9/11 Attacks

demonspawn

namloc1980 wrote: »

Wait a second. Both NIST and FEMA are US Federal Government agencies. Why are quoting their report? Isn't the official version a "cover-up" and the US Govt behind it all????

Not everyone in FEMA are crooked bastards, it's usually just the ones at the top. Those people probably lost their jobs for speaking out.

meglome

namloc1980 wrote: »

Wait a second. Both NIST and FEMA are US Federal Government agencies. Why are quoting their report? Isn't the official version a "cover-up" and the US Govt behind it all????

it's only a cover-up when it doesn't fit the CT

namloc1980

demonspawn wrote: »

Not everyone in FEMA are crooked bastards, it's usually just the ones at the top. Those people probably lost their jobs for speaking out.

Can you show us these people who lost their jobs?

So you accept some parts of the official story so?

demonspawn

namloc1980 wrote: »

Cn you show us these people who lost their jobs?

So it behooves all of us, as your own former chief of
NIST’s Fire Science Division, Dr. James Quintiere, said, “to look at real alternatives that might
have been the cause of these collapses.”

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/AE911Truth-NIST-Written-Submission12-18-07.pdf

Well that's one so far.

So you accept some parts of the official story so?

The parts that were rejected by the official NIST report? Yes, absolutely.

Happyman42

Di0genes wrote: »

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/08/norad200608

NORAD and FAA conversations from the day. You can even listen to the tapes.

Diogenes if you are making conclusions from sources like the above then I think I have your viewpoint sussed. It is little more than a love-in with Nasypany and the tape segments make no reference to conversations with the pilot of the Lear Jet. Why did you post that exactly?

I went looking for a transcript or tape myself and I can't find one. I did find this though.

'The aircraft that spotted the "black smoke" was an unarmed Air National Guard cargo plane that also had seen American 77 crash into the Pentagon 26 minutes earlier. After being diverted to track American 77, the cargo plane had resumed its flight to Minnesota and saw the smoke from the crash of United 93, less than two minutes after the plane went down.'
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1962910

No mention of conversations with the captain of a lear jet there either. Nor here either,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_93
Which is a fairly exhaustive account of the events surrounding the flight.

Can you point me to a tape of it's conversations or not? Or explain why it hasn't appeared in any of the transcripts above? I imagine it has been the focus of a lot of debate so somebody in officialdom must have made a judgement on it.

demonspawn

Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

Dr. Quintiere made his plea during his presentation, “Questions on the WTC Investigations” at the 2007 World Fire Safety Conference. “I wish that there would be a peer review of this,” he said, referring to the NIST investigation. “I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they’ve done; both structurally and from a fire point of view.”

“I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable,” explained Dr. Quintiere. “Let's look at real alternatives that might have been the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Towers and how that relates to the official cause and what's the significance of one cause versus another.”

Dr. Quintiere, one of the world’s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, also encouraged his audience of fellow researchers and engineers to scientifically re-examine the WTC collapses. “I hope to convince you to perhaps become 'Conspiracy Theorists', but in a proper way,” he said.

“In every investigation I’ve taken part in, the key has been to establish a timeline. And the timeline is established by witness accounts, by information from alarm systems, by any video that you might have of the event, and then by calculations. And you try to put all of this together. And if your calculations are consistent with some of these hard facts, then perhaps you can have some comfort in the results of your calculations. I have not seen a timeline placed in the NIST report.”

http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_alan_mil_070820_former_chief_of_nist.htm

alastair

Soveriegn wrote: »

