is impossible to sever giant columns vertically, 23456D brings up a video about linear shape charges, which are nothing like thermate.... AT ALL, and they're incredibly loud.
This is the twoof movement at it's best. Misleading, with misinformation. They are all ignorant.
McMcMeaty 2 years ago
All I said was that "impossible" and "couldn't be silent" were false. They are. Intentional demolition was LOGICALLY ruled out by NIST, not scientifically, and their logic is baldly false. Not to mention that their ensuing "science" resulted in a result that was unprecedented and unrepeatable (Sunder is asked in this Q&A if identical circumstances would produce the same collapse and he says NO!) I do this because I don't want another false flag attack. Those opposed can't wait.
23456D 2 years ago
Sunders answerd that Thermite can't be used (whish is confirmed by the truth movement, as their experiment to destroy a large Truth sign with thermite completely failed) to make a large I Beam melt through, and that a CD would result in very loud explosins, which weren't observed
All you have against that is pictures of explosive cutter charges and explosions hours before the collapse.
Meaning that you have nothing.
Esnir 2 years ago
" I do this because I don't want another false flag attack"
you should first prove this was a false flag. And you failed to do so. Also, a false flag to do what? Invade afghanistan? Its central govt begged the us and europe to intervene long before 911 happened. To declare war on terror? Reagan did that decades earlier without a false flag. Invade iraq? Bush could not even connect 911 to saddam, so he made up the wmd's.
Esnir 2 years ago
This video is absolute bullcrap and reeks of misinformation and outright LIES.
First you claim that thermite/thermate could've been used (without evidence of course). Then when Dr. Sunders outs your claim by asking how you can adhere thermite to a vertical column, you bring up a video of demolition experts using LOUD LINEAR SHAPE CHARGES. Which is totally trying to mislead us viewers.
Linear shape chargers are not like thermate/thermite and are extremely loud.
23456D is an idiot.
McMcMeaty 3 years ago
"23456D is an idiot."
indeed.
Esnir 2 years ago
Whoever made this video is either confused, or deliberately trying to mislead. First they try to demonstrate a silent explosive. Then when confronted with "how to keep it adhered to a vertical column" they show an explosive that is LOUD being shoved in a hollowed out concret reinforcement . (then imply you could "mute the audio" from the charge....utterly ridiculous). All of which assuming that conspirators could pinpoint the EXACT area of the building's weakest point to use minimal material.
oxomaticman 3 years ago
Those excuses are pissweak and people that believe them deserve to be slaves...
UTubeFreeMind 3 years ago
I'm not going to nitpick or anything, but when the guy said someone would have to be there pushing the thermite, or thermate (not sure which we ended up talking about, he said both), I have to disagree. I have personally burned through doors, railroad tracks, and I-beams with thermite that was stabilized with clay.
punchdrunkatheist 3 years ago
Are you comparing critical support columns to doors and railroad tracks?
Good luck with that..... :/
McMcMeaty 3 years ago
No I was merely stating that you can indeed burn vertical things with thermite, saying you can't is stupid. I didn't say what you could burn, because that wasn't the quote in question. The guy said you couldn't burn vertical things with thermite, but I've done it. That was all.
punchdrunkatheist 3 years ago
And I didn't say you couldn't burn vertical things. I said you can't burn giant vertical things like critical support beams.
And again, comparing doors and railroads do not compare to massive critical support columns. Burning vertical isn't impossible, but it is for things as massive as the beams in question.
And if Dr.Sunders is only talking about the giant beams in question, than he can say burning vertically is impossible, because he is referring to the beams in question.
McMcMeaty 3 years ago
How much of the beams have to be burned away before they are no longer good for support? I'd think enough pressure on the right amount of thermite or thermate around the entire diameter could sufficiently weaken the beams. Why must they be burned all the way through? I don't think this is how it happened at all, I'm merely saying that using the word impossible is a bad idea. In the military things of this nature are burned all the time with pressurized thermate.
punchdrunkatheist 3 years ago
Honestly, I do not know how much is too much, we both don't. But you know what? Call me crazy, but I tend to trust a team of experts (almost all with PHDs). The NIST report on WTC7 explains in more detail. It's too long for me to type here in comments.
McMcMeaty 3 years ago 2
I know I've read it. My original comment was to the statement that burning vertical beams with thermate was impossible, like was said here, which it's not. I don't think it was used at all here, but it's not impossible to do.
punchdrunkatheist 3 years ago
It's not impossible when referring to the SIZE of the beams. The size was much to big for thermite to cut through.
