9/11 military tapes released - Pentagon lied to the 9/11 commission
- Thread starter Jazzz
- Start date
- Status
Jonti
what the dormouse said
The claim was "The paper trail on this sort of transaction (options & stock) leading to the ultimate beneficiary is totally transparent". Here.tarannau said:Nobody is getting anywhere close to suggesting that are they? It's another Jonti strawman
There again, you're more than severely mistaken if you believe that trading high profile stocks in the run-up to a highly visible terrorist atrocity would be a simple way of making a quick, anonymous buck. There are so many easier ways to launder cash and hide wealth.
Occam's Razor comes into it again. Why try and 'hide wealth' by making high visible transactions bound to come under scrutiny? Where's the logic in that?
I take your point that one would have to be extremely confident about one's ability to obscure the trail, even to consider such a thing.
You do know that Braniac's experiments are frequently faked don't you Dr J?
I really hope you're not trying to base your knowledge of science on a sensational children's tv science-lite programme. it hardly qualifies you to talk about the qualities of thermite and the collision forces involved in such an unprecedented attack.
I really hope you're not trying to base your knowledge of science on a sensational children's tv science-lite programme. it hardly qualifies you to talk about the qualities of thermite and the collision forces involved in such an unprecedented attack.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
You're taking Brainiac as a source for this kind of stuff? I'd suggest reading a few of these 'Bad Science' articles about the rigorous science practised on Brainiac:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/badscience/story/0,,1821144,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/badscience/story/0,,1826518,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/badscience/story/0,,1832906,00.html
Jonti said:
That claim is absolutely correct; the paper trail is totally transparent. It's extremely hard for any beneficiary to conceal themselves given the way these trades work. They can try, but they'd be numpties to attempt it.
You seem to be conceding that it would be extremely unwise and unlikely to use such insider trading techniques to financial gain from the event. What's the point in being bogged down in such semantics - it's perhaps better not to confidently assert such a claim in the first place without anything other than a bit of conspiratastic cut and paste to go on. Why not research and think things through and then consider the likelihood for yourself first?
WouldBe
Dislicksick
Yes it does matter. Thermite / thermate isn't as quick as you think it is.Jazzz said:
You earlier stated that you would use the thermate to weaken the steel then a second explosive to break the weakened portion.
Placing the thermate and conventional explosives in different locations negates this.
Thicker steel will require longer to cut through. If you don't set the thermate charges off in the right order you won't have weakend the steel in the lower sections sufficiently enough when the above section collapses. This would result in a much longer collapse time.
A flower pot sat ontop of an engine?
You can't sit thermate ontop of a vertical steel column you can only place it around the column. All the heat produced will not be transfered sideways.
What was the engine made of? A lot of them are made of aluminium alloy which melts at a lot lower temp than iron.
That one wasn't, and it's far better than going on WouldBe's highly selective reading of his own article, which concerns grenades. I get the impression that WouldBe simply googled something without really reading it. He doesn't even quote the specifications for the grenade being patented, just the one it sought to replace:tarannau said:You do know that Braniac's experiments are frequently faked don't you Dr J?
I really hope you're not trying to base your knowledge of science on a sensational children's tv science-lite programme. it hardly qualifies you to talk about the qualities of thermite and the collision forces involved in such an unprecedented attack.
"Devices in accordance with the invention having a base diameter of 2.312" have been shown to be capable of producing an approximately 2" diameter hole through 1/4 inch thick steel plate using a 275 g thermite charge within a container three-quarters the size of a standard M14 package. "
which makes a mockery of the WouldBe's claim that 680g is required to cut through 1/8" steel, and it's from his own article!
Yet with the WTC we are not concerned with grenades, so this doesn't apply. I suggest WouldBe have a look at the Brainiac thermite demonstration rather than making inappropriate googles and selectively quoting from them.