In the weeks and months after 9/11, numerous individuals report seeing molten metal in the remains of the World Trade Center:
Ken Holden, who is involved with the organizing of demolition, excavation and debris removal operations at Ground Zero, later will tell the 9/11 Commission, “Underground, it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from [WTC] Building 6.” URL="http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hearing1/9-11Commission_Hearing_2003-04-01.htm"]9/11 Commission, 4/1/2003[/URL
William Langewiesche, the only journalist to have unrestricted access to Ground Zero during the cleanup operation, describes, “in the early days, the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole.” URL="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0865476756/centerforcoop-20"]Langewiesche, 2002, pp. 32[/URL
Leslie Robertson, one of the structural engineers responsible for the design of the WTC, describes fires still burning and molten steel still running 21 days after the attacks. URL="http://www.seau.org/SEAUNews-2001-10.pdf"]SEAU News, 10/2001 [IMG]http://www.historycommons.org/pics/icons/pdfbw.png[/IMG][/URL
Alison Geyh, who heads a team of scientists studying the potential health effects of 9/11, reports: “Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel.” URL="http://www.jhsph.edu/Publications/Special/Welch.htm"]Johns Hopkins Public Health Magazine, 2001[/URL
Ron Burger, a public health advisor who arrives at Ground Zero on September 12, says that “feeling the heat” and “seeing the molten steel” there reminds him of a volcano. URL="http://www.neha.org/pdf/messages_in_the_dust.pdf"]National Environmental Health Association, 9/2003, pp. 40 [IMG]http://www.historycommons.org/pics/icons/pdfbw.png[/IMG][/URL
Paramedic Lee Turner arrives at the World Trade Center site on September 12 as a member of a federal urban search and rescue squad. While at Ground Zero, he goes “down crumpled stairwells to the subway, five levels below ground.” There he reportedly sees, “in the darkness a distant, pinkish glow—molten metal dripping from a beam.” URL="http://www.usnews.com/usnews/9_11/articles/911memories.htm"]US News and World Report, 9/12/2002[/URL
According to a member of New York Air National Guard’s 109th Air Wing, who is at Ground Zero from September 22 to October 6: “One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers’ remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots.” URL="http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3731/is_200112/ai_n9015802/"]National Guard Magazine, 12/2001[/URL
New York firefighters recall “heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel.” [New York Post, 3/3/2004]
As late as five months after the attacks, in February 2002, firefighter Joe O’Toole sees a steel beam being lifted from deep underground at Ground Zero, which, he says, “was dripping from the molten steel.” URL="http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/evidence/messengerinquirer_recoveryworker.html"]Knight Ridder, 5/29/2002[/URL
Steven E. Jones, a physics professor from Utah, later will claim this molten metal is “direct evidence for the use of high-temperature explosives, such as thermite,” used to deliberately bring down the WTC towers. URL="http://web.archive.org/web/20051125072433/http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10053445/"]MSNBC, 11/16/2005[/URL He will say that without explosives, a falling building would have “insufficient directed energy to result in melting of large quantities of metal.” URL="http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635160132,00.html"]Deseret Morning News, 11/10/2005[/URL There is no mention whatsoever of the molten metal in the official reports by FEMA, NIST, or the 9/11 Commission. [Federal Emergency Management Agency, 5/1/2002; 9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004; National Institute of Standards and Technology, 9/2005 ] But Dr. Frank Gayle, who leads the steel forensics aspects of NIST’s investigation of the WTC collapses, is quoted as saying: “Your gut reaction would be the jet fuel is what made the fire so very intense, a lot of people figured that’s what melted the steel. Indeed it didn’t, the steel did not melt.” URL="http://cms.firehouse.com/content/article/article.jsp?sectionId=46&id=25807"]ABC News 7 (New York), 2/7/2004[/URL As well as the reports of molten metal, data collected by NASA in the days after 9/11 finds dozens of “hot spots” (some over 1,300 degrees) at Ground Zero (see September 16-23, 2001). Entity Tags: Ken Holden, Frank Gayle, Lee Turner, Leslie Robertson, Ron Burger, Steven E. Jones, Alison Geyh, World Trade Center, William Langewiesche, Joe O’Toole

All that, and still no link to some molten steel?

meglome

sovereign I'm confused. I thought the claim was that the fires were not hot enough for there to be molten steel? But you seem to be saying there is molten steel. Maybe you can explain? Can someone for the CT please try to stop contradicting themselves.

Personally I find it very difficult to accept that people did actually see molten steel as the temperature would need to be over 1300 degrees C. They may of course have seen other motel metal which would melt at a lower temperatures.

Soveriegn

alastair wrote: »

All that, and still no link to some molten steel?