It's possible for smaller applications like you referred to. But Dr. Sunders clearly referred to the giant steel columns, which are impossible due to their size. He didn't say "Burning vertically is impossible". He referred to that burning through beams of this size, vertically, is impossible.
McMcMeaty 3 years ago 2
I guess it would help to know what size they were in the first place, haha. I may have misunderstood him, if that's the case I stand corrected.
punchdrunkatheist 3 years ago
his guy is a shame to indians, liar.
photofu 3 years ago
seem to have touched a nerve with greywolf424. yes, silverstein is a prime suspect, being that he had access, means, and motive. you're probably right that he didn't do it openly. I'd even be willing to guess he used some...what's that stuff...oh yeah: MONEY to hire someone ELSE to do the actual demolition. we ought to ask him a few questions. and again, where's one person who says "Go ahead! He has nothing to hide!" You're not that person, are you greywolf? Didn't think so.
23456D 3 years ago
"seem to have touched a nerve with greywolf424."
Not at all
"yes, silverstein is a prime suspect,"
Liar, he isn't a suspect of anything by anybody who has actual authority, or an IQ above 35
"probably right that he didn't do it openly."
PROVE he did ANYTHING, oh right, you can't
"to hire someone ELSE to do the actual demolition."
greywolf424 3 years ago
typical reply from a sheeple.. "LIAR!!" and thats all you people ever add to the discussion.. +++he isn't a suspect of anything by anybody who has actual authority, or an IQ above 35+++
get real some of the smartest people out there are conspiracy theorists. They do more research than 99% of the rest of the world, yet you just label them a 'liar' or 'retarded' because you dont agree with them.. typical.
kappy0405 3 years ago
"get real some of the smartest people out there are conspiracy theorists"
Bullshit
"They do more research than 99% of the rest of the world,"
Liar
" yet you just label them a 'liar' or 'retarded' because you dont agree with them.. typical."
No, because they are full of shit and can't come up with even one shred of evidence to back up their ridiculous claims
greywolf424 3 years ago
"MONEY to hire someone ELSE to do the actual demolition."
PROVE there was any demolition, oh right, you can't because there isn't any.
" we ought to ask him a few questions."
About WHAT, your unfounded factless accusations?
Your twoofer position is getting lamer by the second.
greywolf424 3 years ago
how can he have NO authority? It was his building. He owns several buildings in NY so hes probably gotten to know the fire chiefs. He went on national TV and said he was in communication with one at the time, and he told them "to PULL IT".. thats up for interpretation, but dont go calling people liars because you refuse to have an open-mind. The fact that he has dodged any questions about it and still refuses to clarify it implies that hes hiding something. People have the right to question him.
kappy0405 3 years ago
"how can he have NO authority? It was his building."
Thanks for display your ignorance.
"he told them "to PULL IT""
LIAR, he said no such thing. The Truther Vilification of Larry: How Truthers Distort Silverstein's Words: v=o-IThuAtOsY
"thats up for interpretation,"
You mean distortion
"The fact that he has dodged any questions about it and still refuses to clarify it implies that hes hiding something. "
Liar
greywolf424 3 years ago
lol ok now youre just getting pathetic. Theres videos on youtube where he does exactly what i just said.
kappy0405 3 years ago
"lol ok now youre just getting pathetic. Theres videos on youtube where he does exactly what i just said."
You mean this video, The Truther Vilification of Larry: How Truthers Distort Silverstein's Words: v=o-IThuAtOsY
YOU are the one who is pathetic, and delusional
greywolf424 3 years ago
No doubt you are nothing more than another racist bag of money crap squawking the jews did it, the jews did it.
greywolf424 3 years ago
yeah cuz i really implied that. Your helpless, have a great night..
kappy0405 3 years ago
"People have the right to question him."
Go down to the court house, present your evidence he is guilty and get a court order then. Oh right, you have no scientifically verifiable or legally actionable evidence of anybody doing anything even after 7 years.
