Like I said AreWeSure you're the most naive person I've ever met in my life.
The worst is your taking the 9/11 story hook, line and sinker. I'm pretty sure you're an SEIU guy at this point. To see you take David Rockefeller at face value is disheartening.
How the hell are you people ever going to get a leg up when you let the Rockefeller's drive over you for the past 100 years.
Remember I'm a poor person just like you. My bank account is running on vapors on a daily basis. I've been lower middle class all my life. I'd love to join a union like SEIU. Do they cover IT workers?
I didn't know this but I'm sure you did working for the SEIU down in DC. Evidently Andrew McCabe has to sign a disclosure every quarter listing any financial gifts he or anyone in his family have received over $200.
I'm an engineer so all this bureaucracy stuff is new to me. So when you laugh and dismiss things I can't immediately respond because I have to research the issue and perform the due diligence any objective person would do. But come on AreWeSure this isn't even debatable anymore. Andrew McCabe has broken the law here. His wife received somewhere between $650,000 and $1,200,000 in campaign contributions which Andrew was supposed to disclose. McCabe's failure to disclose makes his arrest virtually assured. He also loses his immunity if he's violated its conditions and failure to disclose a $650,000 gift is more than enough. It shows INTENT to obstruct justice. And Robert Mueller violating his obligation to remain objective violate HIS implicit immunity being the lead investigator. Trump can even fire Mueller at any time for obstruction of justice which Andrew McCabe's case clearly imply. You can say "But Nixon..." all you want. The problem is Nixon didn't have the former 1 and 2 at the FBI dead to rights. Remember?
What's going on here is Jeff Sessions is just giving McCabe enough rope with which to hang himself. It's all over but the cryin' AreWeSure. Jeff Sessions is basically a lion playing with a baby gazelle he just caught hunting on the Serengeti. This is bad, real bad. I remember Bill Still reporting on a Hillary Clinton tirade after that infamous Matt Lauer interview. After the debate Hillary screamed at her staff:
I truly have no idea why you believe any of that, unless deep down you need to, but it's nonsense. Here's a clue when something that would obviously be noticed a year ago comes out as some sort of big news, it's usually nonsense. Did you think the FBI wouldn't notice that his wife was running for senate in Virginia? Seriously? Did you think any of the pro-Trump FBI guys wouldn't mention something if he was out of compliance? It's ludicrous.l
First of all learn what a financial gift is. It's not campaign contributions. Second of all McCabe long ago complied with what he needed to.
But come on AreWeSure this isn't even debatable anymore. Andrew McCabe has broken the law here.
It's not debatable. You are completely wrong on this issue and swallowing talking points. All this was debunked last year. This is an attack on law enforcement because Donald Trump is in severe legal jeopardy.
There's absolutely nothing that says if you work for the FBI, your wife can run for office. There is, however, an Office of Integrity and Compliance and you would need to consult with them and follow their guidelines which is what McCabe did.
As smears go, this is a particularly dumb one. But they need to work with what they.
"Did you think the FBI wouldn't notice that his wife was running for senate in Virginia?"
You mean the one person above Andrew by the name of James Comey? Come on AreWeSure, you're not this naive. The leadership of the FBI can't investigate itself. That's why there's special prosecutors. This reminds me of when you dismissed allegations the CIA was involved in drug running by pointing me to the fact the CIA had investigated itself and found no wrong doing. ROFLMAO. Remember that one AreWeSure? I laughed for hours.
"You are completely wrong on this issue"
Are you denying Andrew McCabe's wife got a $650,000 campaign donation?
"There's absolutely nothing that says if you work for the FBI, your wife can run for office."
And there it is: The Straw Man! He always shows up with you. Of course an FBI employee's spouse can run for office. However the FBI employee must report any monetary gifts given to their family of greater than $200 and recuse themselves if there's a conflict of interest.
