Iranian President suggests 9/11 foul play and cover up

[Jazzz]

Your 'hypothesis' just keeps on getting more and more complicated by the minute, doesn't it?

So how was all this stuff brought it to the building then?
Who brought it in? Who installed it? How did they get it in situ? Who set it off?

And - more importantly - how come no security/door staff saw all these new people wheeling in wheelbarrows full of explosives?

And with all this activity going on, how come no office staff, managers, workers, cleaners, lift workers, parking attendant, police, CCTV operatives saw anything?

And how did they manage to install all these tons of explosives without a soul noticing?

I'd sure as hell notice some new blokes coming into my office and wiring things up without explanation and unless the entire floor had suffered some form of weird vision problem, they'd sure notice tons of wiring and explosives cluttering up the office.

Seeing as the WTC was open 24/7, perhaps you might come up with a credible solution as to how it managed to be invisible wired up with invisible explosives fitted by invisible operatives?

Any ideas?

Yes, and had you come to hear William Rodriguez speak at the symposium a while back you would have heard this explained too. It was very easy for workers to come and go in the WTC no-one would bat an eyelid. It was a big place and if you are past security at the front you could do what you wanted. One whole floor was in fact unoccupied and could be used for anything. Also, there were evacuations of the building in the weeks prior to 9/11.

Why don't you show you can discuss this maturely instead of going 'invisible this, invisible that'?

Yes, of course you would need to control the security for the complex. That is all.

 

[editor]

Professor Jones sticks to molten metal out of scientific rigour, something you wouldn't have a clue about.

So who conducted the test on the material to confirm it was steel?

 

[kyser_soze]

Right, Jazz/zArk. How about either of you, in a single post, give a full account of what you believe happened, including some basic speculation as to how any of the buildings could have been prepped for demolition, and why AFAIK none of the 9/11 cover-up groups around the world or US have yet to fund a private investigation into suspicious events or activity leading up to 9/11.

Seriously. Not a piss take. I'd like to know your thinking on why, out of all the tens of thousands of people who share your views, none has even begun to investigate the pre-9/11 sequence of events and that ALL the conspiracy analysis centres around video evidence of 9/11.

 

[Jazzz]

So who conducted the test on the material to confirm it was steel?

If you had bothered to read Jones' paper you would know the answer to that question.

 

[zArk]

So who conducted the test on the material to confirm it was steel?

i think admin is asking about the video of the molten metal flowing from the wtc building

but it aint clear

 

[teqniq]

Still not convinced. Not even slightly.

 

[editor]

Yes, and had you come to hear William Rodriguez speak at the symposium a while back you would have heard this explained too. It was very easy for workers to come and go in the WTC no-one would bat an eyelid.

Hello? Real world calling Jazzz!

So you're saying people could wander about where they liked, from floor to floor and office to office and no one would 'bat an eyelid' - even if strangers charged into private offices with great boxes stuffed full of explosives and started drilling away? Helloooooo?

Have you ever been to the WTC? I have. Several times. And you most certainly could not wander about wherever you liked.

But let's go along with your fantasy that people carrying massive amounts of equipment could roam freely around the building. What on earth makes you think an office manager would let these complete strangers come into his/her office and start installing things without permission or an explanation?

And - more crucially - how come there hasn't been queues of workers lining up to report the suspicious activities of silent workers prior to 9/11 installing large explosive-like substances all around their offices while refusing to say what they were doing?

I'll tell you why. Because your story is fantastic bullshit.

Anyway, got to go. Some blokes who won't tell me who they are or who they work for have just come into my office to install some big boxes and drill holes and hang wires all around the place. Oh, and they've also told me not to mention it, so Mum's the word!

 

[editor]

If you had bothered to read Jones' paper you would know the answer to that question.

No, you answer it please.

 

[kyser_soze]

Other points to raise about the controlled demolition...

Were the floors where the alleged explosives were placed occupied with offices at the time. If so, how exactly were the explosives bought in and placed? Even in serviced offices, there will be individual facilities reps/managers for companies who are responsible for all workers etc coming in and out of the offices - not the building, the offices of individual companies.

Oh, and Jazz - I've had weekly evacuation practice in every office I've worked in since 1995 so holding fire drills hardly counts as bizarre behaviour (indeed, in a skyscraper like the WTC such drills are even more important because the fire risk is far greater)

*reads Ed's post*

*grins*

 

[zArk]

Other points to raise about the controlled demolition...

Were the floors where the alleged explosives were placed occupied with offices at the time. If so, how exactly were the explosives bought in and placed? Even in serviced offices, there will be individual facilities reps/managers for companies who are responsible for all workers etc coming in and out of the offices - not the building, the offices of individual companies.