Pathetic.
greywolf424 3 years ago
+++PROVE there was any demolition, oh right, you can't because there isn't any+++ the fact that several steel buildings of the same size have sustained fires 100x more abundant, longer lasting, and hotter is enough proof for ANY court in the world to declare another investigation.. I guess u think it makes more sense to think that 7 was the 1st bldg. in history to collapse from fire, even when they were smaller then several other bldgs who experienced the same things.. bS
kappy0405 3 years ago
"the fact that several steel buildings of the same size have sustained fires 100x more abundant, longer lasting, and hotter is enough proof for ANY court in the world to declare another investigation."
And yet no one has, your lies are getting more and more pathetic liar
greywolf424 3 years ago
jeez, i cant even believe this is still being debated. The OWNER HIMSELF was in communication with firemen before the collapse, and he admitted on national tv that he told them to go head on collapse it. There have been several steel buildings with fires more intense and more abundant then there were in wtc7 that DIDNT come anywhere near collapsing. To this day, wtc7 is the only steel building to reportedly have collapsed.. nonsense.
kappy0405 3 years ago
"jeez, i cant even believe this is still being debated. The OWNER HIMSELF was in communication with firemen before the collapse, and he admitted on national tv that he told them to go head on collapse it. "
LIAR, he said no such thing, and didn't have the authority to tell the fire department anything. Twoofers are so pathetic.
The Truther Vilification of Larry: How Truthers Distort Silverstein's Words: v=o-IThuAtOsY
greywolf424 3 years ago
This is yet another issue about 9/11 that would have easily been answered in the most rudimentary of an investigation. The fundamental assumption of Sunder's refusal to address any intentional demolition scenario was that it was "unlikely" that someone could have gotten materials into the building. Silverstein is the single individual (that we know of) who has profited most from 9/11, so ask him a few questions and see how his answers fit with the evidence. Too busy paying him billions.
23456D 3 years ago
I mean, they're ready to install devices in airports and other public places that measure body heat to detect anxiousness and potential threat from EVERYONE. Can we put this huge beneficiary on a lie detector for five minutes? I mean, he DID have the access, and he HAS benefited. And if he's telling the truth, which debunkers seem SO certain he is, wouldn't this reenforce their argument? Again, it's "Don't ask that question" rather than "here's some evidence".
23456D 3 years ago
"Can we put this huge beneficiary on a lie detector for five minutes?"
Bush...Cheney.....THIS HUGE BENEFICIARY....is there anyone you don't want to go after?
GammaRay43 3 years ago
You too stupid to read what I wrote?, there is no reason to go after someone who never did anything, unless you are suggesting starting a totalitarian government.
greywolf424 3 years ago
Twoofers want to "go after" anybody and everybody. One little problem is that they have failed to come up with even one shred of evidence in seven years.
greywolf424 3 years ago
You slobbering poster child for abortion. I was replying to 23456D. Learn to read you genetic misfit.
GammaRay43 3 years ago
"This is yet another issue about 9/11 that would have easily been answered in the most rudimentary of an investigation."
It's a non-issue, there is nothing to investigate.
What, you what them to investigate the factless unfounded claims by twoofers that Silverstein somehow had something to do with the destruction of the towers based on a quote that was taken out of context and distorted? Or the fact he was required by law to obtain insurance before taking ownership of the towers?
greywolf424 3 years ago
Silverstein had no more authority to order the fire department to destroy the building 7 than you or I would have had. This is one of the most pathetic and desperate claims by the twoof movement. And you SERIOUSLY think anybody is going to waste a nickel investigating it?
greywolf424 3 years ago
I agree he had no authority to do it. Means it's pretty bad business if he did. Again, why so scared of these questions? How can you be so certain of the answers and yet so scared of having the questions posed? Why isn't there ONE among you who considers the danger of these issues being left hanging to be a worse choice than just investigating and proving what you're so certain of? If there's nothing to hide, nothing will be found, right? Waste of money?...
23456D 3 years ago
...we're developing full body scanners to check EVERY PERSON who tries to enter an airport for anxiety. All I'm suggesting is using a little of that money to find and bring the perpetrators of 9/11 to justice. There are a lot of people ready to pony up a nickel for that.
23456D 3 years ago
Here's one for you 23456D, you call one loud bang evidence of controlled demolition, right? even though you can't actually prove it happened seconds before WCT7 came down, you just hacked two videos together.
How many explosions do you hear before this 12 story building comes down? This is a building 1/4 the size of WTC 7.
