Conspiracy Theory 9/11 and the Europhysics News - Controlled Demolition

[Crankitup]

But its arguing semantics, because for your premise to be correct, Thermite would need to be present, and there is zero evidence for this.

Did you read the Jones et al paper to reach this conclusion or did you read someone's review of it? The paper itself is available here.

https://benthamopen.com/contents/pdf/TOCPJ/TOCPJ-2-7.pdf

I took more of an interest in it when I found out that one of it's 9 contributing authors, Dr Frank M. Legge PHD (Chem) - now deceased - studied at the same university I did (UWA).

 

[BustedWing]

Did you read the Jones et al paper to reach this conclusion or did you read someone's review of it? The paper itself is available here.

https://benthamopen.com/contents/pdf/TOCPJ/TOCPJ-2-7.pdf

I took more of an interest in it when I found out that one of it's 9 contributing authors, Dr Frank M. Legge PHD (Chem) - now deceased - studied at the same University I did (UWA).

Read chunks of it, but not all of it and have also read reviews from chemists.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[BustedWing]

(3) If your position is that there was no molten iron or molten steel in the WTC buildings I would suggest you read this.

http://www.consensus911.org/point-tt-6/

Just saw this point you made (edited?).

Just read this link.

The issues I have are:

Your original contention is that the molten metal dripping at the impact point PRIOR to collapse was steel (now you say iron?). The link you post...

* Confuses the assertion that the fires at impact would not have been hot enough to melt steel, with the hypothesis that steel could have possibly melted in the days and weeks post collapse, when other fires burned and were SUSTAINED by fuel other than jet fuel. The whole premise of the conspiracy is Jet fuel cant melt steel, there is melted steel, therefore conspiracy. The jet fuel would have been burned up by the time the melted steel (if in fact any was found) was discovered in the debris pile. What was the fuel sustaining those fires, as it definitely wasn't jet fuel? How hot were those fires?

So far, I haven't yet seen any reason why this proves a conspiracy in any way.

* The link also cites multiple eye witnesses stating they saw melted steel. Their professions were listed as firemen, an engineer (doesn't say what type) A public health adviser, a VP of a computer equipment company and so on. None of them would have any expertise in identifying metal in liquid form, from sight. Their testimony on this specific matter is close to worthless.

In summary of my position on this link...
* evidence of melted steel found in the debris pile days/weeks after collapse does not prove anything, as the fires and heat produced in the debris pile is not sustained by jet fuel, rather some other substance.
* There is no evidence of melted steel shown yet (it may exist), just unreliable testimony from un-credible witnesses (firemen are not chemists, nor are engineers etc).
* None of this addresses the key conspiracy premise - that the building collapsed because of melted steel, or that melted steel was observed at the time of or just prior to collapse.

 

[Crankitup]

* The link also cites multiple eye witnesses stating they saw melted steel. Their professions were listed as firemen, an engineer (doesn't say what type) A public health adviser, a VP of a computer equipment company and so on. None of them would have any expertise in identifying metal in liquid form, from sight. Their testimony on this specific matter is close to worthless.

Only got a small amount of time just now to respond to one part of your last post. You say on one hand that we don't know what type of engineer one of the multiple eye witnesses was. Yet on the other hand you boldly declare "None of them would have any expertise in identifying metal in liquid form, from sight."

This is the sort of thing I was worried about. You see everything through your own particular biased prism. You don't seem open minded about anything at all. Everything has to get twisted to suit your argument. What am I getting at? - I hear you ask. What if that witness was a metallurgical engineer? Rather than having no expertise to identify metal in liquid form, he would be uniquely qualified to do so.

 

[BustedWing]

What if that witness was a metallurgical engineer?

In something as important as a report that blows wide open the entire 9/11 conspiracy, something that would transform the US political climate for all time, something that would be front page news across the world, something that would effectively be the biggest story of our generation and perhaps all time....

you think that if said engineer was a metallurgical engineer, they would just....i don't know...forget to state this, and instead lump them in with unqualified eyewitnesses like firemen and computer salesmen? They wouldn't have had him up front and centre? why would they even bother with the other eyewitnesses, who's testimony is worthless?

You think that's more likely than the authors of this piece, in an effort to gain credibility, just went with "engineer" as that's a vague enough term to garner belief from those who know no better?

I happy to concede there is a small (very very very small) chance that this engineer was in fact very qualified to identify on sight alone different metal types in a liquid form, but you must surely concede that this possibility is exceedingly unlikely.

