So can anyone actually explain the explosions the firefighters heard?

[Bonobo]

Minus the snark.

Minus the goofing.

Minus the sarcasm.

Minus the answering questions with questions.

What were those 3 explosions one after the other in the lobby and directly above that the firefighters on the scene said they heard?

How can their testimony be squared with the official story as you know it?

I would honestly like to hear some possible answers, but as I said, minus the snark which has become quite boring at this point.

[greyl]

1. There are a plethora of explanations that make perfect sense and are supported by evidence.

How many explanations are you aware of, which do think are most likely, and what supporting evidence do you have?

edit:
This topic is not brand new here in the least, and your question has actually been answered in the most recent thread that you're not wading into.

The sound of an explosion does not mean explosives are involved.
An absence of explosion sounds in those towers would have been more than peculiar.
Explosions are to be expected in an office skyscraper that was on fire after being impacted by a passenger jet. Just think of everything that was in that building.

Here's one of the many explanations for the sound of explosions that is supported by evidence:

"the booming, rattling explosions the jumpers made upon impact"

www.esquire.com/features/ESQ0903-SEP_FALLINGMAN#ixzz11e37ivZx

[Bonobo]

2. A man falling could not create an explosion that brought down the lobby roof

onto everyone's head.

Your other statements:

>The sound of an explosion does not mean explosives are involved.

With direct testimony from trained firefighters IN the lobby, I do not think it is unreasonable to believe them when they ay they heard successive explosions. Rather, I would say that the burden of proof or at least an explanations falls on those trying to contradict said testimony.


>An absence of explosion sounds in those towers would have been more than peculiar.

True, but it is no explanation at all of the facts or testimony given by these witnesses. They say there was an explosion IN the lobby. What could have caused it? Jet fuel does not explode. And the planes were far, far above. So your statement, although true, is overly vague and not at all satisfactory to fit the specifics here.


>Explosions are to be expected in an office skyscraper that was on fire after being impacted by a passenger jet. Just think of everything that was in that building.

Same as above. How do explain explosions in the lobby? And explosions of that magnitude that the firefighters witnessed? This is far too vague.

[greyl]

3. How many explanations are you aware of, which do think are most likely, and what supporting evidence

do you have?

[Bonobo]

4. You have answered my question with a question.

This was one of the few things I requested to NOT happen on this thread.

Of course it is your right do do whatever you like, but I will not allow the tables to be turned on my own thread wrt to my own responses.

This OP is posing the questions that should lead to a discussion. When you offered vague possibilities surrounding one ridiculous possibility (aka falling man), I responded.

But I will not play the game you want to which is essentially that I answer my own question.

The fact of the matter is that you have, laid before you, firsthand testimony from firefighters at the scene describing what they JUST WITNESSED. I asked for a reasonable explanation of an event -aka explosions in and above the lobby - and that is where we still stand.

The firefighter, let me remind you, said something to the effect that "any of these buildings around here could go off at anytime. It's not over." He said this clearly to describe the event as he perceived it which consisted of explosions not directly related to the fire dozens of floors hundreds of feet above.

So, do as you like, but don't try to answer questions with questions.

[greyl]

5. You have no evidence for your conspiracy theory.

This topic is not brand new here in the least, and your question has actually been answered in the most recent thread that you're not wading into. Bother searching.

Explosions are to be expected in an office skyscraper that was on fire after being impacted by a passenger jet. Just think of everything that was in that building.

[Bonobo]

8. I offered no conspiracy theory, so it is weird that you would say that.

The way I would describe this thread is that I asked a legitimate question based on direct statements from not one, but two witnesses on scene.

You couldn't answer the questions, and while that is fine, it doesn't make it anything other than the way I described this thread.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OnTheOtherHand]

16. threadjack

You've linked to a site that isn't allowed on this board. That aside, you're off topic. (Perhaps we could discuss "natural instincts" on some other thread.)

[OnTheOtherHand]

17. personally, I don't understand your question

So, I will try to seek clarification without asking a question.

My impression is that several things could have caused the explosions that the firefighters experienced. The firefighters may have had an opinion about the likely cause; if they had thought that a bomb went off, I certainly would expect them to have said so. I could try to form an opinion about the most likely cause, but as far as I can tell, it would be (1) speculative and (2) irrelevant.

Trying to figure out why you think this question is relevant could easily lead one to infer that you are entertaining a 'conspiracy theory,' or at least to wonder what you think is the most likely explanation. But perhaps you would simply like to be convinced that some explanation other than bombs is plausible.

[Bonobo]

18. Really, that's odd. I think it is quite straightforward.

The witnesses say that there were multiple explosions and one of them expressly stated that he was afraid further could go off in any of the buildings in the area (seems to imply a bomb?).

So my question is "What caused the explosions?"

It is reasonable to ask, even NECESSARY to ask, without taking the next step you imply that I have already taken (aka that I am entertaining a 'conspiracy theory')

In other words, you cannot duck a reasonable question by implying that my asking it will invariably lead to a conclusion that you deem impossible 9aka a 'conspiracy theory')

So... what caused the explosions they firefighters heard? Please be as specific as you can.

The issue of its 'relevance' is, ironically, itself irrelevant by the way.

[OnTheOtherHand]

19. I think you're the one ducking me, actually

If your question is, in fact, "NECESSARY," I think it would be better directed to the firefighters.

[Bonobo]

20. Why would I address the firefighters?

Besides, this is a discussion board.

You can't answer the question, so why no t just say it?

Repeat after me: "There were multiple explosions that occurred that we do not have any reasonable explanations for."

[OnTheOtherHand]

21. well, thanks for tipping your hand, but no thanks for the intellectual errors

To answer your first question -- since you get to ask all the questions around here -- you would address the firefighters because you were honestly interested in interpreting their experience.

When I tell my mechanic that my car is making funny noises, he generally either asks some follow-up questions, or asks me to bring in the car so he can hear for himself, or both. If he didn't, I wouldn't take him very seriously as a mechanic.