Landmark Implosion: v=79sJ1bMR6VQ
Do you SERIOUSLY think one loud bang which could have been anything proves your point?
greywolf424 3 years ago
No, I don't call "one loud bang evidence of controlled demolition". I call video/audio evidence of explosions evidence that Sunder's statement that no such sounds were heard was false. That's all I sought to prove, and I proved it.
"...which could have been anything..." - including an explosive device. So YOU agree as well that Sunder's statement was false. We don't seem to be in disagreement. Remember that the first attack on the WTC was via a truck bomb in the basement...
23456D 3 years ago
"I call video/audio evidence of explosions evidence that Sunder's statement that no such sounds were heard was false. "
Liar, he never claimed there were NO
greywolf424 3 years ago
"I call video/audio evidence of explosions evidence that Sunder's statement that no such sounds were heard was false. "
Liar, he never claimed there were NO explosions, he said there were no explosions related directly to the collapse of WTC7, hacking together two unrelated videos doesn't prove a damn thing
greywolf424 3 years ago
"So YOU agree as well that Sunder's statement was false. "
I never said anything of the sort.
greywolf424 3 years ago
"Remember that the first attack on the WTC was via a truck bomb in the basement..."
And remember they recovered almost every part of the truck. Funny, not one fireman or anybody else saw an exploded truck in wtc7
greywolf424 3 years ago
This a perfect example of the way you frame out the question rather than address it. "not one fireman or anybody else saw an exploded truck in wtc7" - you're implying that a truck would be the only possible delivery method of demolition materials, which ANYONE can see is an absurd insinuation. And it's exactly the same insinuation that Sunder makes describing why they didn't address the possible presence of any assistance to the collapse. If he were asked "Your assertion that it is "unlikely...
23456D 3 years ago
..that someone moved a 100lb bag into the building" aside, had someone done just that, could the collapse have looked like what we saw?" His answer would be yes, it could have. This is why he took straw man pains to frame out the question. It's not that you people are fundamentally lazy. If there was money to be made, I'm sure you'd do your own work and widen your lines of inquiry. Unfortunately (for the world), you (and Sunder) give up really easily looking for something you don't want to find.
23456D 3 years ago
"...Sunder's statement that no such sounds were heard was false."
Sunder never said that no sounds of "explosion" were ever heard. Obviously, there is testimony of loud bangs, creaking, etc. Sunder is specifically referring to explosions of a certain decibel level at a certain distance from WTC7 at/near the exact time that the building collapsed.
And I think it has been established - many times over, in fact - that no such sounds of the specific type to which Sunder refers were ever heard.
falconApoda 3 years ago
I do not disagree that, like you, Sunder frames the relevant questions in an extremely limited way without evidence (100lbs bag got into the building - "which was unlikely to have actually happened"...) to avoid addressing them. Like you, he is willing to compare the building collapses to a single specific format of traditional controlled demolition, but not to address the possibility that someone could have easily placed a few materials to contribute to the collapse. It's a false choice.
23456D 3 years ago
"of the specific type to which Sunder referred..." exactly. You (and Sunder) are saying "If you doubt fire caused WTC7's collapse without any intentional assistance, the only other option is a black round bomb with a wick sticking out and Boris and Natasha standing by with a match. And since the two people I'm saying it could have been are cartoon characters, this PROVES that it must have been a new scientific phenomenon." It's a straw man argument, and a transparently desperate one at that.
23456D 3 years ago
So 10 stories worth of weight falling onto 1 floor at a time and gaining the mass of each floor that it breaks needs help from a couple of bags of explosives?
The core did not collapse until well after the floors had been stripped away so what exactly were these "silent explosives" used to destroy?
jizzmonger 3 years ago
Not talking about the towers, guy. Read before you write.
23456D 3 years ago
You still have ZERO evidence on which to base your claims.
jizzmonger 3 years ago
Why is everyone stuck on a 100lbs.? It doesn't take 100lbs. of thermate to slice through a steel beam. It only takes a few pounds. For months before 911, there was extensive construction repair/work being done in all 3 buildings. How could the charges be set? Duh!
They were paid to lie...
But they failed miserably...
nasanction 3 years ago
it's obviously a series of assumptions outside of NIST's scientific purview, and they HAVE to make them...as you say, they were tasked to support a pre-fab explanation. And the best they can do is, simultaneously: "New scientific phenomenon + no one could have gotten materials into the building."
23456D 3 years ago
"it's obviously a series of assumptions outside of NIST's scientific purview..."