*bait* -- CHOMP- -mmmm delicious

 

[Jazzz]

No, you answer it please.

... an analysis of the composition of the previously-molten metal is required by a qualified scientific panel. This could well become an experiment crucis.
...

When a sample is obtained, a range of characterization techniques will quickly give us information we seek. X-ray energy dispersive spectrometry (XEDS) will yield the elemental composition, and electron energy-loss spectroscopy will tell us the elements found in very small amounts that were undetectable with XEDS. Electron-backscattered diffraction in the scanning electron microscope will give us phase information; the formation of certain precipitates can tell us a minimum temperature the melt must have reached. We will endeavor to obtain and publish these data, whatever they reveal.

That analysis of the metal in question, and others which would settle the issue, has not been done. I trust you support Steve Jones' call for analysis of a suitable samble.

I would guess that the central steels and maintenance shafts of skyscrapers are not inside the office floor space.

 

[kyser_soze]

I would guess that the central steels and maintenance shafts of skyscrapers are not inside the office floor space

These buildings use what are called suspended ceilings and raised floors which carry all the ductwork, cabling etc - effectively all the plumbing of the building is concealed within the ceilings and under the floor where it can be altered and replaced as new tenants come and go/new system installed etc. The Life cores of the building will often double up as central points for the rest of the building's services such as heating, water and primary electrical trunking, so in effect they are in office space, just not the bit that humans are occupying!

 

[Yossarian]

Do any of the people praising the work of Professor Steve "Visited by the Angel Moroni" Jones have enough of the relevant knowledge to be able to fully understand and compare academic papers in structural engineering, or are they just picking the expert whose theories they like best?

 

[Donna Ferentes]

So you're saying people could wander about where they liked, from floor to floor and office to office and no one would 'bat an eyelid' - even if strangers charged into private offices with great boxes stuffed full of explosives and started drilling away? Helloooooo?

Have you ever been to the WTC? I have. Several times. And you most certainly could not wander about wherever you liked.

But let's go along with your fantasy that people carrying massive amounts of equipment could roam freely around the building. What on earth makes you think an office manager would let these complete strangers come into his/her office and start installing things without permission or an explanation?

And even if they had, does it not strike you that afterwards, the surviving WTC workers - who might be a little dischuffed with people who they suspected of trying to have them killed - might be going round saying "could somebody please look into these suspicious people we saw in the days before 9/11?"

If there is a significant amount of legitimate dispute among the experts within a subject, then it will fallacious to make an Appeal to Authority using the disputing experts. This is because for almost any claim being made and "supported" by one expert there will be a counterclaim that is made and "supported" by another expert. In such cases an Appeal to Authority would tend to be futile. In such cases, the dispute has to be settled by consideration of the actual issues under dispute. Since either side in such a dispute can invoke experts, the dispute cannot be rationally settled by Appeals to Authority.

They're not both experts, though, are they Jazzz? Let alone experts of equal authority. One is the greatest expert there is, the other has no expert knowledge of the field.

Love of God.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

But there must be a way of weaking the vertical steels, which is normally done by slicing them through 90%, as editor pointed out a while back. That might be more appropriate for usual demolitions but not in this case. The hypothesis is that thermite was used for this and another explosive to bring it all down.

There were many reports of explosions before the WTC collapsed. Thermite triggering as you suggest? It seems to be perfectly in keeping with known observations. That the possible use of thermite here seems bold and risky is no reason to discount it.

And we have to have some way to account for all the molten metal.

Slicing is not a term you use for thermite reactions, that sounds like a cutting charge, where plastic explosive transforms a copper cone into a jet of plasma moving at serveral kilometers per second. You don't need to piss about with thermite or anything else to weaken a structure before you use them. A single cutting charge will ruin an I beam's load bearing ability, two will rip it apart, three will obliterate it. The same effect as the last can be done just using standard plastic explosives. (Although it's harder to do anything other than obliterate the I beam with plastic)

Thermite does not explode. It burns. As such any explosions are utterly unrelated to it. Please, bring some more spurious information.

 

[zArk]

Thermite does not explode. It burns. As such any explosions are utterly unrelated to it. Please, bring some more spurious information.

greening was trying to say that melted aluminium might have fallen on rusted steel surfaces inducing violent thermite explosions.

but.. if you had read both articles you would have known that before posting.

hmmmm

 

[Bob_the_lost]

greening was trying to say that melted aluminium might have fallen on rusted steel surfaces inducing violent thermite explosions.

but.. if you had read both articles you would have known that before posting.

hmmmm

THERMITE DOES NOT EXPLODE YOU STUPID LITTLE IDIOT

Ah, that's much better.