If you feel you know everything worth knowing about what the eyewitnesses experienced, then I'm more puzzled than ever about what you are construing as "NECESSARY."

As far as I can tell here, the problem isn't that "we do not have any reasonable explanations" for the eyewitness accounts; it's that we have too many reasonable explanations, and I don't see why it matters which one(s) is/are true.

[Bonobo]

22. When something happens that cannot be explained at the scene of a crime...

questions that do not have self-evident answers are necessary.

The fact that you discount the issue is because you have already closed your mind to any possibility that is not explained in the official story.

As such, you would be both a poor investigator AND a poor mechanic since both require using both deductive and inductive reasoning in order to reach conclusions AFTER learning to ask questions with an open mind.

The only "hand" that I have tipped is that my opinion is that no explanation for the explosions has been offered. Nor do I see you offering one and you seem to, in that sense, agree with me that there is no explanation.

"Too many reasonable explanations"? I have not heard a single one yet. Please enlighten me. I'm serious. Just ONE would be nice.

[OnTheOtherHand]

24. you're welcome to hurl unsupported ad hominems if you like

but since I know your statement to be false, I'm not favorably impressed.

You're the one who is insisting that the eyewitness accounts "cannot be explained." Really, whose mind is closed?

[Bonobo]

25. duck, duck,

goose.

Saying your mind is closed is not an ad hominem attack any more than your claim that I "tipped my hand" is.

I say it is not explained. You cannot offer even a single explanation despite claiming there are "too many".

I think I win this round.

[OnTheOtherHand]

34. fine, I withdraw my comment

My speculations as to whether you actually have a point are, indeed, irrelevant.

I think I win this round.

I'm sorry you think that this is a game. I see you losing respect and winning nothing.

[immune]

26. "The problem isn't that

"we do not have any reasonable explanations ..."

If your house blew up you can bet you wouldn't be hauling away the debris before the arson investigators finished their investigation and released the property back to you. They would demand to examine every aspect of the blast, including making a determination about possible excellerants.

[SDuderstadt]

29. "excellerents"

Sorry, couldn't resist. As far as your claim that the debris was just hauled away without proper examination, you are, once more, parading your ignorance of the Fresh Kills landfill operation. Do you know how many FBI agents were involved?


Wait...I just answered my own question.

[immune]

30. Not enough coffee yet.

Who examined the debris before it was hauled off?

[SDuderstadt]

31. Dude...

it was a massive rescue and recovery operation. Tell me you understand why the debris was taken to, among other sites, the Fresh Kills landfill operation rather than just being left in place.

Again, your personal incredulity is not evidence of anything.

[immune]

32. Tell me why

a web search for "911 official arson investigation" brings up exactly NO hits.

I'm more interested in WHY it was removed from the site before an investigation by independent arson specialists could be initiated. WHERE it was taken is a red herring.

[SDuderstadt]

33. If you can't figure this out...

you're beyond hope.

You're probably getting this bullshit from that idiot, Eric Lawyer, who doesn't understand the provisions of the NFPA.

Bonus question: can you define what an "independent arson specialist" is? "independent" of what, specifically?

[immune]

36. No, I still have hope.

From the firefighters for 911truth.org website:

Look at the facts of the WTC, specifically Tower 7, collapses:
1) Terrorists used explosives on WTC 1 in 1993.
2) Over 118 first responders reported hearing explosions before all 3 collapses, many said it sounded like the “bang-bang-bang” you hear during a demolition.
3) We have video, photographic and audio evidence of explosions after the impact and before collapse.
4) Live news was reporting multiple explosions, and the possibility terrorists also planted explosives.
5) Barry Jennings, the Emergency Coordinator for the NY Housing Authority reported explosions in Tower 7. He also reported being knocked down by explosions prior to the collapse of the tower.
6) Molten steel AND concrete were found at Ground Zero “remember, hydrocarbon fires do not burn hot enough to melt steel or concrete.”N.F.P.A. 921- 19.2.4 Exotic Accelerants states that molten steel and concrete could indicate the use of exotic accelerants, specifically Thermite.

NIST refused to test the debris or dust for exotic accelerants.

Their conclusion was: widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large, jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires weakened the now susceptible structural steel. No building in the United States has ever been subjected to the massive structural damage and concurrent multi-floor fires that the towers experienced on Sept. 11, 2001.

Wouldn't the planes have to be loaded to the gills with jet fuel to account for such results?

And then there's still building 7.

So who ordered the debris to be hauled away? If you tried that at a simple house fire they'd have you up on obstruction charges. And I can promise, not ONE red centavo would be paid out by the insurance company until the investigation was completed in a satisfactory manner.

Oh, and by the way ... maybe it was you who needed more coffee this morning.
Fire accelerant
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_accelerant

[SDuderstadt]

37. Dude...

your post is so error-laden, it's not even worth responding to.

P.S. I have no idea why you're linking me to the Wikipedia entry on ACCELERANTS, when I was poking fun at you spelling it "excellerants".

Bonus question: do you honestly believe the hundreds/thousands of FBI agents who sifted through the debris, would have ignored evidence of "arson"?

[immune]

41. Are FBI agents arson investigators? I didn't know that!

But on the excellerants part .. yeah, I guess I'm still a pot short on caffine. Duh.

But as far as the FBI investigations go, it looks to me like they didn't even know who they were surveilling in the days and months prior to 911, and they still didn't when they claimed to know and posted the names of supposedly dead terrorists on their website (which were still there last time I checked.) All Meuller did was admit to not having "legal evidence", which is the same as admitting that all they had was suspicion. And you say we've got dick.

[SDuderstadt]

43. Dude...

do you understand what the term "temporization" means? Do you understand that statements made by the same person at a later date supersede their previous statements? If the police announce in October that they have no clues in someone's murder, then in December you learn the murder has been solved, do you recollect the police statement from October and conclude the killer must have just turned himself in?

You keep rebunking previously debunked bullshit from CT websites, then you can't grasp why people don't take you seriously. It's truly baffling.

