Thread: 9/11 Truth

The Rothschilds were the major puppeteers behind this...

Originally Posted by R.D.735

I'll explain the steel-sulfur eutectic first:

A eutectic alloy is a mixture of a metal with another substance with a melting point below the melting point of either substance. In the case of an iron-sulfur mixture, the eutectic melting point can be very low, ~1000 C. The reason for the lower melting point is that the two mixed substances have atoms of different sizes. When the material solidifies, they disrupt each other's crystalline structures, and the resulting microstructure is less stable than pure crystals of either substance would be. In the WTC, the molten material would not be steel, it would be an iron-sulfur mixture, with a much lower melting point. I hope that helps.

Right, the lower melting point you mention is 1000 Celsius, which is 20 degrees lower than the maximum temperature for jet fuel. And open air jet fuel fires like at the WTC where certainly much less than this. So how was this molten iron produced? Where did it originally come from? Why is it seen pouring by the tons like the product of a thermate reaction?

Originally Posted by R.D.735

Regarding the nature of the collapse, it seems odd to simultaneously argue that the WTC towers collapsed too neatly into their footprints, like a controlled demolition, and that a great deal of material was ejected sideways(very unlike a controlled demolition). Nevertheless, the seismographic data stands. Steven Jones uses the same seismographic data to confirm the duration of collapse in his video, even though that data also strongly refutes those who claimed to hear explosions as well as the theory of explosive-induced collapse.

Seismographic data doesn't prove anything either way and this was pointed out by a 911 researcher.

Dont confuse the twin towers with WTC7. The twin towers collapsed while exploding outwards. While WTC7 collapsed exactly like a controlled demolition.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

It's true that thermite/thermate can cut through steel, but the mechanism is heat-transfer that melts the steel. It wouldn't produce audible explosions as it melted steel columns, would it? Furthermore, how could thermite/thermate cut all of the core columns simultaneously, since the most severely damaged ones (mainly on one side of the building) would melt through far faster? Wouldn't thermite/thermate cause the structure to topple on its side? Furthermore, what explains the bowing effect observed in the footage?

Indeed thermate would produce audible noise if used in the cutting columns, as in this clip a small cutter charge made from thermite cuts a thin beam it makes an explosive sound. Now amplify that noise to teh amount of thermite needed to take out a beam 100 times larger. (and thermite is an even less reactive compound than thermate.)

__________________________________________________ _______



1. Videos of an molten metal flowing out of the South Tower of the WTC.

which look like a thermite reaction.

2. Molten aluminum : ruled out - doesnt glow orange at any temperature reachable by jet fuel fire, and at melting temperature is silver in color.

3. Independent research analysis of pieces of molten iron taken from the WTC wreckage (pg 32) are found to have nearly exact features as thermate.

4. Newer scientific research of WTC dust samples shows just as exact a match of chemical signatures, not to mention a size of microscopic particle of molten iron not expected from a gravity driven collapse, nor expected to be so prevalent in the dust given some one-in-a-million spontaneous reaction like thermate from the exact combination of sulfur, powdered iron oxide, and fine powdered aluminum.

"The spheres from the thermite reaction...contain strong peaks for aluminum and iron, and for “thermate”; sulfur is also prominent. (Note that the iron-aluminum-sulfur spheres from MacKinlay’s apartment contained very low calcium, so the sulfur is evidently not from gypsum, a common building material)." - Steven Jones

http://www.journalof911studies.com/v...1SciMethod.pdf[/quote]

Great post, by the way. It's great to see the physical evidence on the other side.

Going point by point, the heat reached by combustibles in the rubble pile had a good possibility of reaching 1000 C, given that NIST determined that a simple couch set on fire could produce temperatures as high as 1100 C. Temperatures of about 1800 C were observed in the towers for the first ten minutes, and about 1000 C after that until they collapsed. Factoring the oxidation of the heated steel and the insular effect of the debris, it is well within possibility to see molten sulfidated iron in the rubble. In the time between impact and collapse, though, I'm not sure if there was much sulfidated iron at all. This leads us to the molten material seen flowing out of the towers.

The NIST report suggests that the flow may be aluminum mixed with organics and glass, but doesn't actually give an answer in the affirmative. Aluminum, of course, is silver when molten and doesn't glow, whereas iron does glow orange, as observed, but aluminum does have a silvery color when it cools, as the liquid seems to. The color observed could be due to a small flow of aluminum mixed with a great deal of other very hot materials, all on fire. Glass, for example, glows orange when hot. As much as the next person, though, I would like to see an experiment performed on this by an independent scientific group, just to be sure. That is not to say that thermite isn't also a guess as to the identity of the flow.

