9/11 Truth

Mystic and Memeticverb,

1. Back up your claims with credible sources.

2. Explain how your supposed "evidence" proves that the government planned and orchestrated 9/11 and even proves anything beyond the classified nature of certain government intelligence and possible government incompetence, if anything at all. Link the "evidence" to the supposed crime. Explain the connection. Do you realize that you have not done that?

3. Tell us specifically one piece of evidence you have that is not circumstantial.

4. Tell a plausible 9/11 inside job story.

The burden of proof is on you, the accusers/prosecution.

I think if anything the evidence points to that the government 'could' have stopped 9-11 but choose not to to be able to go to war. certain evidence pointed out in the past shows how government officials were warned not to fly around that time and how the building could have been much more full

The owner of WTC said they chose to pull the building AFTER everyone was evacuated, listen to his words. That means yes, they could have toppled wtc 7 at any time. But why would they have a building ready to be demolished like that?

And I can'[t believe I have to explain this to you, again, universal mind. You are a broken record.

It is not our job to explain how the government blew up the buildings. The evidence says the official report was impossible, so we're just trying to bring light to that in order to hold the government accountable so we can find out what really happened. I'd say contrarily, since we proved it was impossible, it's your job to explain how the official report is possible.

I think we are still waiting for the irrefutable evidence to be explicitly detailed. I haven't found anything irrefutable yet at the recommended links.

It certainly makes sense for the owner of the WTC7 to say he was told by the firemen(who were fighting the fire in WTC7, probably near that building) that the fire could not be contained(so the smartest thing to do would be to leave the area in case the building collapsed) and to respond by saying the best idea is for them to let the fire burn. He referenced the loss of life that had occurred earlier(the firefighters trying to help at the twin towers, most likely), which indicates to me that they all suspected the building would collapse and that being near it was dangerous. The simplest explanation is that he meant 'pull out of it,' not 'pull it down.'

Isn't it also weird that the firefighters were trying to put out fires in a building full of high explosives? If they planned to demolish it, why try to put out the fire at all? If they did demolish it, this is also an accusation that the NY fire department was also part of the conspiracy.

I hope that and my previous post takes care of most of the WTC7 stuff. I'm open to counter-arguments, though, as always.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

The owner of WTC said they chose to pull the building AFTER everyone was evacuated, listen to his words. That means yes, they could have toppled wtc 7 at any time. But why would they have a building ready to be demolished like that?

---

I have no idea. My degrees are in psychology and law, not demolition. I can't tell you how all of that is supposed to work. What is your credible source for that information any way? And why are the masses of experts not making anything of it? And why would this supposed World Trade Center owner who decided to work for the humongous team of the government's Dr. Evils they rounded up for the stunt of the millenium screw up so bad by reporting that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

And I can'[t believe I have to explain this to you, again, universal mind. You are a broken record.

It is not our job to explain how the government blew up the buildings. The evidence says the official report was impossible, so we're just trying to bring light to that in order to hold the government accountable so we can find out what really happened. I'd say contrarily, since we proved it was impossible, it's your job to explain how the official report is possible.

---

I can't believe I have to explain this again. Mystic and Memeticverb have claimed that 9/11 was an inside job. Did you? If so, it is your job to prove that. It is the accuser's job to explain the things I brought up in my first post in this thread. None of them have been explained. How the buildings were blown up is not one of them. That would be easy. But why the government would go through all of the bizarre airplane madness when they could have just said the buildings were bombed, like in 1993, is a question I asked in the other thread. If you want me to get into a knee deep argument about demolition, you are talking to the wrong person. And I would be talking to the wrong people even if I thought I was qualified to do that. But if you want to talk about law, the requirements for proving a case, the rules of logic, or psychological phenomena, you are talking to the right person.

I am not claiming the official report was possible, but the people I was debating before you chimed in (I wasn't even talking to you, unless you claim 9/11 was an inside job.) claim that 9/11 was an inside job. The burden is on them to prove that, and the partners in assertion are not even attempting to make the case. That is because they have no case to make. So again, this 9/11 inside job stuff would be laughed out of court. It would not even make it to a grand jury.