 

[editor]

That analysis of the metal in question, and others which would settle the issue, has not been done. I trust you support Steve Jones' call for analysis of a suitable samble.

So when you emphatically claimed that there "huge pools of molten steel on the site weeks later" in this post you were, in fact, making it up, yes?

 

[kyser_soze]

thermite explosions.

Thermite does not explode. It burns

 

[zArk]

THERMITE DOES NOT EXPLODE YOU STUPID LITTLE IDIOT

Ah, that's much better.

you clearly havent read the articles and are a bit upset.

i didnt say thermite explodes, Greening said "explosive reaction"

 

[Jazzz]

Slicing is not a term you use for thermite reactions, that sounds like a cutting charge, where plastic explosive transforms a copper cone into a jet of plasma moving at serveral kilometers per second. You don't need to piss about with thermite or anything else to weaken a structure before you use them. A single cutting charge will ruin an I beam's load bearing ability, two will rip it apart, three will obliterate it. The same effect as the last can be done just using standard plastic explosives. (Although it's harder to do anything other than obliterate the I beam with plastic)

Thermite does not explode. It burns. As such any explosions are utterly unrelated to it. Please, bring some more spurious information.

All very well but I have seen nothing in your suggestions to say that thermite wasn't used here, it explains the molten metal, and provides a mechanism for susbstantially weakening the foundations upwards. I don't think it's for us to rule out hypotheses which fit the facts on the basis of second-guessing what the best way to undertake such a demolition might be, and I venture this is maybe outside your expertise too.

Point taken about thermite exploding

 

[Jazzz]

Steve Jones' first audience

I presented my objections to the “official” theory at a seminar at BYU on September 22, 2005, to about sixty people. I also showed evidence and scientific arguments for the controlled demolition theory. In attendance were faculty from Physics, Mechanical Engineering, Civil Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Psychology, Geology, and Mathematics – and perhaps other departments as I did not recognize all of the people present. A local university and college were represented (BYU and Utah Valley State College).

The discussion was vigorous and lasted nearly two hours. It ended only when a university class needed the room. After presenting the material summarized here, including actually looking at and discussing the collapses of WTC 7 and the Towers, only one attendee disagreed (by hand-vote) that further investigation of the WTC collapses was called for. The next day, the dissenting professor said he had further thought about it and now agreed that more investigation was needed. He joined the others in hoping that the 6,899 photographs and 6,977 segments of video footage held by NIST plus others held by the FBI would be released for independent scrutiny; photos largely from private photographers (NIST, 2005, p. 81). Therefore, I along with others call for the release of these data to a cross-disciplinary, preferably international team of scientists and engineers.

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

good enough Donna?

 

[editor]

They're not both experts, though, are they Jazzz? Let alone experts of equal authority. One is the greatest expert there is, the other has no expert knowledge of the field.

Love of God.

I know how you feel.

 

[editor]

i didnt say thermite explodes, Greening said "explosive reaction"

Er, no. You posted up "violent thermite explosions."

 

[Jazzz]

They're not both experts, though, are they Jazzz? Let alone experts of equal authority. One is the greatest expert there is, the other has no expert knowledge of the field.

Love of God.

What we have from Jones is a peer-reviewed, evidence-based scientific paper. We just have an expression of opinion from Robertson, presumably soon after the event. The case made in the paper is not based on any physics where Robertson would necessarily have any greater expertise than Jones. Furthermore, if anyone disagrees with any of it, it's there to be done so. But we have no-one so doing, not Robertson nor any other dissenting official scientist.

Love of god, indeed.

 

[zArk]

Er, no. You posted up "violent thermite explosions."

ok. point solidified

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Is the suggestion that the scientific community agrees with Jones' work on this topic, Jazzz?

 

[Yossarian]

Do you yourself have the necessary scientific knowledge to be able to agree or disagree with Jones' paper? (edit - to Jazzz)

 

[editor]

We just have an expression of opinion from Robertson, presumably soon after the event.

Err, I've already linked to a talk he gave over six months after the event were he reiterates his analysis of the collapse and, of course, he's vastly, vastly more qualified than Jones in this area.

 

[Jazzz]

Do you yourself have the necessary scientific knowledge to be able to agree or disagree with Jones' paper? (edit - to Jazzz)

Yes, I am capable of appreciating the case he makes, it is very accessible, and I'm sure many others would also find it so also.