[immune]

45. What?

superse? include the killer?

[SDuderstadt]

47. Fat fingers on a...

small Android touchscreen, dude. Read the edit, then try to respond intelligently.

[defendandprotect]

125. Nor does the sound of repetitive/simultaneous explosions mean there weren't explosions ...

bombs going off!

[mrarundale]

6. Bonobo

You might already know this but here are a bunch of witness (paramedics, FDNY , etc...)reports published by the NYTimes (FWIW).
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html
There were PLENTY of witness accounts of explosions prior to this video "release", so I don't know why the big deal...
It should be clear from looking through the above accounts that there were , indeed, explosions, but, I agree with Greyl: "from what?" although, I do not agree that it would be from "jumpers". (I really,really hope the jumpers aren't true...)

That being said, I am extremely skeptical of any written or visual news or photos, official or otherwise, concerning 9-11, so everything is with a "pinch of salt".

[greyl]

7. What do think of the theory that bombs were planted

by the Revolutionary Nuclei?

[Bonobo]

9. No one offered any such theory, That would be jumping to conclusions.

The first order of business we should be able to agree on is to offer explanations of the explosion that conform to the witnesses statements.
Wouldn't you agree?

[greyl]

27. I just did.

Made it up on the spot.

Why, do you think Al Qaeda planted bombs there to coincide with their kamikaze missions?

[Bonobo]

28. Thanks for confirming repeatedly that you cannot offer any explanation

that is even marginally reasonable.

[greyl]

40. You think you're better than me? ;)

If I'm not mistaken, you refuse to offer any explanations of your own.
I'm on record in this thread and its forum offering explanations, as are plenty of other thoughtful people with working imaginations and basic skills of logic.
Your personal incredulity is of no consequence.

[mrarundale]

14. Could have been the Hell's Angels for all I know

...although wasn't the Greek Church the only non Port Authority/Silverstein building destroyed? I keep meaning to look into that.....One time I was at Ground Zero on a 9-11 anniversary and I asked an NYPD officer who said he was there on 911 why only PA/Silverstein buildings were destroyed on 9-11 and he told me to have a nice flight back to _______. (also got a sympathetic response from another NYPD member but I don't want to get him in trouble)

[greyl]

42. I don't recall the Hell's Angels publically threatening the US with attacks,

so I wouldn't entertain that theory for longer than 2 seconds.

[Bonobo]

10. We all agree with the "From what?"

But such explanations fail to be explanations unless they are specific enough to fit the testimonials.

Don't you agree?

[mrarundale]

13. Oh yes absolutely, but

the fact that the explosions have been known about and not addressed in any investigative capacity implies that maybe they are sort of a red herring or straw man , which is NOT to say that there were not explosions, but it doesn't seem to bother the official version purveyors that we know about them since the NYT published that info a long time ago. So I think that it is a diversion from whatever caused the buildings to fall to the ground. That being said I do NOT think it was from the fire caused by planes (since I see scant evidence for planes)....and there were early mainstream reports of pulverized steel, so...

[KDLarsen]

11. Can anyone actually explain the freight train a firefighter heard?

I think this quote sums it up quite well:
"An English Professor that knew 9/11 from the Truth Movement quotes would conclude that hyperbole, simile, and metaphor caused the towers to collapse."

[Bonobo]

12. So your position is what?

That the two firefighters' testimony cannot be believed?

[immune]

23. According to NFPA 921 14.3

“Preservation of the Fire Scene and Physical Evidence” we find the following “the cause of a fire or explosion is not known until near the end of the investigation. Therefore, the evidentiary or interpretative value of various pieces of physical evidence observed at the scene may not be known until, at, or near the end of the fire scene examination, or until the end of the complete investigation. As a result, the entire fire scene should be considered physical evidence and should be protected and preserved.”
http://firefightersfor911truth.org/

I would think carting away the evidence BEFORE the investigation could even get under way might, in some circles, be considered prima facie evidence that a crime has been committed.

[SidDithers]

35. There are many things that can cause an explosion sound in a burning office building...

fire extinguishers, transformers, propane tanks, diesel tanks.

Sid

[immune]

38. None of those were

examples used by NIST to explain the explosions. How'd they miss that possibility?

When asked about explosives, they responded: "The responses to questions number 2, 4, 5 and 11 demonstrate why NIST concluded that there were no explosives or controlled demolition involved in the collapses of the WTC towers."

But if you look, the word "explosives" isn't to be found in 2, 4, 5, or 11 except to say no evidence was found.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Eyes wide shut.

As for the explosion looking "puffs" that everyone saw that morning,

NIST concluded that "the falling mass of the building compressed the air ahead of it—much like the action of a piston—forcing smoke and debris out the windows as the stories below failed sequentially."

From what I understanad, none of this has ever before been seen in a collapsing building whether from CD, or other causes.

[SDuderstadt]

39. Dude...

how many times does someone have to explain the difference between "explosives" and "explosions" to you?

Serious question: Is this an act on your part?

[immune]

44. Hint:

the question put to NIST was regarding explosives, not explosions.

What do you think caused the explosions?

[SDuderstadt]

46. Dude...

this has been explained to you multiple times. There are numerous things in a high rise office building that would explode in a fire: transformers, fuel tanks, uninterruptible power supplies, drums of solvents used by the maintenance staff, copying machines, etc., etc., etc.

Here's a great idea. Track down the firefighters in the video and ask them if they believe explosions only result from explosives. Better yet, contact FDNY and ask them why, after losing 300+ of their brothers that day, they are so poorly represented in the "9/11 was an inside job" movement.

Everytime I try to engage with you, I find myself sacrificing brain cells. If you'd do some basic fact-checking before you just parrot goofy CT bullshit, that wouldn't be necessary.

[immune]

48. Why did NIST fail to include these possibilities

in their final report?

They say: "The seismic record contains no evidence that would indicate explosions occurring prior to the collapse of the towers."

Damaged brain cells? Kinda reminds me of Elton John .. Its no Sacrifice.

