WTC attacks - the alternative thread

[Jazzz]

Dr.J I presume. Get off that number 11 this minute.
(What a waste of a 500th post)

I thought it a fantastic post, GC. well done!

I think there must be some kind of karma thing going on here....

 

[goldenecitrone]

I must be logged in to loads of computers in Stokey. Must remember to log out in future before people start thinking I'm some kind of conspiracy nut.

 

[tarannau]

That's really a bit rich coming from someone who can talk about little else other than the phone calls. How many times has anyone explained the pools of molten steel, errrr..... none?

The trouble with the molten steel claims, is that they seem to rely on the same very selectively quoted interview with Mark Loizeaux.

No doubts that he's an expert in the field, but the way his words have been quoted on sites like http://www.rense.com/general28/ioff.htm suggests that the authors of the article have gone all out to misrepresent his words in favour of pushing the 'blown up building' theory.

It's striking that they'll happily agree with any of Loizeaux's theories that loosely bond with their theory, whilst quickly passing over those that don't fit (Loizeaux's theory why molten steel might legitimately be burning from aviation fuel is quickly disregarded for example)

All in all the article's a masterpiece of selective quoting and misrepresentation - where someone saying 'no comment' or 'lack of evidence' is seen as a conspiracy. My favourite misrepresentation is this one:

Loizeaux said, "If I were to bring the towers down, I would put explosives in the basement to get the weight of the building to help collapse the structure."


Where Loizeaux's words are obviously meant to imply that we should think that the towers have been blown up. The article, of course, makes little mention of the pertinent detail that Loizeaux is a director of
Controlled Demolition , a company that specialises in destroying buildings by - surprise, surprise - putting bombs in the basement.


Wonder why they glossed over that little fact so quickly, or quoted Loizeaux seemingly out of context so often. In fact I go so far as to suggest that Loizeaux had no idea his words, once selectively quoted, would be used to justify such gibberish theories.

From what I've seen, he's a respected businessman and expert. He's seemed quite willing for his work and words to appear in the mainstream press and media in the past. Why then - has he chosen to announce this revelation indirectly through a handful of ill-respected nutjob sites?

Bonus points to anyone who can track down an original source inteview with Loizeaux. Or better yet a transcript?

 

[tarannau]

One further thing that disturbs me about that Rense article. It seems to allege that molten steel is still present (in molten form) some 4-5 weeks after the collapse. The expert says nothing of the sort, but it is implied in some mystical, conspiracy-tactic way.

As the 9-11 myth-debunking site 911 review puts it:

There is no evidence that there was still-molten steel in the sub-basement five weeks after the attack, since the excavation of the rubble piles was still in its early stages throughout October of 2001. It was not until the excavation was nearly completed, in May of 2002, that pools of previously molten steel were discovered. By distorting this key evidence 9/11 Review helps to discredit it.

The dates above (unsurprisingly) seem to check out fine with a few Google'd news articles.

 

[WouldBe]

Leaving aside all the conflicting, non-peer reviewed theories of how the WTC might have collapsed without explosives, here is a question which then begs to be answered.

...why were pools of molten steel found at the WTC, over a month later?

When explosives are used to 'cut' through steel, a short high intensity blast is used. Why would this result in molten steel over a month later?

Yes the explosive would melt the steel. It has to, to cut through it, but it is done by an explosive, the very nature of which is to explode. This would result in any molten steel produced being spead over a large area in small splashes not in pools.

 

[editor]

So, that's that particular load of shite dealt with. Again.

Now I wonder if DrJ will FINALLY explain how those calls were supposedly 'faked' - because if he can't his ludicrous swapped planes and remote-controlled-missile-firing-pretend-passenger-planes theory remains as ridiculous as ever.

 

[Jazzz]

The trouble with the molten steel claims, is that they seem to rely on the same very selectively quoted interview with Mark Loizeaux.

No doubts that he's an expert in the field, but the way his words have been quoted on sites like http://www.rense.com/general28/ioff.htm suggests that the authors of the article have gone all out to misrepresent his words in favour of pushing the 'blown up building' theory.

It's striking that they'll happily agree with any of Loizeaux's theories that loosely bond with their theory, whilst quickly passing over those that don't fit (Loizeaux's theory why molten steel might legitimately be burning from aviation fuel is quickly disregarded for example)

All in all the article's a masterpiece of selective quoting and misrepresentation - where someone saying 'no comment' or 'lack of evidence' is seen as a conspiracy. My favourite misrepresentation is this one:

Loizeaux said, "If I were to bring the towers down, I would put explosives in the basement to get the weight of the building to help collapse the structure."