[FONT=Callisto MT,Georgia,Book Antiqua,Palatino,Times New Roman,Serif]"MOLTEN STEEL" [/FONT]
[FONT=Callisto MT,Georgia,Book Antiqua,Palatino,Times New Roman,Serif]In the basements of the collapsed towers, where the 47 central support columns connected with the bedrock, hot spots of "literally molten steel" were discovered more than a month after the collapse. Such persistent and intense residual heat, 70 feet below the surface, could explain how these crucial structural supports failed. [/FONT]
[FONT=Callisto MT,Georgia,Book Antiqua,Palatino,Times New Roman,Serif]Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction of Flushing, New York, told AFP that he saw pools of "literally molten steel" at the World Trade Center. Tully was contracted on September 11 to remove the debris from the site. [/FONT]
[FONT=Callisto MT,Georgia,Book Antiqua,Palatino,Times New Roman,Serif]Tully called Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. (CDI) of Phoenix, Maryland, for consultation about removing the debris. CDI calls itself "the innovator and global leader in the controlled demolition and implosion of structures." [/FONT]
[FONT=Callisto MT,Georgia,Book Antiqua,Palatino,Times New Roman,Serif]Loizeaux, who cleaned up the bombed Federal Building in Oklahoma City, arrived on the WTC site two days later and wrote the clean-up plan for the entire operation. [/FONT]
[FONT=Callisto MT,Georgia,Book Antiqua,Palatino,Times New Roman,Serif]AFP asked Loizeaux about the report of molten steel on the site. "Yes," he said, "hot spots of molten steel in the basements." These incredibly hot areas were found "at the bottoms of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven [basement] levels," Loizeaux said. 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. [/FONT]

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/bollyn2.htm


Molten steel at building 7 also ?

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Diogenes if you are making conclusions from sources like the above then I think I have your viewpoint sussed. It is little more than a love-in with Nasypany and the tape segments make no reference to conversations with the pilot of the Lear Jet. Why did you post that exactly?

I went looking for a transcript or tape myself and I can't find one. I did find this though.

'The aircraft that spotted the "black smoke" was an unarmed Air National Guard cargo plane that also had seen American 77 crash into the Pentagon 26 minutes earlier. After being diverted to track American 77, the cargo plane had resumed its flight to Minnesota and saw the smoke from the crash of United 93, less than two minutes after the plane went down.'
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1962910

No mention of conversations with the captain of a lear jet there either. Nor here either,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_93
Which is a fairly exhaustive account of the events surrounding the flight.

Can you point me to a tape of it's conversations or not? Or explain why it hasn't appeared in any of the transcripts above? I imagine it has been the focus of a lot of debate so somebody in officialdom must have made a judgement on it.

There was a military C-130 which also did a flyover - but that's clearly not the plane the witnesses were talking about (not a jet, not small, no engines at back, not white, etc).

The FAA transcripts relate to the main controllers - the controller talking to the executive jet didn't get a front row seat, and I doubt the FAA care about a minor CT red herring that's easily explained by the evidence already out there.

alastair

Soveriegn wrote: »

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/bollyn2.htm


Molten steel at building 7 also ?

This quote has already been posted - it's still not evidence of molten steel.

demonspawn

meglome wrote: »

sovereign I'm confused. I thought the claim was that the fires were not hot enough for there to be molten steel? But you seem to be saying there is molten steel. Maybe you can explain? Can someone for the CT please try to stop contradicting themselves.

What's contradictory? Our theory is that jet fuel could not have possibly melted steel beams. Our theory points to the use of thermite. You're theory of jet fuel in completely implausible. Are you all caught up now?

Personally I find it very difficult to accept that people did actually see molten steel as the temperature would need to be over 1300 degrees C. They may of course have seen other motel metal which would melt at a lower temperatures.

You find it difficult to believe numerous credible eye witnesses and experts' testimony that say they saw molten steel and that the temperatures in the rubble were incredibly hot for days after the disaster? Is that what you are saying?

"They may have course seen other metal" is your opinion on a subject you know nothing about as you were not on the scene and you are not an expert in the field of fire science.

Soveriegn

l
location F C A 1341 727 B 1034 557 C 1161 627 D 963 517 E 801 427 F 1377 747 G 819 437 H 1017 54

Hmmm, was there an office fire in the basement ? What is the heat coming from ?

Molten steel.

namloc1980

demonspawn wrote: »

So it behooves all of us, as your own former chief of
NIST’s Fire Science Division, Dr. James Quintiere, said, “to look at real alternatives that might
have been the cause of these collapses.”

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/AE911Truth-NIST-Written-Submission12-18-07.pdf

Well that's one so far.



The parts that were rejected by the official NIST report? Yes, absolutely.

But James Quintiere left NIST in 1989 link????????? You are just making it up.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

All that, and still no link to some molten steel?

You can accept that a man in a dark suit handed an official an intact passport fallen from an horrific explosion and inferno in which the passport owners body didn't survive and minutes before the building collapsed and you can't accept the independent testimony of scores of people who saw molten steel??? Time for bed Alastair.

Soveriegn

alastair wrote: »

This quote has already been posted - it's still not evidence of molten steel.

This has also been posted. It's visual evidence of molten steel.