When the FDNY puts up a website parroting the OCT, let me know. Meanwhile ...

[SDuderstadt]

49. Dude...

Think this through. If the seismic record did not pick explosions at the same time people are reporting them, what does that tell you about the magnitude of the explosions?

As to your second "point", FDNY lost 300 + of their brethren on 9/11. If anyone has reason to be suspicious, they would, yet they are not screaming "9/11 was an inside job!". For you to think that is somehow less significant than the fact they have not put up a website "parroting the OCT (whatever that is) explains why no takes you seriously here.

[immune]

50. It just means

that a lot of people aren't talking. Period. I find that significant.

You say "if" like it isn't the biggest word in the english language. "If" wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

[SDuderstadt]

51. "it just means a lot of people aren't talking"

If you have evidence that the members of FDNY believe your goofy bullshit but just aren't "talking about it", please provide it.

Another copout/rationalization from you.

[immune]

52. Did I say anything about evidence?

I said that I believe it is significant.

You're the one always asking for "evidence" and "proof", so how about you give us a reason why photos of at least nine living men are still pictured (nine years later!) on the FBI website as having died when they crashed planes into American properties?

http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/penttbom/penttbomb.htm

[SDuderstadt]

53. Dude...

as I have said before, many of your posts are simply so dumb, they don't require a reply.

This is one of them.

[immune]

55. That just makes me sad.

For you.

[SDuderstadt]

56. If I were you, I'd be sad, too...

but for a totally different reason.

[SidDithers]

54. The words "explosions" and "explosives" are not interchangeable...

Lots of things, when set on fire, go BOOM!

Sid

[immune]

57. Yep,

and it was the job of government to determine what those booms were caused by and what they resulted in.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_911_24c.htm

One of the people a thorough investigation should question would be demolition expert Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. Speaking of the way the WTC buildings came down, he said in an interview:

“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.”

Just right – “explosives in the basement” agrees with eyewitness reports of pre-collapse explosions down low in the buildings (point 7 above). Also, this would be the way to effectively sever the support columns, consistent with both the apparent initial drop of the communication tower (WTC Tower 1) and the “kink” in the middle of WTC 7 as its collapse began.

Yes, and as president of Controlled Demolition, Inc., Mr. Loizeaux would know the,

“handful of demolition companies in the world will attempt” a symmetrical controlled demolition or “implosion”.

His company is certainly one of these and was hired to help in the rapid clean-up work following the building collapses.

[SDuderstadt]

59. Dude...

watch the video of the collapse of WTC 1&2 and notice how the collapse initiates from the impact zone downward. Duh.

[immune]

62. Wait a minute

Aren't you the one who claims that seeing and hearing doesn't mean that something's believable?

Shoe meet other foot.

[SDuderstadt]

65. No, dude...

I said hearing an explosion doesn't automatically mean it was explosives.

If you'd actually pay attention when you read, you'd embarrass yourself a lot less.

[immune]

66. Nor does it mean it wasn't explosives.

That's why arson investigators make the big bucks.

That's all anyone (that I know about, anyway) is asking for ... a real investigation instead of a political cover up and double talk.

[SDuderstadt]

67. Dude...

No one is saying it could not have been explosives. However, ZERO evidence has surfaced that it was. And, it's silly to pretend that the FBI has no arson investigative component, which you'd know if you did a little basic research before opening your mouth.

Most importantly, however, we HAVE evidence of how the fires started on the videos. Duh. Tell me something, if the objective was merely arson, why fly planes into the towers?

[immune]

68. Not true on the zero evidence.

That's why you, and so many others, have to ridicule Steven Jones, et al.

But I am glad to see you're finally beginning to ask the why of things. A small step for man ...

[SDuderstadt]

69. Dude...

there are serious problems with Steven Jones' work, whether you want to see it or not:

1) the first is the provennace of the "samples". If NIST were that careless about such an important detail, you'd scream bloody murder.
2) Thermite, in whatever form, is NOT an explosive, it's an incendiary. Put learning the difference between the two on your "research" list.
3) Thermite is also used in welding and cutting, so finding "thermite" in whatever form on a huge construction site is really underwhelming.
4) Jones' work was so suspect that he and his "team" had to pay to put it on the Bentham site. When the editor of that site found that Jones' "paper" was appearing there, she promptly resigned and castigated the publisher. Simple question: why can't Jones get his "paper" published in a reputable scientific journal with proper peer review.
5) Close examination of "chips" reveals a structure more closely resembling paint chips.

You can be a science-denier all you want, dude. Just don't expect rational people to buy your goofy bullshit.

[immune]

70. Okay, so now we have two problems.

What caused the steel to melt and flow down the outside of the buildings and what caused the explosions. It doesn't have to be the same answer, but it could be.

D.P. Grimmer showed that a few inches of thermite applied to the outside of
any column in the twin towers would contain enough energy to melt through the
column; enough could be used to bring the buildings down. (12)
http://journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/ProfMorroneOnMeltingWTCsteel.pdf

And then there's Thermate:
Thermate is a slightly more powerful version of thermite which is made by combining 68.7% regular thermite, 29.0% Barium Nitrate, 2.0% sulfur, and 0.3% dextrin (as a bonding agent) together. Warning: Thermate is more unstable than thermite, when experimenting with thermate, give yourself ample time to clear the area.

What a dilemma. 19 Jihadists making "lucky strikes" or ... what?

And it would be hard to believe that "samples" didn't find their way into many pockets. That would really be believing goofy bullshit.

[SDuderstadt]

71. Dude...

more of your goofy bullshit. Who claims that the steel "melted"? And since lead, aluminum and numerous other metals melt at lower temperatures than steel and two big fucking ALUMINUM airliners just plowed into the towers, what do you think the chances are that it was molten aluminum dripping???

And it would be hard to believe that "samples" didn't find their way into many pockets

Maybe this will sink in eventually: How do you know where the "samples" came from???

I'm done arguing with your ignorance for the day, dude.

[immune]

72. How long can a chunk of aluminum burn?

At ground zero, steel was still found in liquid form weeks after 9/11.