EDIT: Here's the guy in question:

Leslie E. Robertson - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

He's a structural engineer who was lead engineer in the construction of the WTC back in the 70s. More importantly, this was the key work he did post 9/11:
Robertson's firm later participated in the development of a database of basic structural information for the towers of the World Trade Center (WTC1 and 2) for NIST and FEMA,[5] and to record the undocumented structural changes that had been made to the buildings after construction began.

He did some work for NIST.

I wonder how thrilled he would be to learn that a quote from him is being interpreted that the organisation he worked for was implicit in a conspiracy to kill Americans? I took a look at the key source that was referenced in your linked report. I encourage you to do the same...

EDIT EDIT: I have now read a couple of interviews he did post 9/11, and its very clear that he agrees with the official story. Let me know if you want me to link them for you. The fact that this report lists him as someone who believes there is something fishy going on with the 9/11 events surely tells you something about the credibility of said report no?

EDIT EDIT EDIT: According to this, structural engineers:
The architect or design-builder comes up with a building layout, and then it's the structural engineer's responsibility to calculate the loads (such as snow, wind and earthquake forces), fit the structure to the architecture, and decide on what structural systems to use. The structural systems include steel, concrete, masonry, wood and other materials from which the engineer selects beams, columns, and other members that make up the building support.

https://seaoo.org/content.php?page=What_Does_a_Structural_Engineer_Do_

This specific structural engineer was at ground zero 21 days after collapse. So whatever was on fire, and whatever metal was melted had nothing to do with what you posted originally as the "something suspicious" at point of impact prior to collapse. Do you agree?

 

[BustedWing]

Thanks for that. I had come across some of those arguments yesterday. I also came across this.



https://www.researchgate.net/public...unts_for_the_Molten_Metal_Observed_on_9112001

At this point it might be worth going back to this specific post for a second.

You've now seen two explanations for the same event. One that says it was aluminium, another that says it was steel (or iron, or a thermitic reaction).

Which one of these two explanations do you think is most likely, and why?

 

[Crankitup]

In something as important as a report the blows wide open the entire 9/11 conspiracy, something that would transform the US political climate for all time, something that would be front page news across the world, something that would effectively be the biggest story of our generation and perhaps all time....

you think that if said engineer was a metallurgical engineer, they would just....i don't know...forget to state this, and instead lump them in with unqualified eyewitnesses like firemen and computer salesmen? They wouldn't have had him up front and centre? why would they even bother with the other eyewitnesses, who's testimony is worthless?

You think that's more likely than the authors of this piece, in an effort to gain credibility, just went with "engineer" as that's a vague enough term to garner belief from those who know no better?

I happy to concede there is a small (very very very small) chance that this engineer was in fact very qualified to identify on sight alone different metal types in a liquid form, but you must surely concede that this possibility is exceedingly unlikely.

Exaggerated sophistry now.

That engineer BTW, was one of the two engineers that designed the World Trade Centre. He might know something about steel, in all it's forms. Another engineer mentioned in the testimonial evidence section is Dr Keith Eaton - Chief Executive of the London based Institution of Structural Engineers. He might too.

 

[BustedWing]

Exaggerated sophistry now.

That engineer BTW, was one of the two engineers that designed the World Trade Centre. He might know something about steel, in all it's forms. Another engineer mentioned in the testimonial evidence section is Dr Keith Eaton - Chief Executive of the London based Institution of Structural Engineers. He might too.

I put some edits into my post above. Let me know if you want me to wait until you've had a chance to digest them before i reply.

 

[Crankitup]

I put some edits into my post above. Let me know if you want me to wait until you've had a chance to digest them before i reply.

Read them. No need to wait.

 

[BustedWing]

Read them. No need to wait.

So now you've seen the person they have referenced as "engineer", and you've seen where they got his quote from, and you've seen the work he did pre and post 9/11.

You've also seen my concerns with the other eyewitnesses they reference, and perhaps most importantly, youve seen my biggest concern, namely:

- all testimony was centered around finding claimed molten steel weeks after the event, buried in the rubble, and you're positing that this is evidence that this supports the claim that the metal dripping from the building prior to collapse was also steel.

Given all this, some questions for you:

1. Why would a structural engineer, or a cheif executive of a structural engineering firm be qualified to identify metals in liquid form?
2. do you agree that firemen, computer sales executives etc would NOT be qualified to identify metals in liquid form?
3. why does the existence of a molten metal found in debris weeks after the collapse in any way prove the substance dripping from the tower prior to collapse was steel?

EDIT - an additional question
4 - What do you think of the aluminium explanation for the material dripping from the building prior to collapse? you initially stated (and I'm paraphrasing) that it was steel, because "what else could it be"? You've now seen an explanation for aluminium, what are your thoughts on that explanation? Plausible?