In the audio interview Steve Jones mentions he came across a patent for a device specifically for efficiently cutting lines through steel using thermite.WouldBe said:
The theory is that the steel was cut diagonally. This is going to set it up for failing whever the final explosive charge is, although I am sure you could have such a charge within metres of the thermate device.
WouldBe
Dislicksick
Jazzz said:
So you think you can get a patent application through on a pack of lies do you?
Yet with the WTC we are not concerned with grenades, so this doesn't apply. I suggest WouldBe have a look at the Brainiac thermite demonstration rather than making inappropriate googles and selectively quoting from them.
Maybe grenades weren't used but the grenades in question contain thermate so if 680g will only cut through 1/8" steel that's what it's capable of regardless of how it's packaged.
I've just seen that brainiac video and it doesn't show anything like you claim. It shows a plantpot full of thermite being placed ontop of the bonnet of a car which is probably only 1mm thick and shows molten steel (produced from the thermite) landing on the floor under the engine compartment. The earlier demo shows molten steel running down the breeze blocks? so whats to say the molten steel hasn't run down the side of the engine?
Even after the reaction has finished they only show the damage done to the bonnet which for a plant pot full of thermite isn't very much, it looks to be a hole about 2" diameter max in a 1mm thick steel sheet.
WouldBe
Dislicksick
Jazzz said:
Would be interesting to see this patent.
As for the diagonal cutting one loonspud website I looked at claimed to show this diagonal cutting in the wreckage of the towers.
Unfortunately it was no such thing it. It was the square ends of colums that were leaning over that made it look like it had been cut diagonally.
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
Here's what the truth seekers should do:
Look up the specification of the steel members supposedly cut by thermite in the WTC.
Buy some steel members of identical specification.
Make/buy some thermite.
Cut/weaken said members with said thermite.
Test said members' strength etc. with force meters and so on.
Calculate how much thermite would have been required to produce weakness sufficient to cause the collaspe.
This is not rocket science, a first or second year undergraduate of civil engineering could do this in the lab. Hell, if I was still at uni, I could probably do it - we did concrete and steel stress tests in 1st year.
It would be a most useful exercise - to see if the method hypothesised has some weight behind it. After all, if it turns out that 500 tonnes of thermite was required, we'd have to rasise our incredulity levels - that's an awful lot of stuff to smuggle into the building. If it only turns out to be a hundred kilos or so, then we can take it a bit more seriously.
Quite aprt from how much would be neede, these experiments would have plenty of value in working out how the charges were set etc. if they were set, of course.
One little niggle continues to niggle away at my niggle centers, however. How come they didn't do the same trick at the Pentagon? The structural damage there was surprisingly slight, was it not?
Look up the specification of the steel members supposedly cut by thermite in the WTC.
Buy some steel members of identical specification.
Make/buy some thermite.
Cut/weaken said members with said thermite.
Test said members' strength etc. with force meters and so on.
Calculate how much thermite would have been required to produce weakness sufficient to cause the collaspe.
This is not rocket science, a first or second year undergraduate of civil engineering could do this in the lab. Hell, if I was still at uni, I could probably do it - we did concrete and steel stress tests in 1st year.
It would be a most useful exercise - to see if the method hypothesised has some weight behind it. After all, if it turns out that 500 tonnes of thermite was required, we'd have to rasise our incredulity levels - that's an awful lot of stuff to smuggle into the building. If it only turns out to be a hundred kilos or so, then we can take it a bit more seriously.
Quite aprt from how much would be neede, these experiments would have plenty of value in working out how the charges were set etc. if they were set, of course.
One little niggle continues to niggle away at my niggle centers, however. How come they didn't do the same trick at the Pentagon? The structural damage there was surprisingly slight, was it not?