Firefighter: “You’d get down below and see molten steel—molten steel running down the channel rails, like you’re in a foundery…like lava.”

How do I know where the samples came from? I don't. How do you know where they didn't come from? You don't. Maybe someone gave Jones a lab experiment gone bad.

[SDuderstadt]

73. You're still peddling that...

stupid "molten steel" myth. Do you honestly believe anyone can identify "molten steel" merely by looking at it? The "official story" never once claims the towers came down because the steel melted.

How do I know where the samples came from? I don't

Which is why you and Jones, etal, have a problem.

How do you know where they didn't come from? You don't

Why you think this presents a problem for me is unknowable.

BTW, do you think melting and burning are the same thing?

[immune]

74. Myths?

Here's the testimony. 21 witnesses of molten steel.

http://forums.randi.org/archive/index.php/t-117236.html

But you're right, NIST never mentioned it as a possible cause of the towers coming down.

[SDuderstadt]

75. Dude...

You can produce all the "witnesses" you want, but the simple fact remains that even a trained metallurgist cannot identify molten steel merely by sight. It requires metallurgical testing.

Beyond that, aluminum, lead and a host of other metals, all present in the WTC, have lower melting points than steel. What do you think the chances are that the "molten steel" was pure anything?

I can't believe we're even having this conversation, so we're not.

BTW, are you just going to dig up and rebunk all the previously debunked nonsense of the last nine years????

[immune]

77. I know,

firemen wouldn't know an explosion if they heard it, they wouldn't know molten steel if they saw it, next you'll be telling us they couldn't recognize fire without NIST to point it out for them.

But we're also talking about scientists here and I know you aren't a science denier.

So how much "other" metal, besides steel, was in those towers that when melted could look like a foundry, or like lava, or like rivers, or streams, or hot enough to evaporate some of the beams, or a “fused element of molten steel and concrete”. 21 of them and they ALL refer to it as molten steel.

Mark loiseaux president of controlled demolition, Inc. Who was hired for building 7 clean up, said that “molten steel was found at WTC 7”

But not being there, of course you'd know better.

[SDuderstadt]

78. First of all, dude...

show me where I said that firemen wouldn't "recognize an explosion if they heard it". What I said was explosion does not necessarily mean explosives. You seriously need to quit misrepresenting what I actually say.

Secondly, at least two of the people on your list deny they ever said that it was steel and there are numerous examples where some of the "witnesses" are merely repeating what they were told by others without questioning it.

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html

For example, take Leslie Robertson.

The "Leslie Robertson" quote comes second-hand from James Williams, SEAU President, in an account of a Robertson presentation ( http://www.seau.org/SEAUNews-2001-10.pdf ). We emailed Roberston to find out if it was accuate, and his brief reply arrived quickly:

I've no recollection of having made any such statements...nor was I in a position to have the required knowledge.
Details here

Williams notes of the presentation only talk of “molten metal”, not steel. It’s possible to construct a case that Robertson mentioned “molten steel” in the lecture, but forgot it later, and Williams wrote “molten steel” rather than metal because, ah, he just did. But short of some evidence to support that, this quote doesn’t appear to have much substance.

Beyond that, dude, it's spectacularly stupid to claim someone can identify molten steel merely by looking at it. Find a metallurgist to confirm it and you might have something. What you'll find, however, is not even a metallurgist can idenify it without testing it.

So how much "other" metal, besides steel, was in those towers that when melted could look like a foundry, or like lava, or like rivers, or streams, or hot enough to evaporate some of the beams, or a “fused element of molten steel and concrete”. 21 of them and they ALL refer to it as molten steel.

Dude. You're talking about a 110 story office building full of aluminum blinds, desks, computers, copying machines, lamps, lighting fixtures.. etc.

Please.

[immune]

80. Dude.

"You're talking about a 110 story office building full of aluminum blinds, desks, computers, copying machines, lamps, lighting fixtures.. etc."

.... you forgot steel. 110 stories held up by steel.

But okay, so lets make it 20 witnesses ... unless you have an inside scoop on what all the others may have "forgotten" having said.

[zappaman]

82. since you don't seem to understand ANYTHING

here is what a transformer exploding sounds like.
http://www.stupidcollege.com/items/Electric-Transformer-Explosion
there were many in the WTC.

[immune]

85. I know the sound of a transformer exploding.

One blew right outside my house a few years ago and it blew my computer right along with it, but the walls didn't come crashing down around my ears.

[SDuderstadt]

88. Exactlly....

you DO realize you're debunking your own argument, right?

[immune]

90. If you're suggesting the wtc buildings might've been

brought down by blowing transformers and such, I'd say its quite the reverse.

[SDuderstadt]

92. Jesus fucking christ...

dude. Can you follow a conversation? No "explosions" were necessary to bring the buildings dowm.

[SDuderstadt]

83. Dude...

you can assemble as many witnesses as you want. NO ONE can identify molten steel merely by looking at it. If they can, please describe how they do it.

This is now beyond stupid.

[hack89]

79. So molten steel is actually common at fires?

how else would firefighters learn what it looks like? How can molten steel be a smoking gun if it happens all the time?

[immune]

81. Maybe you can explain why

metallurgists weren't called in to identify the liquid metal and why the rubble wasn't tested for explosives. You do understand that failing to do so makes their investigation look somewhat suspicious, don't you? Or was it just gross incompetence?

[SDuderstadt]

84. Only to people like you...

dude.

[immune]

86. Sorry to disappoint,

but this time it looks like I'm in the majority.

[SDuderstadt]

87. In the majority of...

what, specifically?

[immune]

89. How many times do I have to repeat it ...

those who want a new independent investigation opened.

Speaking of which, AE911Truth’s Richard Gage, AIA, will be on air live for one hour tomorrow in the LA area on KPFK on 90.7 FM radio. Everyone else can listen online at KPFK.org at 4pm PT Friday October 8.

Isn't that good news? :woohoo:

[SDuderstadt]

91. Again, define...

"independent investigation".