 

[Crankitup]

....
EDIT EDIT: I have now read a couple of interviews he did post 9/11, and its very clear that he agrees with the official story. Let me know if you want me to link them for you. The fact that this report lists him as someone who believes there is something fishy going on with the 9/11 events surely tells you something about the credibility of said report no?

Exaggerating again. I'm beginning to think I AM wasting my time here, just as I originally suspected. If your case is so strong and the official version has no holes as you originally asserted why does almost every post you make on the issue seek to twist, exaggerate or misrepresent in a feeble attempt at bolstering your argument? It's so transparent that it actually does the opposite. Just deal truthfully without addition, or subtraction and without any fear of conceding a point here or there.

The report does nothing like what you claim it does. It just quotes him from an engineering conference 3 weeks after the event, speaking of seeing "little rivers of steel" at the B1 level. Even news reports at the time said the steel melted and caused the buildings to collapse.

This specific structural engineer was at ground zero 21 days after collapse. So whatever was on fire, and whatever metal was melted had nothing to do with what you posted originally as the "something suspicious" at point of impact prior to collapse. Do you agree?

(1) I think there's some confusion about whether he was in the basement 21 days after the event or at an engineering conference 21 days after the event speaking of what he had seen some time prior to that. The reports conflict. I favour the latter interpretation ATM.

(2) In reference to the part I have bolded, no. I have not used those words in this thread. I think you have me confused with someone else. Possibly nut? Either that or something I have linked to contains those words somewhere. I cannot recall them.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

In fact I am something a couch scholar. Even at home.

This strikes me as odd. Whose couch are you posting this from?

 

[BustedWing]

Exaggerating again.

What would be a more appropriate term to describe their use of his quote?

Happy to alter.

If your case is so strong and the official version has no holes

as stated, my position is:

I would argue the number of holes on the conspirator side vastly outweigh any perceived holes on the "official story" side.

Close. Any "holes" in the official story are either misunderstandings, misrepresentations, exaggerations outright lies or untruths, or simply minor, inconsequential inconsistencies that are quite understandable when discussing such a complex event.

On the other hand, the amount of drivel put forward as "100% proof of an inside job!!!1!!1" is amazing to me.

(1) I think there's some confusion about whether he was in the basement 21 days after the event or at an engineering conference 21 days after the event speaking of what he had seen some time prior to that. The reports conflict. I favour the latter interpretation ATM.

When do you think he was in the basement? Without trying to find out (I can if needed) I think we could both agree it would be weeks after collapse, as until that point it would only be first responders and emergency crew on site to ensure all survivors were found, and then that the place was safe enough for appropriate civilians (like the structural engineer lead who built the towers) to go into the site.

Thats pretty reasonable, dont you think?

If so - then again - why does finding molten metal, steel or otherwise, weeks after collapse, mean anything relating to the substance dripping from the point of impact prior to collapse?

(2) In reference to the part I have bolded, no. I have not used those words in this thread. I think you have me confused with someone else. Possibly nut? Either that or something I have linked to contains those words somewhere. I cannot recall them.

I asked you multiple times:

In your opinion, whats the biggest hole in the official story? The one that, above all else, screams something is dodgy to you?

You responded, among other things:

the molten steel that was pouring out of the towers immediately prior to their collapse

So, given this is the topic of conversation:

the molten steel that was pouring out of the towers immediately prior to their collapse

Can you please explain the relevance of discussing molten metal (steel or otherwise) found in the debris pile weeks after the event? How are the two connected?

I also look forward to your responses to the other questions I asked:

Given all this, some questions for you:

1. Why would a structural engineer, or a cheif executive of a structural engineering firm be qualified to identify metals in liquid form?
2. do you agree that firemen, computer sales executives etc would NOT be qualified to identify metals in liquid form?
3. why does the existence of a molten metal found in debris weeks after the collapse in any way prove the substance dripping from the tower prior to collapse was steel?

EDIT - an additional question
4 - What do you think of the aluminium explanation for the material dripping from the building prior to collapse? you initially stated (and I'm paraphrasing) that it was steel, because "what else could it be"? You've now seen an explanation for aluminium, what are your thoughts on that explanation? Plausible?

 

[BustedWing]

(1) I think there's some confusion about whether he was in the basement 21 days after the event or at an engineering conference 21 days after the event speaking of what he had seen some time prior to that. The reports conflict. I favour the latter interpretation ATM.