Well, the entire concept of "thermate" as catalyst for collapse initiation exists outside of scientific purview. It is, quite simply, something somebody made up one day. Fact is, most truthers never even HEARD of thermate before 2006. Today, everyone is an expert.
The whole thing is a joke. And so I think that NIST gave the idea more than its due share of attenion before moving on to more substantive matters.
falconApoda 3 years ago
4:00 - 5:00: That doesn't look like 100 pounds of thermate around the column, D. In fact, they're not even talking about "thermate" at all. They're talking about several pounds of chevron/linear-shaped explosive charges that were placed in direct contact with the exposed steel columns (i.e., with the walls/flooring stripped away).
I think that if one were to rip out the walls of WTC7 in order to place 100 POUNDS of incendiary material around a steel column, it wouldn't have gone unnoticed.
falconApoda 3 years ago
Seems like NIST could have gotten SAIC (one of its contractors) to weigh in on thermate. After all, SAIC sells the stuff... kind of a coincidence that, even though thermate could be ruled out by virtue of the fact that NIST is so sure no one could have smuggled anything into the building, one of their contractors is a thermate vendor...
23456D 3 years ago
What's hilarious is that Sunder refers to the amount required, specifically; 100lbs.
How hard would that be to carry in?
Personally I think the NIST was given a particular task. They were charged with "proving" the official narrative with the best science they could muster. Unfortunately, the best they could do is; "Fire did it".
If nothing else, this illustrates how difficult it is to square the official narrative with reality.
theCharmingDeviant 3 years ago 2
"How hard would that be to carry in?"
Do you even have any idea what 100 pounds of thermate looks like?
falconApoda 3 years ago
It doesn't make any difference what it looks like.
"...is unlikely to have actually occurred" is outside the gentleman's purview, and not the question he was asked or the job he was tasked with. How unlikely? And how did he determine this? He talk to Silverstein about all the protocols in place in his building(s) and examine records to see who had access and when and any possible time someone MIGHT have been able to get materials in and WHO that might have been? No. He figured it didn't happen.
23456D 3 years ago
"It doesn't make any difference what it looks like."
Sure it does. It also makes a difference how the material will be applied to the columns (i.e., the delivery mechanism), what walls/floors would have to be ripped out, etc.
NIST's Q&A: "It is unlikely that 100 lbs. of thermite, or more, could have been carried... AND PLACED AROUND THE COLUMNS without being detected..."
Moreover:
"Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in therma/ite would not necessarily have been conclusive."
falconApoda 3 years ago
Well, they didn't even try to analyze the steel, so they won't ever know, now will they?
It's absolutely outside his realm, D is right. He isn't in a place to make judgments about the likelihood of security breach. His job was to evaluate the building itself, the structure, and what happened to it.
SonofNewo 3 years ago
"Well, they didn't even try to analyze the steel..."
For thermi/ate? Why should they have? The entire notion consists of little more that wild and unsupported speculation on the part of a few individuals. Like most "theories" proposed by truthers over the last several years, it's a tactical response to previously debunked stuff. No basis for NIST to pursue any further.
"His job was to evaluate the building itself, the structure, and what happened to it."
That's precisely what he did.
falconApoda 3 years ago
"Why should they have?"
When trying to figure out why the building fell it might make sense to, you know, examine pieces of the building to see why they, you know, failed.
"That's precisely what he did."
He didn't evaluate any physical evidence, but he apparently made time to evaluate the likelihood of a security breach. So, not exactly.
SonofNewo 3 years ago
"...it might make sense to, you know, examine pieces.."
And what if there are none available? What's the next best thing? Here's a thought: Examine the video/photographic and eywitness testimony. Which is exactly what they did.
"He didn't evaluate any physical evidence..."
There was no "physical evidence" available. So what you're suggesting, essentially, is that it's impossible to make a determination. We don't know what happenned to WTC7. We can't and we never will.
So now what?
falconApoda 3 years ago
hahaha. sad.
23456D 3 years ago
"We don't know what happenned to WTC7. We can't and we never will."
Probably true. The physical evidence could have existed in abundance but for our government's actions. And, with proper digging, there still is some available. In fact, there is one "rogue" scientist of whom you are probably aware who has examined some. But apparently it was too much work for NIST to obtain such materials.