Prediction: Nobody is going to falsify what I just said. The best I will get in return is a bunch of, "Well, explain this," which does not qualify as an argument that connects a piece of supposed evidence to the supposed crime that is claimed to have been committed while negating all plausible rival claims. There is no case.

If anybody can actually make REAL CASE that 9/11 was an inside job and not just put the burden of proof on me to explain a million things that are claimed to have happened, state your case. Until then, I am going to consider this nothing but a bizarre circus of assertion without a case. But I do thank you for having this conversation with me so I can see what the 9/11 conspiracy mentality is all about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R.D.735

I think we are still waiting for the irrefutable evidence to be explicitly detailed.

---

This is insulting and you should apologize for not addressing it. As I clearly answered your question now it's only fair you answer to the evidence listed in this post.

Those that are skeptical are always going to want to believe something different. No matter how clear or logical the evidence is. You mentioned about WTC 7 and basically said that it's sensible that it collapsed. This is the most stupid thing you could say about 911. Even the news reporters on the day played this clip over and over and were so amazed they kept repeating how it looked so much like a controlled demolition. They way it fell so neatly down. Eye witnesses claim there was a demolition countdown. There is evidence it was a controlled demolition and this is not even something you can debate as it's concluded as fact already. Even if in your imagination Larry Silverstein didn't go on television and clearly admit it himself.

1) The evidence is the only plausible thing you can say which is what I list below. The evidence I present is entirely plausible and there is no reason to suggest otherwise as it is clear as day. Simply saying something is not plausible does not make it true.

2) The sources are entirely credible and there is no reason to suggest they are not.

3) The evidence is not in any way merely circumstantial. It is way more than circumstantial and this is evident in the links and case provided that is constantly ignored By Universal Mind and now R.D.735 is trying to debate while ignoring it. No reason has being stated or can be stated why this is not clearly beyond circumstantial.

4)The burden to debunk is on the person who has no evidence of what they are arguing and that is R.D.735 and Universal mind.

The final insulting thing to our intelligence is R.D.735 states she is open to counter arguments. When the body of evidence has being completely ignored.

Universal mind your post does not count as a response to the evidence. Just useless distracting from it. See if you can address it this time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The evidence

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mystic

1. The failure of the FAA and Military's standard operating procedures to intercept off-course or out of contact aircraft.
2. The multiple wargames happening on 9/11
3. The unexplained collapse of WTC building 7, and the demoltion-like collapse of the towers themselves. Larry Silverstein, the lease-holder of WTC 7, admits it was "pulled."
4. The foreign warnings received by our government/intelligence agencies prior to 9/11
5. The fact that several of the supposed hijackers have turned up alive
6. The failure of the 9/11 Commission to address certain questions, and the suspect members of this commission.
7. Insider trading on put options prior to 9/11. The SEC refused to track the trades. The story was killed in the US media.
8. The historical precedents of government deceptions and "false-flag operations," including Operation Northwoods.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mystic7

1. The Mastermind, the Hijackers and the Planes
2. The Twin Towers
3. The Pentagon
4. Flight 93
5. The President's Response
6. Osama and WTC 7
7. How the Case was Cracked
8. The Deep Mystery of Melted Steel
9. The Undead Hijackers

---

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mystic7

911 COMMISSION
HIGH-LEVEL OFFICIALS
PRIOR WARNINGS OF PLANES CRASHING INTO BUILDINGS
WAR GAMES ON SEPTEMBER 11TH
EXPERTS TALK ABOUT CONTROLLED DEMOLITION
CREDIBLE SOURCES SUCH AS NEW YORK FIREFIGHTERS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS
HOW DID THEY KNOW?
WHAT ABOUT THE PENTAGON?
BUT COULD THIS REALLY HAPPEN IN MODERN AMERICA?
911 FACT SHEET

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by memeticverb

What does prove an inside job and cannot be refuted, is the evidence of thermate-like reactions coming form the South Tower. A thermate-like analog is the only possible explanation, and has been proven to a high degree of certainty by independent scientific investigation.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by memeticverb

And as Mystic pointed out, and independent group of almost 200 Architects and Engineers have concluded that WTC7 was a controlled demolition. Any other explanation is impossible because it requires all the support columns be severed simultaneously and consecutively such that the building accelerates into itself. This has never happened, and cannot happen to a steel framed building.