After a little bit of digging, this presentation was made on april 9th 2002. here is the full presentation:



So this means he went there at some point before April 9 2002. And he was in Asia (Hong Kong) on 9/11, and it took him days to get back to the states post 9/11 (due to flight restrictions of course) so its fair to say it was most likely weeks, or even months after collapse that he was on site.

 

[Crankitup]

After a little bit of digging, this presentation was made on april 9th 2002. here is the full presentation:



So this means he went there at some point before April 9 2002. And he was in Asia (Hong Kong) on 9/11, and it took him days to get back to the states post 9/11 (due to flight restrictions of course) so its fair to say it was most likely weeks, or even months after collapse that he was on site.

Nice find. Yes I agree, you're correct and I was wrong.

 

[Crankitup]

What would be a more appropriate term to describe their use of his quote?

Happy to alter.


as stated, my position is:




When do you think he was in the basement? Without trying to find out (I can if needed) I think we could both agree it would be weeks after collapse, as until that point it would only be first responders and emergency crew on site to ensure all survivors were found, and then that the place was safe enough for appropriate civilians (like the structural engineer lead who built the towers) to go into the site.

Thats pretty reasonable, dont you think?

If so - then again - why does finding molten metal, steel or otherwise, weeks after collapse, mean anything relating to the substance dripping from the point of impact prior to collapse?


I asked you multiple times:

You responded, among other things:


So, given this is the topic of conversation:

Can you please explain the relevance of discussing molten metal (steel or otherwise) found in the debris pile weeks after the event? How are the two connected?

I also look forward to your responses to the other questions I asked:

Every time I dig around I find more quotes of molten steel's presence weeks after the event.

As this reporter discovered in the summer of 2002, "literally molten steel" had been found, more than a month after the collapse, at the bases of the collapsed towers, where their load-bearing central support columns connected to the bedrock. "Such persistent and intense residual heat, 70 feet below the surface, could explain how these crucial structural supports failed," I wrote at the time.​

Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction of Flushing, New York, told this reporter he had seen pools of "literally molten steel" at the World Trade Center , where his company had been contracted to remove debris, weeks after the three towers collapsed.​

Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. (CDI) of Phoenix , Maryland , wrote the clean-up plan for the WTC and confirmed the presence of molten metal at the site.​

"Yes," Loizeaux said, "hot spots of molten steel in the basements." These incredibly hot areas were found "at the bottoms of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven [basement] levels," Loizeaux said.​

The molten steel was found "three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed," he said. Loizeaux also confirmed that molten iron had been found in the rubble of WTC 7, the tower owned by Larry Silverstein which was neither hit by an airplane nor severely damaged, but which collapsed mysteriously in the late afternoon of 9/11.​

In 2005, Jones began investigating the collapse of WTC 7 and the large amounts of molten iron seen falling from the burning South Tower . These two subjects remain completely unexplained in the official literature on 9/11.​

“The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time," the FEMA-sponsored WTC Building Performance Study of 2002 concluded. "Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence," it said. The way that the building collapsed within its own footprint suggested that it was an "internal collapse," the report said.​

https://www.facts-are-facts.com/news/banned-from-the-classroom-

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bustedwing since I'm a newb to the topic as I originally said I can't be definitive about why there was still molten steel weeks later. All I know is that plenty of people with no agenda saw it. Shouldn't the steel have cooled by then? There's an in depth discussion of that point here https://www.metabunk.org/molten-steel-in-the-debris-pile-cool-down-time.t9255/. Some of it is over my head TBH.

For some, left over thermite from the demolition is the only explanation.

Many firefighters talked about how intense the heat still was under all the rubble and finding pools of molten steel up to six weeks later. Six weeks later the temperature under the rubble was still at 1,100 degrees. Here's an image of them pulling out some rubble weeks later:

The only explanation for temps being that high 6 weeks or more later would be large quantities of thermite being present in the rubble.

See the dripping molten steel? That's thermite at work. Funny how the only areas of the towers you see that molten steel dripping is coming from it the corners where the main outer beams were located.

How would the thermite/thermate/explosives been put in place without anyone noticing anything odd? Send in a team of "electricians" to install "fiber-optic lines" and check out other "wiring". Many employees said a week or two before 9-11 occurred, teams of electricians were doing this and none of the employees were told ahead of time when usually everyone would be notified of things like that going on. One woman spoke of two men she seen in the basement area doing work around beams. They were laughing and talking, then see her and suddenly stop talking. One man covering up tools as the other gives her a sinister look.

 

[BustedWing]

Nice find. Yes I agree, you're correct and I was wrong.

All good!

I'm Still not sure when he actually did the tour though...