SonofNewo 3 years ago
"there is one "rogue" scientist "
*snicker* you mean this idiot with his fake photoshoped images of molten metal
No Pools of Molten Steel v=7YXzjAKJQOg
Thermate Chemical Signatures Disproven: v=OWpC_1WP8do
Ex-Prof. Jones Evades Peer-Review Question: v=gRRfCAaEyLk
Meet the Scholars for 9/11 Truth: v=T6fe9YlHQwA
greywolf424 3 years ago
"...it was too much work for NIST to obtain such materials."
In any event, the idea of thermate (as a catalyst for collapse initiation) is a wholly made-up concept, on par with directed-energy weapons. There never was any indication that such had occurred, much less anything which merited investigative follow up.
So if NIST's out-of-hand dismissal of thermate seems lacking in scientific basis, it's to no less an extent than the entire concept of thermate's use for CD in the case of WTC7.
falconApoda 3 years ago
What? How do you know there wasn't a death ray from space, or mini nukes for that matter? NIST didn't prove there wasn't any super secret killer satellites over the towers that day. And they surely didn't test for radiation from an atomic blast.
*snicker* twoofers are hilarious
greywolf424 3 years ago
"How do you know there wasn't a death ray from space, or mini nukes for that matter?"
Any nuke, even the smallest one leaves radioactive material behind, because the chain reaction is never complete.
And to consider a "deathray" of some sort, you have to come up with some sort of hypothesis first. And I've not heard of a hypothesis including a "deathray" that differed much from the sentence "It was a deathray".
But maybe you can enlighten me, and I will comment on that.
Tsutomu6 3 years ago
Where did it come from?
Meet the Scholars for 9/11 Truth: v=T6fe9YlHQwA
By the way, Thermate Chemical Signatures Disproven: v=OWpC_1WP8do
greywolf424 3 years ago
This "debunkung" is interesting, but false. If I fart, can you proove methane on the floor? Aluminumoxide goes as white smoke.
And he didn't analyse the dust stochasticly, but he studied the spheres which were found in the dust. These contained the same amount of sulfur as spheres did that were produced by a thermate reaction.
If you then, consider the stochastic occurence of these spheres, you will come up with the numbers calculated in this weak "debunking" try.
Tsutomu6 3 years ago
"Aluminumoxide goes as white smoke."
If thermate was used there still would be traces of Aluminum oxide (41%) and barium nitrate(29%) (which you conveniently ignored)
"These contained the same amount of sulfur as spheres did that were produced by a thermate reaction."
Bullshit, the content in the dust was far higher, around 5.4% which would match the gypsum in the dry wall. Thermate is 2% sulfur which would have meant 0.000003% found in the dust.
greywolf424 3 years ago
"And he didn't analyse the dust stochasticly, but he studied the spheres which were found in the dust."
That is such bullshit, would you like me to show you the video where he repeatedly states he tested the dust?.
greywolf424 3 years ago
"There never was any indication that such had occurred..."
Wrong. The prensence of spheres is direct evidence that NIST is not follwing direct evidence.
Tsutomu6 3 years ago
"The prensence of spheres..."
Spheres, schmeres. There's no "prensence" of anything that cannot be explained by the materials already existing in the building.
Steven Jones is a kookburger. With chips and a Coke. And a brown paper bag and a flashlight. He is a disgrace to himself, and he is a disgrace to the scientific community. He couldn't even get anybody to peer-review his piece-of-crap treatise. And he was subsequently given the boot from his university of the grounds of "kook".
falconApoda 3 years ago
But, but, but, falcon, How do you know there wasn't a death ray from space, or mini nukes, or a couple thousand midgets with hacksaws for that matter? NIST didn't prove there wasn't any super secret killer satellites over the towers that day. And they surely didn't test for radiation from an atomic blast, and I KNOW they didn't look for midgets with hacksaws.
*snicker* twoofers are hilarious
greywolf424 3 years ago
@greywold424
Are you able (with or without help) to contribute anything to this discussion, that might arouse the thought, by more than 1 person, that you are in posession of more than two braincells?
Tsutomu6 3 years ago
", that might arouse the thought, by more than 1 person, that you are in posession of more than two braincells?"
let me know when you grow the second brain cell.
greywolf424 3 years ago
about 32 years ago.
Tsutomu6 3 years ago
IMPRESSIVE, it only took you 54 minutes to compute the answer, did you do it all on your own or did your mommy help?
greywolf424 3 years ago
As I didn't sit on a PC all the time and had to buy groceries on my way home from work, it took me about this time to get home. Do you wanna know when I have to take a s..., too?