If thermite was being used to cut supports, why is molten iron flowing from the side of the building at such a rate, and at a single point on the structure? One presumes that the core columns would be the target of such a large amount of thermite/thermate products, or that multiple flows of iron would be observed around the structure, clearly attacking the outside support structure.

The point about the seismic evidence is a good one, but ultimately it comes down to the researcher's word against the seismologists who recorded the data. They claimed any device designed to defeat the structure's columns would cause those same forces to be transmitted to the ground via the columns, causing a telltale spike. The video demonstrating a thermite cutting tool also seems to suggest that the size of the devices in the building would need to be truly massive to have the desired effect, which puts the explosive theory further in doubt.

In the case of WTC7 my earlier points, that the structure's design made it vulnerable to just the sort of progressive collapse that was observed, still stand.

Regarding the dust, I've read that the sphericles observed in the WTC dust can be explained by the iron and sulfur content of the buildings themselves, present in many materials that made up the structures, without resorting to thermite reactions. Concrete, for example, could easily contain such particles. In order that the sphericles be good evidence, it must be shown that their concentration was far too high to be explained by the structural materials, but as far as I can tell thermite is argued based on their mere existence.

Good points, though, as far as they go, and the flow of molten material is, of course, interesting in its own right, but I don't think the evidence points to either thermite or conventional explosives.

The Rothschild's are responsible for 9/11

R.D.735 no matter how hard you try. You cant make steel buildings fall over. When you have eyes to see. You can watch it explode. The simplicity of the fact wipes away all your dogma and complexity. You should be in shame right now. Governments lie but laws of physics do not lie.

Truth Revolution

I must agree with you, Mystic7, at least in part. The laws of physics do not lie. It is humans who have a penchant for deceit, deceiving themselves and others, both intentionally and unintentionally, by errors of logic or simple ignorance. It is science that provides a method by which human deceptions can be revealed.

I want to help those of you who are still arguing with some information to consider.

WTC:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...42.html?page=4

WTC 7:

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

Pentagon:

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blflight77.htm

Pentagon picture + caption:

http://urbanlegends.about.com/gi/dyn....asp%3Fid=2445

Pentagon lawn:

That is pretty funny. The small pathetic close up piece of wreckage is not even from the same plane.

Still no-one can explain this....


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.

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


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].
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


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

Steven Jones & Kevin Ryan Debunk the NIST Report

9/11 Firefighters slam Rudy Guiliani


Giuliani Gets Exposed As Fraud by Firefighters

This article explains the disinformation tactics used by dishonest contributers to forums, magazines, and newspapers. Universal Mind, Dream Sailor, and several others Ive seen in this forum use almost every single tactic.

How Could They Plant Bombs in the World Trade Center?
Government Refused to Examine Trade Center Collapses

More Proof 911 Inside Job - Witnesses To WTC Explosives

Introduction to 9/11 for Those Who Still Believe the Official Story


Video Evidence:

Video and Photographic evidence of basement explosions (necessary for a controlled demolition) with eye witness testimony.

Demolition Waves clearly visible in "collapse".

WTC7

We also know that Sibel Edmonds and at least a dozen other FBI whistleblowers have indicated that the FBI has been infiltrated by criminal elements who aided the 9/11 terrorists. Sibel Edmonds who claims to have documented evidence of this fact has been gagged by the highest authority - The Attorney General's Office, even after her claims were substantiated by a preliminary by the Justice Department. Since that time gags orders have been repeatedly placed on Edmonds, and even the U.S. Congress form hearing her testimony. What in the world are they hiding? Why is Congress allowing Executive Privilege to override congressional oversight? Ill outline the legal arguments if you cant see them.

This appeal to executive privilege has also been used in the NSA spying scandal to exempt testimony and evidence. It has also been used in the Riggs Bank case where Bush's uncle was found to have allowed money laundering to two Saudi terrorists responsible for the 9/11 hijackings. Do you think it is suspicious that the brother of the President (who is already under fire for not going after the Saudi source of funding for the 9./11 terrorists), is now found guilty of laundering money to the 9/11 terrorists?

There are hundreds of coincidences that nearly prove a conspiracy. They simply need more investigation before a full chronological picture of the events can emerge.