---

While this is not even half of the evidence we cannot cover it all at once. More evidence can be found at the beginning of this thread. That too has being ignored. Lets just see if we can get a reasonable response to these irrefutable aspects of the investigation first.

Mystic, what is your understanding of the difference between circumstantial evidence and direct evidence? I am getting the impression that you don't even know what circumstantial evidence is. I am not even sure you know what evidence is.

Something hugely relevant you keep refusing to address is how the "evidence" is evidence. You won't make the connection between your "evidence" and your conclusion. Until you do that, you will not have even explained how what you are talking about even qualifies as evidence. Explain your case, not just a few ideas and a completely unconnected conclusion.

Burden of proof is on the maker of a claim, not the people who are skeptical of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

My degrees are in psychology and law

---

This allows you to say absurd things and make them sound sane. Now it makes sense why your so effectively and creatively evasive and distracting.

Your making a claim by suggesting the evidence does not qualify as such and is not present when it is and does qualify. You have to explain your reasons not just say so. What I have presented is not ideas. This is deceptive and dishonest twisting of my argument. You are yet to respond these facts. I have made all the necessary connections and you need to stop twisting and running away from the proof with word games and say something of substance that can explain why you still want to believe in a disproved fantasy.

And don't go back into remote control devices and missing planes, and irrelevant questions. Respond to the evidence posted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mystic7

This allows you to say absurd things and make them sound sane. Now it makes sense why your so effectively and creatively evasive.

Your making a claim by suggesting the evidence does not qualify as such and is not present when it is and does qualify. You have to explain why not just say so. What I have presented is not ideas. This is deceptive and dishonest twisting of my argument. You are yet to respond these facts. I have made all the necessary connections and you need to stop twisting and running away from the proof with word games and say something of substance that can explain why you still want to believe in a disproved fantasy.

And don't go back into remote control devices and missing planes respond to my evidence.

---

That was a dodge. We both know that.

I am going to make this very simple.

Explain how what you keep posting is "evidence" that 9/11 was an inside job.

My explanation is the evidence posted. Explain why you think you have a right to question it without responding to it.

No wonder your psychology and law degree got you your disinfo job.

I think mystic is doing a good job with the evidence in this thread. I'd like to see some opposing evidence also, instead of asking him for more evidence... wtf?

I said a lot more than 'it is sensible that WTC7 collapsed.' The reasons for that making sense were given: unusual structural design, fires that weakened members that were damaged and unusually stressed to begin with, as was evidenced by the NIST report. To state merely that I simply take the collapse for granted is a distortion of my argument and completely ignores the evidence I presented.

I attempted to isolate the WTC7 as a part of the conspiracy. I don't believe I need to connect that building with the war in Iraq, the DHS, the president's foibles, or the lack of aircraft scrambling to intercept the airliners in order to present physical evidence about WTC7 and demonstrate how it conflicts with the conspiracy theory, do I? I'm sorry if that wasn't clear.

On the other hand, the evidence I presented(I did present evidence, contrary to your claim that I didn't. That can be proven by a simple check of my last few posts) was given short shrift. Instead of a good debate over definite physical realities that we all agree upon, this was the response:

Quote:

---

Those that are skeptical are always going to want to believe something different. No matter how clear or logical the evidence is. You mentioned about WTC 7 and basically said that it's sensible that it collapsed. This is the most stupid thing you could say about 911. Even the news reporters on the day played this clip over and over and were so amazed they kept repeating how it looked so much like a controlled demolition. They way it fell so neatly down. Eye witnesses claim there was a demolition countdown. There is evidence it was a controlled demolition and this is not even something you can debate as it's concluded as fact already. Even if in your imagination Larry Silverstein didn't go on television and clearly admit it himself.

---

People said a lot of things on television that day and the next. Would I argue that Iraq was responsible for 9/11 because Donald Rumsfeld implied it on 9/12? Such evidence is called hearsay. The news reports were clarified and corrected quickly(though of course they were in on it too, weren't they?).

I'm really disappointed, to say the least. Please point out where I was wrong instead of assuming that I have no ability to accept your evidence. I can accept your evidence, but only on the condition that it seems reasonable. I won't accept evidence that can be immediately shown to be false or irrelevant by better evidence or better logic and which, as seems the case here, to have no defenders to point out its validity to us laymen.