Tsutomu6 3 years ago
"And he didn't analyse the dust stochasticly, but he studied the spheres which were found in the dust."
Here you go little boy, Jones CLEARLY STATES several times, HE TESTED THE DUST.
Thermite Discovered around 9/11 Ground Zero: v=lLDyCPg6y5Y
I will give you a few minutes to come up with a new excuse/lie.
greywolf424 3 years ago
You repeat what I say, but still don't get it.
Of course he studies the dust, when he studies the contents of the dust.
The point I was trying to make is that you can't conclude from a stochastic assumption to the presence of a compound. As I will explain in another comment.
And sorry for being silly. I just had to echo your absurdity.
Tsutomu6 3 years ago
If you have a forest, that contains trees, I can stand in a clearing and won't have trees around me in a radius of 30 ft.
So if I cannot proove the existence of wood in my perimeter, that doesn't disproove the existence of trees. Also if I find wood on the ground, that doesn't match the average density of wood in a tree, that also doesn't disproove the exsistence of trees.
Tsutomu6 3 years ago
Oh so your saying even though there wasn't the two key components to thermate present aluminum oxide and barium nitrate that there was still thermate. OK then, and what planet do you live on?
oh, one little problem, thermate DOESN'T EXPLODE. And twoofers are always whining about explosions.
greywolf424 3 years ago
"Oh so your saying even though there wasn't the two key components to thermate present aluminum oxide and barium nitrate that there was still thermate."
Yes. The endproduct is more than one molecule and one of them is easily blown away (and there for harder to detect).
I don't know how else explain to you, that I am not talking about a homogenous distribution.
Tsutomu6 3 years ago
"The endproduct is more than one molecule and one of them is easily blown away..."
You know, it just occurred to me.
You haven't the slightest idea of what you're talking about, do you?
falconApoda 3 years ago
If you want to belive that. Fine with me. I don't care.
But you did have chemistry in school right? You understand the concept of a chemical reaction, no?
I tried to find clear vocabulary for the situation I described. Obviously I failed.
Tsutomu6 3 years ago
"Yes. The endproduct is more than one molecule and one of them is easily blown away (and there for harder to detect)."
So clearly, not only do you know nothing about thermate, you know nothing about chemistry.
greywolf424 3 years ago
ok then tell me what I said wrong?
Tsutomu6 3 years ago
molecules of a chemical compound don't just "blow away", let alone "blow away" in a uniform manner though out every single sample.
greywolf424 3 years ago
Ok, then sorry for being inacurate on that. I wanted to point out that one product doesn't necessarily have to be in the same location as the other.
Getting back to your "debunking" video.
I did some reading.
You said below that bariumnitrate is a compound of thermate.
That is wrong.
It is a compound of the military form Thermate-TH3.
So the absence of bariumnitrate doesn't disproove the use of thermate at all.
Tsutomu6 3 years ago
sure it does, the chemical compound doesn't change because of who made it.
greywolf424 3 years ago
OMG, you just don't get it.
Just to note for you:
Termate =/= Thermate-TH3
Termite = Al + FeO
Thermate = Al + FeO + Sulfur and SOMETIMES Barium Nitrate
Various mixtures of these compounds can be called thermate.
Thermate-TH3 = 68.7% thermite, 29.0% barium nitrate, 2.0% sulfur and 0.3% binder
Tsutomu6 3 years ago
PROVE IT. Thermate has the same chemical compounds no mater who makes it. You have already displayed your ignorance in chemistry once, your little bluff isn't going to work.
greywolf424 3 years ago
The very FACT you once again ignored the FACT that there are two key components to thermate present aluminum oxide and barium nitrate displays your ignorance of chemistry once again. Your little bluff isn't working, back up your claim with verifiable proof.
greywolf424 3 years ago
You probably know that thermate is a variance of thermite.
As I stated above you will find, that Al and FeO are the KEY components of therMITE. TherMATE is a variance that contains sulfur and SOMETIMES Barium Nitrate.