Soveriegn

Happyman42 wrote: »

You can accept that a man in a dark suit handed an official an intact passport fallen from an horrific explosion and inferno in which the passport owners body didn't survive and minutes before the building collapsed and you can't accept the independent testimony of scores of people who saw molten steel??? Time for bed Alastair.

Well said.

Alistair has .......

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

There was a military C-130 which also did a flyover - but that's clearly not the plane the witnesses were talking about (not a jet, not small, no engines at back, not white, etc).

The FAA transcripts relate to the main controllers - the controller talking to the executive jet didn't get a front row seat, and I doubt the FAA care about a minor CT red herring that's easily explained by the evidence already out there.

Never mind wether it's a red herring or not....I'll make that call myself.
Once again....where in the official reports is the transcript or tape of the conversations or is it an account with no tapes or transcripts to back it up.
Anybody else care to enlighten me?

alastair

demonspawn wrote: »

What's contradictory? Our theory is that jet fuel could not have possibly melted steel beams. Our theory points to the use of thermite. You're theory of jet fuel in completely implausible. Are you all caught up now?



You find it difficult to believe numerous credible eye witnesses and experts' testimony that say they saw molten steel and that the temperatures in the rubble were incredibly hot for days after the disaster? Is that what you are saying?

"They may have course seen other metal" is your opinion on a subject you know nothing about as you were not on the scene and you are not an expert in the field of fire science.

question - what metal is this?

Brown Bomber

meglome wrote: »

sovereign I'm confused. I thought the claim was that the fires were not hot enough for there to be molten steel? But you seem to be saying there is molten steel. Maybe you can explain? Can someone for the CT please try to stop contradicting themselves.

No contradiction.

I believe you are correct in stating that he said that fires won't reduce melt steel. So what would? explosives? Thermite? Thermate?

meglome wrote: »

Personally I find it very difficult to accept that people did actually see molten steel as the temperature would need to be over 1300 degrees C. They may of course have seen other motel metal which would melt at a lower temperatures.

Or they may have seen molten steel as they claimed. They were there after all, we weren't. We have no reason to assume they are ignorant or liars.

demonspawn

Alastair, I'm not responding to any more or your ridiculous posts so don't waste your time. You have been proven wrong on numerous occasions and now you're just making yourself look foolish.

Jeboa Safari

demonspawn wrote: »

What's contradictory? Our theory is that jet fuel could not have possibly melted steel beams. Our theory points to the use of thermite. You're theory of jet fuel in completely implausible. Are you all caught up now?

And how does the thermite theory work, where would the ammount of thermite be stored, without people noticing it?

alastair

Brown Bomber wrote: »

We have no reason to assume they are ignorant or liars.

We do however have every reason to expect that they couldn't tell the make up of molten metal.

Brown Bomber

alastair wrote: »

question - what metal is this?

Its not metal is it? Its a polymer or ceramic or some kind of fibre?

alastair

demonspawn wrote: »

Alastair, I'm not responding to any more or your ridiculous posts so don't waste your time. You have been proven wrong on numerous occasions and now you're just making yourself look foolish.

Where have I been proven wrong? I'm still waiting for the evidence of molten steel.

Brown Bomber

alastair wrote: »

We do however have every reason to expect that they couldn't tell the make up of molten metal.

... If there was no explosives used.

namloc1980

demonspawn wrote: »

Alastair, I'm not responding to any more or your ridiculous posts so don't waste your time. You have been proven wrong on numerous occasions and now you're just making yourself look foolish.

The only one looking foolish is you after your made up claim about James Quintiere. So anything to say on that one?

Happyman42

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

And how does the thermite theory work, where would the ammount of thermite be stored, without people noticing it?

How does the terrorist theory work. how would they steal 4 planes, without people noticing them..........................oh wait!

Soveriegn

namloc1980 wrote: »

The only one looking foolish is you after your made up claim about James Quintiere. So anything to say on that one?

I don't think demon appears foolish. I agree with him that alice looks foolish. Now you are appearing foolish too

alastair

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Its not metal is it? Its a polymer or ceramic or some kind of fibre?

It's red, it's hot, and it's flowing about. The only way you can actually tell what it is is for it to cool down enough to analyse. That's just the reality - unless you work in a forge or something, it's not so easy to tell what metal you're dealing with. The environment at the WTC was covered with dust and debris - lots of gyspum, sulpher, other minerals, compounds and metals, which mixed in with whatever metals/materials were actually molten would have made a call on the metal tricky for anyone - let alone emergency workers under the pressure and tiredness they endured. The bottom line however is that no-one has produced evidence of molten steel on the site.