Richard Gage is an idiot. You're following an idiot.

[immune]

93. You can throw

your shoe at the radio. Other people will be listening.

I'll put his creds up against yours any day of the week.

[SDuderstadt]

94. Dude...

His creds against mine aren't the issue here. How many members does the AIA have? Why aren't they flocking to Gage's "organization"?

Besides. you're not in a position to assess anyone's creds, dude.

[immune]

95. I don't keep a running tally.

And keeping in mind, this isn't the only organization pushing for the same thing. They're all around you.

But okay, so lets see your creds then so I can assess them against Gage's, which are freely available in the public domain. So far, from what I've heard of your bullshit, goofy and dude responses, I think you can guess which of you might come out ahead ... in my opinion.

[SDuderstadt]

96. Dude...

Simple question (which you won't answer):

How many members does the AIA have?

Bonus question: Why can't Gage recruit more members after the number of years he's been trying?

On top of that, if you're in the majority, why isn't anyone who matters listening? See if you can find it on the agenda at any Democratic state or national conventions.

What does that tell you?

[immune]

98. The most recent numbers I have are

1333 verified architectural and engineering professionals and 10001 other supporters including A&E students have signed the petition demanding of Congress a truly independent investigation.

The petition is open to everyone.

And no one knows how many would sign it if they had the opportunity.

To the best of my knowledge, this is a totally bi-partisan effort, but I agree with you on one major point ... why aren't those "who matter" listening? What's your answer to that question?

[SDuderstadt]

100. "And no one knows how many would sign it if they had the opportunity"

Another copout from you. How is anyone denied the opportunity to sign it???

And, I didn't ask you how many members AE911truth has. I asked you how many members the AIA has. It has 83,500. ASCE (the American Society of Civil Engineers) has 142,000+. Between the two organizations, they have nearly 226,000 members. After all the years Gage has been recruiting, do you expect us to believe .6% is the best that Gage can do? If you guys are so right, should members of ASCE and the AIA be falling all over themselves to sign up?

The reason nobdy who matters is listening is because "9/11 was an inside job" is goofy CT bullshit.

[immune]

102. That's like asking

why everyone isn't a democrat. After all, everyone has the opportunity to get a few brain cells operating properly.

[SDuderstadt]

108. Which is YOUR problem...

you can sign the petition ONLINE from anywhere. Gage has been recruiting at AIA annual meetings.

So, despite his "creds", Gage is flunking out with his own brethern. If the case is as strong as you make it out to be, why is Gage falling flat on his face?

[immune]

109. You'd like to believe

he's falling flat on his face. I can't help you with that.

Like I asked, why isn't everyone democratic? Why do some people cherish money and fame and power over democracy and equality?

[SDuderstadt]

111. Last I checked....

a lot more that .6% of Americans were registered democrats.

[immune]

113. They've had a lot longer

than nine years to get used to the idea. But still, not all have caught on.

[SDuderstadt]

114. WTF are you babbling about...

now?

[hack89]

97. The rubble pile was full of aluminum that sat for weeks in fires hot enough to melt it

it is only a mystery for truthers.

Your comment about testing for explosives highlights a major failure of the truth movement. We keep hearing about all these brilliant scientist and engineers yet not one was smart enough to go to NY and gather dust samples to test for explosives. It was inches think on countless rooftops - a shovel and some plastic bags was all they need. Why didn't they do this basic test? I think they did and didn't get the answer they wanted.

[immune]

99. I appreciate your questions. Makes me dig.

Found this on a forum I'd never seen before.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=90467&page=86
This is from the House Committee on Science hearings

The 23-member BPAT team conducted an analysis of the wreckage on-site, at Fresh Kills Landfill, and at the recycling yard from October 7–12, 2001.

In the month that lapsed between the terrorist attacks and the deployment of the BPAT team, a significant amount of steel debris—including most of the steel from the upper floors—was removed from the rubble pile, cut into smaller sections, and either melted at the recycling plant or shipped out of the U.S. Some of the critical pieces of steel—including the suspension trusses from the top of the towers and the internal support columns—were gone before the first BPAT team member ever reached the site.

No rational person would believe that trained engineers wanted to wait 26 days to start their investigation. The only answer is that they were not allowed access for almost a month.

This also shows there was an effort to get rid of certain things before the BPAT team was allowed to look at the steel.

BPAT: Building Performance Assessment Team

[SDuderstadt]

101. Jesus...

now immune is quoting Tony Szamboti.

Immune, don't you think it's a shade dishonest to make it look like your "info" is coming from "the House Committe on Science" hearings when you're actually cutting and pasting Szamboti's words?

[immune]

105. Like I've said in the past

I pay more attention to what people are saying than who they are. I'm sure its one of my greatest character flaws.

[hack89]

103. But all this is irrelevant

The Truth movement must have tested for explosives. No rational person would believe that trained engineers and scientists such as Gage and Jones would miss such a basic step. Where are their results?

I take it you concur with the aluminum?

BTW - perhaps you can answer a question every other truther in this forum runs away from: what exactly is the mechanism that links CD with molten steel weeks later?

[immune]

106. NO, You tell me why

the GOVERNMENT investigators didn't test for explosives. No rational person would believe they wouldn't have done so if they were interested in a thorough investigation.

Hell, I don't even know if any other building in the history of the world has ever been demolished using thermite/thermate/nanothermite or how a 110 story building would react to such a chemical. Perhaps you can enlighten me.

edit for spelling

[SDuderstadt]

110. NIST gives a very good explanation for this...

12. Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."

NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.

The responses to questions number 2, 4, 5 and 11 demonstrate why NIST concluded that there were no explosives or controlled demolition involved in the collapses of the WTC towers.