Where Loizeaux's words are obviously meant to imply that we should think that the towers have been blown up. The article, of course, makes little mention of the pertinent detail that Loizeaux is a director of
Controlled Demolition , a company that specialises in destroying buildings by - surprise, surprise - putting bombs in the basement.


Wonder why they glossed over that little fact so quickly, or quoted Loizeaux seemingly out of context so often. In fact I go so far as to suggest that Loizeaux had no idea his words, once selectively quoted, would be used to justify such gibberish theories.

From what I've seen, he's a respected businessman and expert. He's seemed quite willing for his work and words to appear in the mainstream press and media in the past.
Bonus points to anyone who can track down an original source inteview with Loizeaux. Or better yet a transcript?

I can't understand this assessment tarannau. You agree that Loizeaux is a respected businessman and expert. He reportedly saw the pools of molten steel...

The molten steel was found “three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed,” Loizeaux said. He said molten steel was also found at 7 WTC, which collapsed mysteriously in the late afternoon.

confirming the report of Peter Tully who also saw them.

And it's important to note that these guys are not conspiracy theorists, Loizeaux was in charge of the cleanup operation, and was simply speaking freely about what he thought.

Now no-one here has offered an explanation that could possibly explain the presence of these pools of molten steel, still present over a month later. The explanation that they were caused by the 'inferno' (which we know was never there), although that's what Loizeaux theorised, just isn't possible. Jet fuel fires or office fires are just not going to get hot enough to melt the steel in the first place, and this is over a month later! However a massive thermite explosion in the basements to take out the main steels could result in the massive heat generation for exactly that. Occam's razor anyone?

Why then - has he chosen to announce this revelation indirectly through a handful of ill-respected nutjob sites?

That's very easy - he simply spoke freely to someone who asked. He didn't call them. However, the rest of the media just isn't going to touch the story - too hot, you see. American Free Press is not a 'nutjob' site - that honour belongs to CNN, BBC, you name it.

 

[Jazzz]

As the 9-11 myth-debunking site 911 review puts it:

editor, do you seriously give credence to tarannau's 'myth-debunking' site 911review.com?

 

[editor]

However, the rest of the media just isn't going to touch the story - too hot, you see.

Right. And all the photo stories currently on the BBC site detailing the disgraceful maltreatment of Iraqi prisoners by Americans soldiers aren't 'hot' at all, are they?

 

[editor]

editor, do you seriously give credence to tarannau's 'myth-debunking' site 911review.com?

I think you'll it's good manners to answer the questions you've been avoiding for the past three months first before asking me others.

Why can't you offer a credible explanation about how the calls were supposedly faked - because without that, your evidence-untroubled fantasy about remote-controlled, missile-firing pretend passengers planes is a pile of stinky doggy poo.

 

[Jazzz]

Right. And all the photo stories currently on the BBC site detailing the disgraceful maltreatment of Iraqi prisoners by Americans soldiers aren't 'hot' at all, are they?

They are, and I hope that soon some truth about 9-11 will filter into the mass media also. But this doesn't mean all red-hot stories will get printed - some are ruthlessly filtered especially where the implications seem too fantastic to contemplate.

An obvious of a red-hot story almost totally ignored by the mass media is the electronic voting scandal as described by www.blackboxvoting.org - yes, the voting process is becoming totally corrupted and there is barely a sniff in the papers about it. What do you make of that?

Oh, and tarannau's 'myth-debunking' site www.911review.com seems to do an excellent job of 'debunking' the official theory - as far as I can see, although I must be missing something! I guess when you stated

So, that's that particular load of shite dealt with. Again.

You were referring to the veracity of the official theory.


And I also posted about the phone calls in the other thread.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

An obvious of a red-hot story almost totally ignored by the mass media is the electronic voting scandal as described by www.blackboxvoting.org - yes, the voting process is becoming totally corrupted and there is barely a sniff in the papers about it. What do you make of that?

There is actually quite a lot of it at the moment, now that California has dumped a third of their machines. (Not as much as there needs to be, not blaming the culprits enough, and a bit late, IMO, but it's not exactly suppressed.)

 

[editor]

They are, and I hope that soon some truth about 9-11 will filter into the mass media also. But this doesn't mean all red-hot stories will get printed - some are ruthlessly filtered especially where the implications seem too fantastic to contemplate.

That'll be by the entire world's media will it?