Thermate TH3 is the military variance that actually contains barium nitrate.
proof:
en(dot)wikipedia(dot)org/wiki/Thermate
even though I don't trust every wiki article I'm pretty confident this one contains the basic information
I'm open if you have evidence to proove the oposite
Tsutomu6 3 years ago
You still have failed to take notice, thermite and thermate DON'T EXPLODE. Plus the fact if you ever seen a controlled demolition there are dozens of explosions in a rapid sequence before the building comes down, not just one loud bang that could have been anything as seen in twoofer videos.
greywolf424 3 years ago
No I didn't. I just didn't quote the whole article. I never said that thermite explodes. I might have included it when I talked about explosives.
So your trying to debunk what I've said above by just going into the explosion stuff now?
What about me sucking in chemistry and your statements about barium nitrate beeing a key component?
Tsutomu6 3 years ago
"What about me sucking in chemistry and your statements about barium nitrate beeing a key component?"
barium nitrate is a key component, and I noticed you are still ignoring the aluminum oxide component.
greywolf424 3 years ago
There is also this little tidbit from that article you ignored:
"As both thermite and thermate are notoriously difficult to ignite, initiating the reaction normally requires trained human supervision and sometimes persistent effort."
greywolf424 3 years ago
I irgnored it because I didn't quote that to you?
I assumed you'd read the whole article. And if you want to quote this as proof for some argument... you forgot the argument.
Tsutomu6 3 years ago
"...if I cannot proove the existence of wood in my perimeter, that doesn't disproove the existence of trees."
No, but it renders as unlikely that the piece of wood that just whacked your head came from a nearby branch blowing in the breeze. Chances are, it was a two-by-four purchased from a local store being wielded by the gentleman standing behind you.
An examination of your injuries will yield wooden splinters, to be sure, but absent will be the spheres of tree sap common to these woods.
falconApoda 3 years ago
He couldn't get a peer-review because anybody who is not independent in his job, is afraid loosing it if he finds anything other than "the government story".
I can explain all I want, you don't want to understand. How convenient again, hiding behind some language on one of the last patriots in your country.
Tsutomu6 3 years ago
"He couldn't get a peer-review because anybody who is not independent in his job, is afraid loosing it if he finds anything other than "the government story"."
Right, that totally explains away this little tap dance.
Prof. Jones Evades Peer-Review Question: v=gRRfCAaEyLk
greywolf424 3 years ago
"...is a wholly made-up concept...there never was any indication that such had occurred, much less anything which merited investigative follow up."
Repeating things over and over again doesn't make them true. And I have to note how amusing these comments are in light of the fact that you BELIEVE that fire alone felled the building, and you accept the "evidence" provided in support of this.
SonofNewo 3 years ago
"...you BELIEVE that fire alone felled the building.."
Well, by now, I've read some of the report. It's quantifiable to me now. I can point to it and say, "Ah, there it is".
I can't do the same with thermate. Because, you see, the notion that it was used to take down WTC7 only exists in the back of someone's mind. It's the product of pure, unsupported speculation. There's no scientific basis for it. Just a lot of mumbling about "molten metal".
And, from Jones, a fake picture thereof.
falconApoda 3 years ago
"It's quantifiable to me now. I can point to it and say, "Ah, there it is"."
Tangible in the sense that it's crap printed on paper.
Again, repeating things over and over again doesn't make them true.
SonofNewo 3 years ago
"Tangible in the sense that it's crap printed on paper."
Have you read any of it? Why don't you cite the exact passages with which you have a problem in the space below, backed up with your own supportive facts and figures.
[soundofcrickets.wav]
falconApoda 3 years ago
We've already had this discussion elsewhere, doofus.
SonofNewo 3 years ago
"someone had to be there constantly holding it to the column" suggests he is unaware of delivery systems for the substance.
"analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive"
-yeah, I noticed that this was the first thing he said too: even if it WAS there, you couldn't PROVE it because all the materials of thermate are in building materials...
this is a reason to be skeptical of thermate's presence, not evidence to demonstrate it wasn't there...
23456D 3 years ago
Hey spankie, thermate and shaped charges are two ENTIRELY DIFFERENT THINGS. You have done a wonderful job of displaying your compete ignorance on the subject
greywolf424 3 years ago
Wow, you really understood that? Great job. Now go ahead and read about shaped charges and what they do. They contain some material (e.g. copper) that is liquified and trough pressure caused by the detonation pushed in the desired direction. Now it doesn't have to be copper. Some aluminum powder and rust will do too.
Tsutomu6 3 years ago
Damn, love your work
bluecaffeine 3 years ago
Excellent work man.....
buckfush187 3 years ago
No.
SonofNewo 3 years ago