Furthermore, a very large quantity of thermite (a mixture of powdered or granular aluminum metal and powdered iron oxide that burns at extremely high temperatures when ignited) or another incendiary compound would have had to be placed on at least the number of columns damaged by the aircraft impact and weakened by the subsequent fires to bring down a tower. Thermite burns slowly relative to explosive materials and can require several minutes in contact with a massive steel section to heat it to a temperature that would result in substantial weakening. Separate from the WTC towers investigation, NIST researchers estimated that at least 0.13 pounds of thermite would be required to heat each pound of a steel section to approximately 700 degrees Celsius (the temperature at which steel weakens substantially). Therefore, while a thermite reaction can cut through large steel columns, many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been placed inconspicuously ahead of time, remotely ignited, and somehow held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building. This makes it an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled demolition.

Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC towers, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard that was prevalent in the interior partitions.

Unless you somehow claim that all the NIST career experts, as well as the outside experts NIST brought in were "in on it", you've got exactly dick...again.

[immune]

112. I posted this information earlier

and I read 2, 4, 5 and 11 and there was nothing there about explosives, other than to say they weren't worth testing for (paraphrasing). And "not necessarily" doesn't pass the smell test. What ever happened to eliminating all doubt by performing the damn tests? How hard would that be?

[SDuderstadt]

115. Dude...

there is video evidence, as well as thousands of witnesses that saw the airliners slam into the building. The buildings collapsed at the impact zone. Unless you can calculate some extraordinarily minute amount of "explosives" that could have brought down two 110 story buildings, your complaint is like asking the police why they didn't have a drowning victim tested for blunt trauma.

[OnTheOtherHand]

118. with one additional point:

(1) They don't "need" therm*te to account for the observed evidence, and in fact it doesn't fit well.

(2) As you noted/quoted, they have no specific test for therm*te, so the notion that they could have "eliminat(ed) all doubt by performing the damn tests" has no factual basis AFAIK.

[whatchamacallit]

60. ... fetid wind bags...

Yes many things.

[SDuderstadt]

61. If that's the case...

we should ask if you were anywhere near the WTC on 9/11.

That would explain a lot.

[SidDithers]

63. Ignorant idiot heads...

they make a loud noise when they pop.

Sid

[mrarundale]

58. A clue

(I think) is that the M.E. has been looking at bone fragments only a handful of people were identifiable by recognition or personal effects AND their PARTS/fragments were found all over the place but NOT in the "bathtubs" underneath the towers. This suggests to me, along with a lot of other stuff, that people were BLOWN OUT of the building, rather than they fell down with it, also there were doctors/hospitals saying there were NO BODIES afterward. WTF were body parts/fragments doing under the manhole covers??? and on the Deutsche Bank roof? OF COURSE there were explosions! (unless those body fragments were there for another reason)

I don't think thermite, cuz there is a cool youtube video of an SUV ignited with a thermite bomb and it takes A LOT of thermite, plus no explosions....

I remember a long time ago a lot of back and forth here and there about ignited charges with thermite and all the complications and it seemed kind of low tech when, say, private contractors for the military (I'm not saying our military did it, I do not think they would),but private? Hell yeah! and they have demolition stuff that we don't even know about, so...

No one wants to speculate for fear of gang ridicule from the above crew, but:

But what does anyone think of the idea of a natural gas leak being routed into the buildings or something like that with timed ignitions? It would be pretty easy to cover up cuz officials (that's read "organized crime" in NYC) could say the gas lines were damaged in the attacks or whatever....but I'm no expert....(not they "experts" are any help)

[immune]

64. Good points!

I don't know what different effects thermite and nanothermite would have on steel and concrete, but I think its the nano type that the architects and engineers have found in the dust and other samples they have.

[mrarundale]

104. Wasn't it just iron oxide and aluminum they found?

which can be attributed to other stuff, which, of course, makes it a good choice if you don't want it to be detected. I forgot about the nano and haven't followed the recent developments, just remember a long time ago. There still is a problem with the execution, I think, as with any kind of bomb.... Don't really trust any of the "truth" organizations, especially with "experts"... Mebbe, though...

[Bolo Boffin]

76. Help us out. Play a recording of these sounds. n/t

[mrarundale]

107. Whatsamadda? Don't you trust the firefighters accounts

B-squared? That is so disrespectful to their families!!! I am crying right now with rage!!!! I would make a longer post , but I am going to go fly my American Flag at half mast in response to your vile post!

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html

[Bolo Boffin]

116. It's just that every video I've seen with original audio of the collapsing buildings

don't have sounds of explosions. So if you could locate some, I would appreciate it.

[mrarundale]

119. How about this dispatcher

at around 18:45? "A major explosion followed by what appears to be a total collapse".
http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/776

I find traceable-to-a-source evidence to be more valuable than most audio or visual accounts of 9-11 because there are so many examples of anonymous faked visuals and sounds (which you, possibly, want me to dig up so you can dismiss it). That being said, there are seismic records and other sounds which do sound like explosions, but the explosions, though real, are, possibly a distraction because they can be attributed to things other than bombs. (gas lines, bodies exploding, etc...)

Look how uncomfortable the Mayor appointed FDNY Commissioner, Thomas Van Essen, looks in that footage. Did you know he is now a partner with Giuliani in a security company? IOW, he is profiting from 9-11. WHO IN THEIR RIGHT MIND would hire GIULIANI's company for SECURITY after 9-11????

It might be more instructive for you to look into the history of the FDNY, particularly under Giuliani and what he did to the EMS; also Van Essen's predecessor, Howard Safir, and his corporate/intelligence connections, particularly to BODE Technology, which is being used by the ME for victim identification (Which is totally f#cked up, but that is another post).
If you read a lot of the accounts at the above NYTimes (FWIW) links a picture emerges of well intended fire fighters and EMS people who are spending all their time looking for lost partners and running useless missions, which seems orchestrated.
Also, if the buildings were hot enough to melt/soften/whatever steel, how is it that firefighters were in the building until the very end and survive, which you see in several accounts? There is also a recording on the Rose interview where someone is rescuing people right up until the "collapse", now how is that possible if the buildings were so hot from "jet fuel" fires?

[Bolo Boffin]

121. No, that's not a recording of an explosion. Would you like to try again?

Here, let me give you an example or two:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8U4erFzhC-U

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G75AfaqoqsE

See what I mean? Big, loud explosive sounds.