How will 'they' manage to stop all of the hundreds of thousands of media outlets all over the world from revealing the (ahem) 'truth'.

Naturally, despite all the 'ruthless filtering' your favourite source-free, evidence-free sites will somehow remain at complete liberty to post up whatever they like.

Strange that, isn't it?

I mean, if there was this huge, evil, global conspiracy of silence enforced on the media, you'd think they'd have no problem at all closing down a few dodgy homepages. So why are they still here?

 

[WouldBe]

The explanation that they were caused by the 'inferno' (which we know was never there),

I suppose all that smoke from the north tower is from trapped people having a fag to calm their nerves then

Jet fuel fires or office fires are just not going to get hot enough to melt the steel in the first place

This is impossible, they say, because the maximum temperature that can be reached by hydrocarbons like jet-fuel burning in air is 1,520 degrees F

I take it everyone would agree that 'hydrocarbon' fuels would include coal and wood.

Perhaps DrJ and these 'experts' could explain how people in the Iron Age smelted iron then when coal and wood were the only available fuels??

thermite explosive

There is a big clue there in the second word. Once again the molten steel would be sprayed all over the place not left in pools.

Could some one explain how when it took over a year to clear the entire site someone was able to burrow through 1000's of tons of still burning debris, down through 7 basement levels, in only a few weeks, to 'witness' molten pools of steel

 

[Jazzz]

I suppose all that smoke from the north tower is from trapped people having a fag to calm their nerves then

WouldBe, I sometimes wonder if you know anything at all. You will get far more smoke from something smouldering than something that is lit. The presence of so much black smoke implies that whatever burning (if there was any) was taking place was poorly aspirated. Perhaps more to the point, can you see any flames from the North Tower?

I take it everyone would agree that 'hydrocarbon' fuels would include coal and wood.

Perhaps DrJ and these 'experts' could explain how people in the Iron Age smelted iron then when coal and wood were the only available fuels??

indeed! They used a furnace with bellows - not a normally aspirated fire, like the WTC fires. Still, they couldn't get hot enough to melt iron, let alone steel.

Could some one explain how when it took over a year to clear the entire site someone was able to burrow through 1000's of tons of still burning debris, down through 7 basement levels, in only a few weeks, to 'witness' molten pools of steel

One would have to clear the site outwards-in rather than top-down. So, quite possible.

Seeing as you have taken the liberty of posting a huuuge picture, here's a small one;

taken from earlier link

Clearly, no inferno, or this woman wouldn't be peering out of the impact hole. Just a load of smouldering.

There was no 'inferno'!

 

[Jangla]

I take it everyone would agree that 'hydrocarbon' fuels would include coal and wood.

Perhaps DrJ and these 'experts' could explain how people in the Iron Age smelted iron then when coal and wood were the only available fuels??

They burned the wood in a low oxygen environment to create charcoal. This was then used as fuel in a bellows aspirated furnace. Charcoal - not something all too common in today's construction materials. backatcha

 

[WouldBe]

The presence of so much black smoke implies that whatever burning (if there was any) was taking place was poorly aspirated. Perhaps more to the point, can you see any flames from the North Tower?

Burning plastics give off lots of black smoke even when burning. Black is black because it absorbs light, so with all that black smoke it's little wonder you can see any flames inside the building.

Still, they couldn't get hot enough to melt iron, let alone steel.

WTF do you think steel is made of. I'll give you a clue. It's 99% iron. There is less than 1% of inpurities added to iron to make steel. Iron melts at around 1500 C so what temp do you think steel melts at.

One would have to clear the site outwards-in rather than top-down. So, quite possible.

These pools were supposed to be around the central core which is right in the middle of a 7 story hole in the ground. Try again.

Seeing as you have taken the liberty of posting a huuuge picture, here's a small one;

Sorry if your crappy websites have such large pics.

 

[WouldBe]

They burned the wood in a low oxygen environment to create charcoal. This was then used as fuel in a bellows aspirated furnace. Charcoal - not something all too common in today's construction materials. backatcha

So charcoal comes from wood therefore charcoal is a hydrocarbon fuel, therefore it is possible for a hydrocarbon fire to melt iron.


No one heard of chimneys then? Chimneys have the effect of producing a good updraught causing lots of air to be drawn into the bottom. I think you'll find a 7 story lift shaft would create a very good chimney, it's even insulated by the surrounding concrete. When it's filled with fuel and steel it starts to get like early furnaces

Where were those 'pools of molten steel' found again?