The credibility and relevance of your evidence is threatened by my refutation of a significant part of it. I'd consider it a compliment just for you to go out on a limb and establish the superiority of your evidence over mine. If you don't feel the need to do so, that's fine too. You could try showing that the WTC7 building's design did not create the risk of progressive collapse(though that's a bit harder, it would invalidate the whole NIST report) or that there is other evidence that points to explosives. You could also point out a fireman who claimed he was told to demolish the building by its owner. Please?

Again, sorry if any of this offends. I try not to hold anyone's views against them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mystic7

My explanation is the evidence posted.

---

That does not qualify as an answer. I ask how it is evidence, and you say nothing except that it is evidence? What kind of response is that supposed to be? There you go again, calling it evidence. Explain how it is "evidence". What do you even want me to argue with if you are not going to make an argument? You have not argued how what you keep posting is evidence that 9/11 was an inside job. So, what in the world are you doing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Michael

I think mystic is doing a good job with the evidence in this thread. I'd like to see some opposing evidence also, instead of asking him for more evidence... wtf?

---

I am not asking for more "evidence". I am asking how what he is posting is "evidence" in the first place. He does not have an answer for that. Think about that. He posts some stuff, strangely calls it "evidence", but never explains how it is "evidence". That is some pretty bizarre arguing. He calls it "evidence", but he does not explain the connection between the premise and the conclusion. What are we even supposed to be arguing about?

It is like if I say, "The Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe 300 years ago. Just look at the evidence. My evidence is that there are 200 scientists in the world who say carbon dating is a myth and that there are holes in the big bang theory." So what would be the logical response to that point? It would be, "How is the fact that 200 scientists say that carbon dating is a myth and that your nonexpert analysis of the big bang theory is that there are holes in it 'evidence' that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe 300 years ago?" That would be a completely logical question to ask. Well, Mystic's style response to the question would be, "Shut up and look at the evidence!" Shouldn't he first explain how what he said is evidence? And keep in mind that this part of the conversation is way past questions in the style of, "Well then, how do you explain historical records of humans that date back thousands of years?" which is much like, "Who or what was flying those airplanes?" or, "How were hijackings faked for so many friends and relatives who talked to the victims, who said they were being hijacked?" Do you see what style of pseudo-argument Mystic is using?


Hey Mystic, how is what you keep posting "evidence" that 9/11 was an inside job?

R.D.735 are you ready to respond to any evidence yet? When your ready feel free to explain to me why what I posted is false.

Quote:

---

And as Mystic pointed out, and independent group of almost 200 Architects and Engineers have concluded that WTC7 was a controlled demolition. Any other explanation is impossible because it requires all the support columns be severed simultaneously and consecutively such that the building accelerates into itself. This has never happened, and cannot happen to a steel framed building.

---

Quote:

---

What does prove an inside job and cannot be refuted, is the evidence of thermate-like reactions coming form the South Tower. A thermate-like analog is the only possible explanation, and has been proven to a high degree of certainty by independent scientific investigation.

---

Please respond to this appropriately....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The evidence

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mystic

1. The failure of the FAA and Military's standard operating procedures to intercept off-course or out of contact aircraft.
2. The multiple wargames happening on 9/11
3. The unexplained collapse of WTC building 7, and the demoltion-like collapse of the towers themselves. Larry Silverstein, the lease-holder of WTC 7, admits it was "pulled."
4. The foreign warnings received by our government/intelligence agencies prior to 9/11
5. The fact that several of the supposed hijackers have turned up alive
6. The failure of the 9/11 Commission to address certain questions, and the suspect members of this commission.
7. Insider trading on put options prior to 9/11. The SEC refused to track the trades. The story was killed in the US media.
8. The historical precedents of government deceptions and "false-flag operations," including Operation Northwoods.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mystic7

1. The Mastermind, the Hijackers and the Planes
2. The Twin Towers
3. The Pentagon
4. Flight 93
5. The President's Response
6. Osama and WTC 7
7. How the Case was Cracked
8. The Deep Mystery of Melted Steel
9. The Undead Hijackers

---

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mystic7

911 COMMISSION
HIGH-LEVEL OFFICIALS
PRIOR WARNINGS OF PLANES CRASHING INTO BUILDINGS
WAR GAMES ON SEPTEMBER 11TH
EXPERTS TALK ABOUT CONTROLLED DEMOLITION
CREDIBLE SOURCES SUCH AS NEW YORK FIREFIGHTERS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS
HOW DID THEY KNOW?
WHAT ABOUT THE PENTAGON?
BUT COULD THIS REALLY HAPPEN IN MODERN AMERICA?
911 FACT SHEET

---

The NIST report is debunked That shows how much attention you have been paying to this.