WouldBe
Dislicksick
Here's the picture that is being used to claim the diagonal cutting and hence the use of thermite.
http://stream.paranode.com/imc/portland/images/2006/06/341239.jpg
The column in the center background is not cut diagonally the whole thing is leaning over.
http://stream.paranode.com/imc/portland/images/2006/06/341239.jpg
The column in the center background is not cut diagonally the whole thing is leaning over.
editor
hiraethified
Oh for fuck's sake, we're back to this again without a shred of new evidence being produced.Jazzz said:
Here. Read this and produce some credibly sourced arguments to prove they're all wrong:
http://www.911myths.com/html/freefall.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc__demolition_.html
WouldBe
Dislicksick
Jazzz said:If you could be bothered to read your own link thoroughly, you would see that your 680g cutting through 1/8" steel was the OLD style grenade for which your patent was improving upon.
If you could be bothered reading the link you would see that the reason the old style grenade was so innefective was because the thermite reaction burnt through the casing so the heat / molten iron was more spread out.
This is exactly what would happen with un contained thermite. So unless you can find some special shaped thermite super duper encased charges that are capable of cutting through several inches of steel you will have the same problem in the WTC.
WouldBe
Dislicksick
Jazzz said:
No, I'm saying, as I always have, that the weight suddenly dropped onto each floor in turn puts unbearable stress on the rivets / welds holding the sections of the vertical columns together causing the inner and outer columns to be pulled towards each other. Stresses that the columns weren't designed for hence them giving way. The rivets / welds are the weak points. There is no need to weaken the structure further.
Eh? This is the first time I've seen this picture, but out of interest - it sure looks to me like that steel is cut diagonally!WouldBe said:Here's the picture that is being used to claim the diagonal cutting and hence the use of thermite.
http://stream.paranode.com/imc/portland/images/2006/06/341239.jpg
The column in the center background is not cut diagonally the whole thing is leaning over.
edited to add - and there's residue around the cut
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
Jazz you're wrong.
Flat out wrong.
Utterly fucking wrong.
You don't use thermite to cut through heavier I beams, you use more cutting charges, you offset the cut, you use different angles or larger charges. Hell if you really want to screw it up you use normal plastic explosives.
If you were to use thermite then the effect would be measured only a short distance from the heated section, considering that cutting charges have to be in direct contact to work right your idea of placing them meteres away would either make the charges useless, or the thermite pointless.
Flat out wrong.
Utterly fucking wrong.
You don't use thermite to cut through heavier I beams, you use more cutting charges, you offset the cut, you use different angles or larger charges. Hell if you really want to screw it up you use normal plastic explosives.
If you were to use thermite then the effect would be measured only a short distance from the heated section, considering that cutting charges have to be in direct contact to work right your idea of placing them meteres away would either make the charges useless, or the thermite pointless.
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
That's shearing, you don't get that with explosives, trust me on this, (i'm not sticking up my happy snaps from my demolitions course) but they look nothing like that (nor would anyone ever try to cut the metal like that)Jazzz said:Eh? This is the first time I've seen this picture, but out of interest - it sure looks to me like that steel is cut diagonally!
edited to add - and there's residue around the cut
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
Where on earth did WouldBe sign up to the fruitloop's charter?Jazzz said:Well then you can't possibly make the argument that the lower steel would have to have been cut else there would have been a long collapse time, can you? You are contradicting yourself where it suits.
No such arguement was made, your post is jibberish.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Crispy said:
From Controled Demolition Incs website:
Right, 1000lb of explosives is about 450 kilos, or just under half a ton, to blow up this building, 32 stories etc etc. WTC was 110 stories per tower, so over 3 times as tall, so one would assume that more explosive was required.
Also, none of the demolition theorists have yet to come up with a way to smuggle at least 500KG of explosives into somewhere, plant them in the places they need to be planted in order, with refernce to the more powerful explosive charges, and then you need a timing system that can ensure that they all fire in the correct order.
Now, bearing in mind that these kinds of projects usually take about 2-3 months in EMPTY and DESERTED buildings, and the wiring has to be triple checked to ensure that all the charges fire in the correct order, and usually involve fairly large teams.
Given all that, seriously how would potentially 1.5 tons of explosives be smuggled in, emplaced, wired up and detonated without ANYONE in the WTC knowing about it?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