 

[white rabbit]

The metal doesn't have to have been melted anyway. Just weakened to the extent that it can't hold the building up any more. I was listening to a program about warehouse fires some time ago and someone was saying how much more dangerous warehouses with steel girders were than the old wooden ones. The metal would expand and distort in the heat of the fire and push walls out, causing the warehouse to collapse.

Metal's properties change when it gets hotter and it doesn't do the job of providing support.

 

[Jazzz]

Burning plastics give off lots of black smoke even when burning. Black is black because it absorbs light, so with all that black smoke it's little wonder you can see any flames inside the building.

The point was that a load of smouldering will produce copious amounts of black smoke. You have fallen into the trap - quite literally! - of insisting 'no smoke without fire'. Bollocks!

WTF do you think steel is made of. I'll give you a clue. It's 99% iron. There is less than 1% of inpurities added to iron to make steel. Iron melts at around 1500 C so what temp do you think steel melts at.

Yet again, you try to disingenously avoid the complete rebuttal of your point which was that iron smelting furnaces are not 'normally aspirated' fires, like the WTC. Air is forced into the system. And 'smelt' does not imply 'melt' despite having an 's' on the end. I concede that steel melts at a similar temperature to iron, but that's neither nere nor there. Hydrocarbon fires in normal aspiration cannot melt steel. (or iron)

These pools were supposed to be around the central core which is right in the middle of a 7 story hole in the ground. Try again.

Well checking the details of the cleanup they removed the last piece of debris eight months after Sep. 11. I don't know which bits they tackled first. I'm not going to dismiss the words of the guy in charge of the cleanup on that basis. tarannau's excellent site 9-11review.com suggests that the pools of once molten steel were found later but obviously identifiable as having been molten. Maybe, except Mark Loizeaux is explicit as quoting 'four, five weeks'.

Sorry if your crappy websites have such large pics.

What you post is your responsibility.

You have totally ignored all the other evidence (from the whatreallyhappened site) which clearly demonstrates that there was no inferno. This is hard evidence in the form of eyewitness reports, official recordings of firemen, and photographs.

 

[Jazzz]

WR, that wasn't the argument though. WouldBe - I think - was trying to explain the 'molten steel' discovery by suggesting that the fire would have been hot enough to melt steel - it wouldn't have been and you won't find any estimate of the fire tempature as being that hot.

I am arguing that the tower collapse theories are invalid not because the fire couldn't have melted steel, but because there simply no inferno whatsoever. The evidence of photographs and eyewitness reports contradictions the possibility. The official theory has the tower collapsing because there was an inferno, and simultaneously assumes the inferno must have been present (despite all the evidence to the contrary) otherwise the towers would not have collapsed. Great!

 

[white rabbit]

It seems reasonable to me that the fire that we could see would have burned hot enough to weaken the structure of the towers to the point of collapse. What the definition of inferno is, I'm unsure. But it looks pretty damned infernal from what I've seen.

When the buildings collapsed and the fires continued to burn in the rubble, I've no doubt the hotter temperatures could have been reached with a sort of chimney effect mentioned earlier.

 

[Jangla]

I have difficulty believing the official line because both impacts were completely different and resulted in different amounts of aviation fuel being left in the building, yet the collapses were almost identical. One impact resulted in almost all of the plane and it's fuel remaining in the tower. From this it's possible that the fuel burned long enough to ignite other fuel sources within the building, resulting in a longer burning fire. This is backed up by the fires visible in the photographic evidence. The other impact, however, resulted in the vast majority of the fuel being ignited outside the tower and therefore the liklihood of it igniting other fuel sources with enough energy to create the same collapse within the building are approaching zero. Couple this with the footage (live, streamed media footage) of what appears to be demolition squibs detonating at uniform intervals down the building as it collapses and you have more than enough evidence to question the official line.
Is there anyone on this thread that whilst not categorising themselves as a "conspiracy theorist" can actually step back from the official line and see these pieces of evidence for what they are?
It still amazes me that there is a very black and white line between those that believe the official story and those that are brave enough to question it - there seems to be no middle ground and we are in danger of turning this into an argument about conspiracy theorists in general rather than questioning what we are fed by the government and media outlets and making our own conclusions.

 

[editor]

The other impact, however, resulted in the vast majority of the fuel being ignited outside the tower and therefore the liklihood of it igniting other fuel sources with enough energy to create the same collapse within the building are approaching zero. Couple this with the footage (live, streamed media footage) of what appears to be demolition squibs detonating at uniform intervals down the building as it collapses and you have more than enough evidence to question the official line.