Demolition waves are clearly visible, exploding before the top mass can pulverize it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ri9Uz1Wa-Xc

WTC7 displays all the characteristics of controlled demolition, not to mention features which can only be explained by it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFFkbo3o0NM

Scientists and Academics have written articles claiming to prove the controlled demolition theory, and have not been refuted.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/v...Demolition.pdf

Its a simple fact that government officials have tried to cover up evidence, like the molten metal.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...03712325092501

And I havnt seen one person in any forum discussing this topic even attempt to refute any of the facts and arguments provided by over a hundred of Architects and Engineers.
http://www.ae911truth.org/

I of course am through debating, at least for a while, but I want to help you find the past comments and links you overlooked. Here, I hope this helps you find what you are asking for since it is what you are asking for.

Originally Posted by Mystic7

Still no-one can explain this....
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."

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

IWTC:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...42.html?page=4

WTC 7:

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

Originally Posted by Mystic7

4. The foreign warnings received by our government/intelligence agencies prior to 9/11

Some guys are going to attack Australia this week. Go stop them!

Originally Posted by Mystic7

The Pentagon

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I
Pentagon:

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blflight77.htm

Pentagon picture + caption:

http://urbanlegends.about.com/gi/dyn....asp%3Fid=2445

Originally Posted by Mystic7

The Undead Hijackers

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

It is not a proven fact. The BBC jumped to the conclusion that it is about ONE of the hijackers. Other news sources jump to the conclusion about six, and I found one that jumps to seven. It seems that the more in competition and therefore check a news company is with rivals, the less leap prone it is. It is speculation at this point.

LA Times

CNN

I hope that helps. It will if you read it.

And how did you say hijackings were faked and the real airplanes were hidden? I'm just curious.

Keep trying. I'll keep exposing it.

Rabbit

Originally Posted by Mystic7

Keep trying. I'll keep exposing it.

Rabbit

Oh, okay. Never mind.

Pretend to go away, like last time.

Originally Posted by Mystic7

Pretend to go away, like last time.

Is the truth bothering you again? Boo hoo.

No your private messages to me about your crazy conspiracy with the Illumanti is not bothering me again. But it will begin to bother you if I mention it on the forum.

Originally Posted by Mystic7

No your private messages to me about your crazy conspiracy with the Illumanti is not bothering me again. But it will begin to bother you if I mention it on the forum.

That's probably what he wants you to do. I'm sure he's not typing things to you w/o remembering the possibility that others may read it eventually...

I had to mention it so people know his tactics.

Originally Posted by Mystic7

No your private messages to me about your crazy conspiracy with the Illumanti is not bothering me again. But it will begin to bother you if I mention it on the forum.

Oh no! Not THAT!

Besides, I was talking about 9/11 truth, not my membership in the Illuminati. I can't believe how ungrateful you are that I let you down from the "joke" (so you almost think because I am letting you for now) because my suggestions of Illuminati membership in the Illuminati thread were scaring the Bejesus out of you, as you strongly indicated in our chat room conversation. "Who are you? Who the Hell are you? All joking aside, tell me who you are and who you work for! Was Mark joking?" You got so wigged out that I led you to believe it was all a joke. Now show appreciation for that, or I am going to slowly start showing you just how far down the rabbit hole goes.

fool. I was humoring you. Your not as important as you want me to think. But I went along with your ego for kicks didn't I. Yes, I know your not Illuminati. Let it go.

Originally Posted by Mystic7

fool. I was humoring you. Your not as important as you want me to think. But I went along with your ego for kicks didn't I. Yes, I know your not Illuminati. Let it go.

You forgot to thank me for letting you believe that. Seek Kansas. You were not made to enter Oz.

Of course, all of this does little to address real differences between the evidence used to prove the conspiracy and the evidence used to refute it. If we don't stick to the topic, everyone is just spitting into the wind.

Let's leave the Illuminati for the Illuminati thread, and leave the long lists of links for those who have the time to sift through them for the small item of information necessary to make a point. That is debate by proxy.

Sorry. You know how good Universal Mind is at distracting me.

The reason why I provide the links is for those that want to research it. Then they can enter the debate if they wish in an informed manner. It also refutes a lot of stuff that magazines like popular mechanics and other debunking sites listed by UM make up.

R.D.735 you talked a lot about chemicals. But I don't think you explained exactly how steel can melt or weaken even, and give way, just from jetfuel in 1 hour and collapse the building. That to me just does not make sense and it's never happened in history to any building. Fire never has collapsed a high rise building. And I certainly don't think these two towers are made especially weak. I think the innovations by the engineers actually made them stronger than normal at the time.