Mystic, make sure you catch my last post.

Argument:

If A, then B. A, therefore B.

Not an argument:

A. Q. Refute A! Shut up and look at the evidence!

Now tell me why it's not evidence. Respond to it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mystic7

Now tell me why it's not evidence. Respond to it.

---

I don't see the connection between the premise and the conclusion, so I don't see how your premise is evidence. I am not arguing that it is not. I am giving you a chance to explain how it is. I have no idea how it is. You said that it is, and you keep saying it. The burden is not on me to explain how it is not evidence. I don't even know your argument for how it is evidence. You are going to need to explain it. You are the one making the partial argument. Well, do more than a fraction of the job. How is it evidence? We are dealing with your thread and your claim. Now make your argument instead of throwing out fragments of an argument and having a temper tantrum that not everybody accepts your conclusion when you have not even made your argument. Do you even have an argument? If so, why in the world are you not communicating it?

Stop playing games, respond to the material if you even bothered reading it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mystic7

Stop playing games, respond to the material if you even bothered reading it.

---

Respond to what? You haven't presented your argument.

Mystic: Premise is A. Conclusion is Q. I refuse to tell you the argument that connects A to Q. Now respond to A!

Universal Mind: What would you like for me to say about it? You have not even said what its argumentative significance is. You have not even made an argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Respond to what? You haven't presented your argument.

---

I'm asking you to respond to the material about 911

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The evidence

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mystic

1. The failure of the FAA and Military's standard operating procedures to intercept off-course or out of contact aircraft.
2. The multiple wargames happening on 9/11
3. The unexplained collapse of WTC building 7, and the demoltion-like collapse of the towers themselves. Larry Silverstein, the lease-holder of WTC 7, admits it was "pulled."
4. The foreign warnings received by our government/intelligence agencies prior to 9/11
5. The fact that several of the supposed hijackers have turned up alive
6. The failure of the 9/11 Commission to address certain questions, and the suspect members of this commission.
7. Insider trading on put options prior to 9/11. The SEC refused to track the trades. The story was killed in the US media.
8. The historical precedents of government deceptions and "false-flag operations," including Operation Northwoods.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mystic7

1. The Mastermind, the Hijackers and the Planes
2. The Twin Towers
3. The Pentagon
4. Flight 93
5. The President's Response
6. Osama and WTC 7
7. How the Case was Cracked
8. The Deep Mystery of Melted Steel
9. The Undead Hijackers

---

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mystic7

911 COMMISSION
HIGH-LEVEL OFFICIALS
PRIOR WARNINGS OF PLANES CRASHING INTO BUILDINGS
WAR GAMES ON SEPTEMBER 11TH
EXPERTS TALK ABOUT CONTROLLED DEMOLITION
CREDIBLE SOURCES SUCH AS NEW YORK FIREFIGHTERS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS
HOW DID THEY KNOW?
WHAT ABOUT THE PENTAGON?
BUT COULD THIS REALLY HAPPEN IN MODERN AMERICA?
911 FACT SHEET

---

The NIST report is debunked

Respond in what way? Would you like for me to make up an argument for you and argue against it? I don't have any idea what I am supposed to be arguing against.

Your debunking sites have not yet proved that the official report was possible.

Anyway, I'm not claiming that 9/11 is an inside job (let's use correct terminology since technically even the official report describes a conspiracy, anything that was planned by two or more people by definition).

All I'm claiming was that the official report is impossible, and I'll use that to theorize that the government knows its impossible, and could use that to speculate that they are keeping something from us, by logical conclusion.