 

[BustedWing]

Every time I dig around I find more quotes of molten steel's presence weeks after the event.





https://www.facts-are-facts.com/news/banned-from-the-classroom-

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bustedwing since I'm a newb to the topic as I originally said I can't be definitive about why there was still molten steel weeks later. All I know is that plenty of people with no agenda saw it. Shouldn't the steel have cooled by then? There's an in depth discussion of that point here https://www.metabunk.org/molten-steel-in-the-debris-pile-cool-down-time.t9255/. Some of it is over my head TBH.

For some, left over thermite from the demolition is the only explanation.



View attachment 761166



View attachment 761170

I dont doubt for a second there was molten metal in the debris, and while none of the molten metal (to my knowledge) was tested and confirmed to be steel, if it WAS steel, that wouldnt shock me either.

The fires in the debris pile were sustained for weeks by all sorts of different types of fuel...imagine what was in those buildings that was flamable, and that was able to sustain the fires. Cars in the parking lot. 220 floors of office space with all sorts of things. Generators for elevators, heating and AC checmicals...the list is literally endless.

What was sustaining those fires, and what temperature those fires burned at once the collapse was done, is another discussion for another day. But to be clear - melted steel, if it was there in the weeks post collapse doesnt mean thermite.

For those you mentioned that imply it could ONLY mean thermite....I mean...how much do they think was in there? Why would it be in the basement, when the towers clearly collapsed from point of impact?

There are so many holes in the thermite argument its a non starter in my opinion. I encourage you to watch that video I posted earlier...good explanation on it all and why the evidence is overwhelming that none was found (and that there is no way it could explain the melted steel weeks after collapse).

WE can chat about that if you like, but first...aluminium...what do you think? More likely?

 

[Procrastinator35]

Only got a small amount of time just now to respond to one part of your last post. You say on one hand that we don't know what type of engineer one of the multiple eye witnesses was. Yet on the other hand you boldly declare "None of them would have any expertise in identifying metal in liquid form, from sight."

This is the sort of thing I was worried about. You see everything through your own particular biased prism. You don't seem open minded about anything at all. Everything has to get twisted to suit your argument. What am I getting at? - I hear you ask. What if that witness was a metallurgical engineer? Rather than having no expertise to identify metal in liquid form, he would be uniquely qualified to do so.

Banging your head up a rhetorical brick-qall there brother.....Just stick to the evidence of your own senses & his sophistry just melts away…..That one seeks to confuse, contort & complexify the truth at every turn, as he has so much to hide by it....And he knows it.

Just post another piccy of the Twin Towers collapsing.....That's all the evidence you need in order to disproof any of his nonsense apologetics....And it is all complete & utter nonsense.

 

[Lebbo73]

P35 and thunka hunka were made for each other.

P35. Do your own research and look into the thermite furphy.
There is absolutely no evidence of thermite being used in the collapse of the twin towers. Dig a bit deeper. Do your own evaluation.

Ok

 

[Lebbo73]

haha! Ah Pogma...what a classic.

You should be the last to laugh. Your posting history is the most laughable. 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, we all know how it goes.

 

[Procrastinator35]

P35 and thunka hunka were made for each other.

P35. Do your own research and look into the thermite furphy.
There is absolutely no evidence of thermite being used in the collapse of the twin towers. Dig a bit deeper. Do your own evaluation.

Nano-thermite actually....And I notice you never questioned the mini-nukes either.

Nice omission.

Either way….the official story is a nonsense & has been thoroughly refuted by Architectural, Engineering & Demolition experts alike.

You guys sticking to the official narrative make up quite the comedy team.

 

[Doc_]

Nano-thermite actually....And I notice you never questioned the mini-nukes either.

Nice omission.

Either way….the official story is a nonsense & has been thoroughly refuted by Architectural, Engineering & Demolition experts alike.

You guys sticking to the official narrative make up quite the comedy team.

I have looked into the claimed thermite evidence. Thats the only reason I mentioned it.
And I am talking about evidence. Not pictures or here say. For it to be fact, you need evidence.
When you post about the thermite myth as fact, how can we even consider your other points when its obvious you dont fact check.
Mini nukes huh? Evidence? Radiation levels? Contamination? Anything as evidence? I wouldnt even dream of looking into something so ludicrous. But I'll humour you. What you got?
Dont even dream about jumping to another theory. You have 2 right there. The floor is yours.
And dont post a you tube vid. State your facts.

 

[Crankitup]

... but first...aluminium...what do you think? More likely?

No.

 

[BustedWing]

No.

Honestly? This surprises me.

What about what’s been presented to you doesn’t make sense to you?


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app