Now here's some original audio on a WTC 7 collapse:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrnmbUDeHus

No big, loud explosive sounds.

Try again.

[mrarundale]

128. Don't you people have search engines?

Personally, I would not trust ANY audio of 9-11 on the internet available at his time. You guys embrace "witnesses" when they say what you want , when they don't you look for ways of explaining that away and demand other evidence.
btw, do you have any audio of one of the "planes"? Say, how about a visual of flight 11 (Fraudet doesn't count) or 77 or 93. 175 "live" is always good for a laugh. I'm waiting...
TIC TOC TIC TOC....

[Bolo Boffin]

129. Sorry. It's your assertion. You support it.

However, thanks for the information that you're a plane denier.

[OnTheOtherHand]

117. the sad thing is, I'm not even sure that's snark

Yeah, OK, I'm pretty sure. :)

Seriously, speaking for myself, I trust the firefighters and substantially trust their accounts -- although anyone in those circumstances could be genuinely confused about exactly what happened. The problem is that I sat through a supposedly revelatory video in which the firefighters didn't say much more than that there had been "secondary explosions." Arguing about how to explain that seems like arguing about the cause of a "bright light" or a "strange noise": there's no way to tell which explanations match what the firefighters actually experienced.

[mrarundale]

120. it was snark, couldn't help it

there is alway an attempt to prevent discussion by appealing to the emotions, which I have seen from some of the posters on this board.

I kind of agree with your post, but , I think , there are patterns that emerge and one confused person, yeah, but a whole bunch of professionals all confused about the same thing? naaahhh...

Really, you should read all those accounts ...one of them talks about exploding cars, now how do you get confused about that? and how do you explain that???? ground fires? when people were surviving in the buildings until right before they came down? makes no sense with the official explanation..Plus there are some they wouldn't release and there is some redacted info, sure wish I could see that. I had an email correspondence with an EMT worker a few years ago and she told me some really bizarre stuff- exploding cars, explosions within wtc7. she was very distressed.
and what is with the people trapped without oxygen inside fire trucks?


See my more serious response to BB above...

[OnTheOtherHand]

122. well, OK

Here in the year 2010, a lot of us are experiencing anomalism fatigue. Some folks seem to take the view that unless one can explain to their satisfaction everything that happened on 9/11 (and some things that probably didn't happen), they're entitled to assume that there is some dark secret about the events -- and they don't bear any responsibility for explaining it themselves. I'm not saying that it has to be that way or that it is always that way, just that it often seems that way.

So, I understand you to be saying in part that there are credible reports of exploding cars, and you don't know of a plausible explanation for them. Is that right? I think it's legitimate to wonder what would make cars explode.

[mrarundale]

123. hmm more like

Everything about 911 seems to be a lie, including the images. For example, NIST just "released footage" of the towers "collapsing" from a WPIX helicopter. BUT according to abc and Fox (fwiw, fwiw) they had to submit FOIA to get footage/photos of 911 because only NYPD helicopters were allowed in the airspace around the wtc on 911 and the didn't have any of their own, so how did WPIX get 'em?...

[zappaman]

124. easy answer

BushCo allowed WPIX(a news station with known CIA ties) to film it.

[mrarundale]

126. Is there anything in this country that DOES NOT

have CIA ties?

[SDuderstadt]

127. Not if you're a...

conspiracist.

[mrarundale]

131. At least you know your condition is

forever. That must give your loved ones hope....

[OnTheOtherHand]

130. "Everything about 911 seems to be a lie"

Well, that's sort of a conversation-stopper.

Dunno, I just googled <nist wpix helicopter>, and found a YouTube link to "9/11: NIST FOIA Release: WPIX Dub4 #10," and about 90 seconds in, someone apparently on the helicopter is saying something like 'The FAA has ordered all planes to land. Does that include us?'

Seems to me one plausible hypothesis is that WABC grounded its helicopter because it thought it was supposed to, and WPIX didn't because it didn't. :shrug: (Of course, off-hand I don't even know if WABC had a helicopter. I didn't spend a lot of time watching WABC news.)

[mrarundale]

132. I'm no video expert, but does that footage

look right to you? why such low quality? Can a helicopter camera be THAT still? I know there are stabilizers n stuff but I think it might be fake... Having experienced some minor New York heavy handiness at a "ground zero" event one time, I really would not want to go up against the NYPD or the City of New York and I have a hard time believing they would be able to stay up, la dee dah. I don't know much about WPIX , but a perfunctory examination shows some pretty sewage-y corporate (are there any other kind?) affiliations (which have even more sewage-y affiliations - CFR, Blackstone, real estate developers, yadda yadda yadda..)...

Look at the high quality of this pre-2001 footage from a helicopter of the wtc (yet it is never totally "still", you can tell it's from a moving source) This leads me to ask : Why is ALL the 911 footage such low quality????

Also note that BOTH TOWERS had helicopter landing pads on top. Don't you think it's weird that none of the victims families seem to question why rescue attempts were not made? (and there were professionals trained to do just that)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qTrED-qOVo

[OnTheOtherHand]

133. seems like anomalism run amok

It appears that the helicopter in the clip you just linked to is much closer than the WPIX helicopter was -- as one would expect, if this one was sent out to look for ice. Why was the WPIX helicopter not very close? C'mon, if the WPIX helicopter were close, you'd be asking, "Why would NYPD allow a news helicopter so close to the site?"

Just thinking the footage "might be fake" is a far cry from giving anyone else any reason to believe that it is.

Don't you think it's weird that none of the victims families seem to question why rescue attempts were not made?

The 9/11 Commission report gave several reasons, which presumably were known before that time. If we stipulate for the sake of argument that all those reasons were bogus, I don't know why we'd assume that the families would think so.

Seems like some pretty compelling reasons are: (1) there was no one on the roofs (apparently because the doors were locked), and (2) it would have been insane to try to land on them due to the smoke and heat.