You don't think that office workers, managers, security staff, cleaners, CCTV operators, maintenance workers etc might just have spotted the miles of cables and huge amounts of explosives being hung all around the offices then?

With each fresh wild addition to an already fanciful conspiracy theory, the amount of people needed to be involved grows exponentially.

Just for this 'exploded from within' scenario, there'd have to be the direct involvement of drivers, explosive experts, installation staff, suppliers, electricians, lift staff, security staff and anyone else who happened to be around when vast amounts of explosives were being hauled up and installed all over the building. Oh, and 'concealed explosives' experts too.

All of these people would have to have no problem at all with playing a direct, hands-on part in the murder of thousands of innocent office workers and have no problems with Bush's subsequent policies.

Moreover, there'd have to be teams of wireless explosives hanging around the building, ready to set off a synchronised set of explosions and then disappear in to the dust.

Oh, and all this would have to be done so perfectly and invisibly that not one of the tens of thousands of people working in the WTC noticed a thing, either at the time or in retrospect.

And how likely is all this? Answer = very, very unlikely.

 

[kyser_soze]

Couple this with the footage (live, streamed media footage) of what appears to be demolition squibs detonating at uniform intervals down the building as it collapses

Well having just watched about 15 different bits of footage of the towers collapsing this looks to me like the effect you'd have when 000s of tons of stuff was falling down vertically, so the only place it can go is to spread out rather than 'explosive squibs' (which as ed says would have req'd 000s of meters of cable and a huge amount of time to put in place...unless the buildings were designed with this specific even in mind...)

 

[Jangla]

Who said the explosives were installed recently? If I remember correctly, in the documentary in which they basically condemed the architect and laid responsibility of the collapse entirely at his feet, several people stated that explosives have been built into many buildings in order to minimise damage to surrounding buildings should the need arise to demolish it.
Anyway, I'm not going to get dragged back into this thread - far too much time wasted questioning events and keeping an open mind - must get back to swallowing the bullshit that the media and government are feeding me.

 

[Jangla]

Well having just watched about 15 different bits of footage of the towers collapsing this looks to me like the effect you'd have when 000s of tons of stuff was falling down vertically, so the only place it can go is to spread out rather than 'explosive squibs' (which as ed says would have req'd 000s of meters of cable and a huge amount of time to put in place...unless the buildings were designed with this specific even in mind...)

You would have witnessed uniform sprays of debris from all sides in your scenario. The footage I'm referring to shows explosions coming from one side of the building - the opposite side is obscured by smoke.

 

[WouldBe]

The point was that a load of smouldering will produce copious amounts of black smoke. You have fallen into the trap - quite literally! - of insisting 'no smoke without fire'. Bollocks!

And as I stated burning plastic gives off black smoke. How many people above the impact site in the north tower survived? Without these witnesses it is conjecture on both our parts as to wether the smoke was produced by high temp burning or simply smouldering. High temp suits me cos it explains why the steel would soften and cause the tower to fall. Smouldering suits you cos you then need controlled demolition to bring the tower down!!!

1. your point which was that iron smelting furnaces are not 'normally aspirated' fires, like the WTC. Air is forced into the system.

2. And 'smelt' does not imply 'melt' despite having an 's' on the end.

1. Try looking at link scroll down a bit to the puddling process. This is used to turn pig iron into wrought iron. It uses a coal / poor quality fuel fire to melt the iron and no mention of air being forced in to increase the temp.

2. link I think you'll find it does.

This is hard evidence in the form of eyewitness reports, official recordings of firemen, and photographs.

Firemen who only made it to the 79th floor when the main impact was on what the 84th floor.



Dewdney's site claimed that thermite might have been loaded into the steel colums when the towers were erected as it's relatively safe!!! Doing a search on google for thermite, the first result is for a high school demo where magnesium burning at 315 C is used to set the thermite off. Bearing in mind that most steel constructions are not only bolted together but welded as well the temp required for welding is a lot hotter that 315C. So some how I dont think the thermite would have withstood the construction phase

 

[editor]

Who said the explosives were installed recently? If I remember correctly, in the documentary in which they basically condemed the architect and laid responsibility of the collapse entirely at his feet, several people stated that explosives have been built into many buildings in order to minimise damage to surrounding buildings should the need arise to demolish it.

What?!!!!

Since when was it routine to 'build in' dangerous, remotely controlled, explosive charges into skyscrapers?!!!!

Who and where were these "several people" making this claim?

 

[WouldBe]

Who and where were these "several people" making this claim?

Dewdney et al for starters!!!!!!