And there are a ton of facts your sites have failed to debunk. You write the sources of these facts off as not-credible but that's a fallacy. You haven't examined these sites, you don't know. There are plenty of scholarly articles out there about 9/11's possible inside operation. Just because when googling we can only find websites created by obviously biased people doesn't mean the facts are suddenly disproven. They're researched facts, questions, and inaccuracies.

It's like JFK, the assassination by Oswald is impossible. It doesn't mean the government did it, but they do incriminate themselves by ignoring the fact that the shot was impossible and continuing to push the idea that it wasn't without giving evidence as to how it was possible. That's what our government is doing. You claim they don't have to waste their time with ridiculous assertions but they DO because they arne't ridiculous and to write them off that way basically means you're letting loose ends remain loose surrounding the murder of more than 3000 people. We owe it to them to find out what really happened. And don't say I'm using them as an excuse to belittle the government, because that's not why I'm raising questions. If you read my earlier posts in the other 9/11 thread I didn't think it was an inside job at all until I looked at the evidence, and now I'm just not sure but I certainly don't think it's fair to the victims to let an unshut case just fade away into history like JFKs did.

And lastly don't claim strawman because one way or another you have argued every word I just put in your mouth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Respond in what way? Would you like for me to make up an argument for you and argue against it? I don't have any idea what I am supposed to be arguing against.

---

Start by responding to even one issue of the 911 material posted here and why any of this is not true. If you don't know how to, then maybe you should find out how you ought to respond to the evidence before claiming it doesn't count for anything.


Senior Military, Intelligence, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials Question the 9/11 Commission Report

Pilots for 9/11 Truth is an organization of aviation professionals and pilots throughout the globe who have gathered together for one purpose. [committed to seeking the truth surrounding the events of the 11th of September 2001].

Here can be found Eyewitness

PHYSICS 911 is created and maintained by a group of scientists, engineers and other professionals known collectively as the Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-eleven.

Architectural and engineering professionals and 497 other supporters including A/E students have joined us in demanding of Congress a truly independent investigation website here at Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in...to kind of catapult the propaganda."
-G.W. Bush

I'm not going to repeat what UM said, and I hope you don't repeat the same list of links again(see above quote). That's impolite. But since you asked for some rebuttal, some refutation of your sources, I'm more than willing to have another go at it.

Rebuttal of the NIST rebuttal:

"To weaken something 50 feet away would have melted you to be in the vicinity. Logically, physically, no way could have caused a collapse in any way. It could not have affected the collapse of the WTC. Impossible."
-Jim Nesch, referring to temperatures in the WTC.

No one, the NIST included, claimed that the heat inside the WTC melted steel. They did claim that it weakened the steel. Nesch's response seems to imply that either there was no heat or that heat could not weaken the steel. Logically, physically, heat weakens steel. There was heat. In fact, the NIST found that burning couches could create temperatures as high as 1100 C on the ceiling above them. Impossible? Not really. That sort of experiment is incredibly easy to replicate, by the way, not that I've done so. Steve Jones should have burned a couch to test it, though.

The next guy says that the material coming out of the tower can't be aluminum. Fine. But it can't be molten steel either(the fires are too cool to melt steel). It's got to be thermite, right? Read on:

Quote:

---

Several times over the last year I have been asked to comment on a photo of one of the Trade Center Towers. The photo shows a molten flow from one of the windows. The flow falls down along the building. It appears orange and turns to a gray color as it cools.

The questions usually want me to address "Is this photo a fake?" and "Is the flow steel or aluminum?" "Is this situation possible?"

First, I will address the temperature range, then the color of the flow.

I am working in imperial units and temperature in degrees F [To convert to C use this link]

Metals lose about 50% of their strength at 60% of their melting temperature. This is common knowledge and may be found in any undergraduate text regarding "Fracture and Deformation of Materials."

If the approximate melting temperature of steel is 2750 F the the material would be plastic at 1650 F. Even assuming a safety factor of 3, you would expect the bolts or other structural members to deform and fail near this temperature, especially with the additional weight if a jet air liner. I would assume that the live load calculations did not include the typical office equipment and an airliner plus a factor of 3. THEREFORE I assume that the flow is not steel and that the temperature of the steel members at the time of the photo is less than 1650 F.

Assuming that the flow would be molten aluminum from the airliner and the color of molten aluminum is silver then why is the flow orange?

The color of pure molten aluminum is silver, It has an emissivity of .12. Steel has an emissivity of .4 and appears orange in the temperature range of molten aluminum.

The emissivity of aluminum oxide is .44 and also appears orange in the melting temperature range of molten aluminum.

The emissivity of plate glass is .937 It begins to soften at 1000 F and flows around 1350 F. Silica has an emissivity of .8

Copper oxide also has an emissivity of .8. however I will assume that their effect is negligible.

Aluminum oxidizes readily in the foundry under ideal melting conditions. Large surface area relative to thickness, turbulence, the presence of water or oil greatly increases the oxidation of aluminum. A jet airliner is made of thin aluminum sheet and most probably suffered considerable oxidation especially in contact with an open flame and being in contact with jet fuel. If you don't believe this, try melting a few soda cans over coals or open flame. If you are lucky you will end up with only 50% aluminum oxide. However, the cans may completely burn up.

The specific gravity of aluminum is 2.7. The specific gravity of aluminum oxide (Al2O3-3H2O) is 2.42 the specific gravity of Si = 2.40 and Glass is 2.65 these are all very similar and likely to be entrained in a molten aluminum flow. Don't believe it? lightly stir the dross into molten aluminum. The surface tension is so high is is almost impossible to separate them.

THEREFORE assuming that the flow consist of molten aluminum and considerable oxides, and assuming that the windows in the trade center were plate glass and also in a plastic state and that they were also likely entrained in the molten aluminum. I would expect the flow to appear to be orange in color. Especially since both the entrained materials have emissivities equal to or more than twice that of iron.

Also since dross cools to a gray color and glass with impurities also turns dark. I would expect that the flow would darken upon cooling.

I would also suggest that not only is the photo possible, but entirely likely.

Summary: The flow is not steel because the structural steel would fail well below the melting temperature. The flow is likely to be a mixture of aluminum, aluminum oxides, molten glass and coals of whatever trash the aluminum flowed over as it reached the open window. Such a flow would appear orange and cool to a dark color. Stephen D. Chastain-Mechanical Engineer

---

I could have just posted a link, of course, but this way is more polite, I think. Keep in mind that the flow may not even be mostly aluminum. Also keep in mind that thermite/thermate is totally unnecessary if the plan is to knock out the building with bombs anyway. And if those were used to knock out the 'huge' support columns with thermite/thermate, the firefighters in the building would probably have noticed giant rivers of molten iron flowing into the lower floors. Did anyone see anything like that?

The next guy argues on structural grounds that the WTC towers could not have fallen as a result of the airliners crashing into them because they were designed to not fall when airliners crashed into them. Is this really an argument? I could just as well argue that the government did not bring down the WTC towers because the government is supposed to keep that sort of thing from happening and has many agencies to do just that. Design is not infallible.

It's easy to simply point out that no one had actually crashed airplanes into the towers to find out if they could really survive the impact and subsequent conflagration. Sometimes engineers do make mistakes.

Then they talk about the timing of the fall. He points to some seismographs to indicate the time of the fall was about 10 seconds. The group that measured the seismographs says they show clearly that the readings build up over time, which strongly refutes the bomb hypothesis, which would show sudden spikes. Yet bombs are supposedly the only things that could make the towers fall so quickly. It is then claimed that the actual time the collapse should have taken was somewhere in the range of 40 seconds, which seems unrealistic since the towers could simply fall over on their sides in less time.

Here's the seismographs, so you can see them.
[IMG]file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/BEARHU%7E1/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/moz-screenshot.jpg[/IMG][IMG]file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/BEARHU%7E1/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/moz-screenshot-1.jpg[/IMG]http://media.popularmechanics.com/im...smograph-2.jpg

Recall that steel structures can suffer progressive collapse(truss bridges) and that the material of the WTC didn't fall straight down. It fell a great deal to the sides, as if falling straight down offered some sort of resistance.

The clip ends after the structural argument. I'm sure there's much, much more than that elsewhere that I haven't gotten around to refuting. Please accept this humble morsel of evidence in the meantime. :bowdown:

[IMG]file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/BEARHU%7E1/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/moz-screenshot-2.jpg[/IMG]