Are you denying that Andrew McCabe's wife getting $650,000 from Democratic sources would produce a conflict of interest in the investigation into Hillary's email server and possibly sending classified documents?
You better think long and hard on that one AreWeSure.
I was using the broadest interpretation of "gift" given disclosure rules but to make you happy I'll say campaign contribution. It's still the same question:
Is Andrew McCabe's wife getting a $650,000 campaign contribution from a close associate of Hillary Clinton a potential conflict of interest given McCabe's investigation into Hillary's use of an unencrypted email server?
The Inspector General of the Department of Justice and the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee are investigating McCabe for concerns that he should have recused himself from the investigation of Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server because of a potential conflict of interest caused by donations to his wife's Virginia State Senate campaign
Sure seems like your industrial strength naivete has clouded your vision again. Just in case you forgot, here's your most recent browbeater accusing me and The Inspector General of the Department of Justice and the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee of being "dumb":
As smears go, this is a particularly dumb one. But they need to work with what they.
I just sent you this via a private message but I'll copy it in here in case anyone wants to read my response.
"no evidence of demolition"
That's simply wrong. There were numerous pieces of evidence that pointed to demolition:
1) The WTC contains spherical nodules of steel consistent with the use of thermite or nanothermite.
2) What appears to be molten steel pouring out of the towers around the impact sites.
3) The FDNY witnesses who saw "rivers of molten steel" in the basements of the WTCs. (You can debate whether it was steel but they saw molten metal.)
4) The temperature recorded at hot spots during clean-up were above anything jet fuel or an office fire could have produced.
5) Numerous steel girders showed diagonal cuts were similar to cuts made during building demolition. (again it's debatable who put the diagonal cuts there's just speculation on both sides)
6) WTC 7 fell symmetrically despite the off-center damage NIST found would require an UNSYMMETRICAL collapse.
7) WTC 7 wasn't hit by an airplane and its collapse due to demolition is much easier to believe than the official story it collapsed due to minor structural damage and an office fire.
8) WTC owner Larry Silverstein used the common building demolition term "pull" implying a decision was made to bring down WTC 7 on purpose. Again this points to a controlled demolition and not a collapse due to fire.
9) Larry Silverstein has made several slips of the tongue implying he had advanced knowledge of 9/11 the most egregious being this one.
Nope this is bunk. First off, you're not even citing the conspiracy claim correctly. Thermite doesn't give off steel. Steel is an alloy, you need iron and something else. Iron microspheres is what they said they found. However, iron is not the biggest product of thermite. Aluminum Oxide is, so they should have found lots of that too.
Spherical nodules of iron basically appear if have hot small bits of iron, and not much oxygen. If you like steel wool with a cigarette lighter, you can make these. Wait, how can a cigarette light ignite steel wool? Properties of metals, like ignition and melting point change when the are very small like the threads of steel wool.]
You know what else produces them. Submitting steel columns coated in the primer paint they use on steel columns.
Another way to create them would be friction. The WTC would have produced a helluva lot of friction as it came down.
"What appears to be molten steel pouring out of the towers around the impact sites" Appears is the very important part here, because you cannot tell what type of metal that is. Actually you can almost assuredly rule out steel because the fire wasn't hot enough. However, there are a lot of common metals or alloys that would be present that could melt at those temperatures, such as aluminum which the planes were made out of. That melts at a few hundred degrees lower that the hottest fires at the WTC.
3 is basically the same as above.
4 relies on you not knowing how thermite works. The hotspots at the WTC, were a fire that was burning under the pile for weeks I believe, there were enough air pockets to keep them burning and sometimes, the rubble was super hot and if moved the top layer, fires would spring up again, once the air hit the hot rubble. Thermite under goes such a strong when heated because it has its own oxygen source. It's basically a mixture of metals where one of them is an oxide. The most common recipe is iron oxide, aka Rust mixed with elemental aluminum. Once it gets hot enough to react, it rips the oxygen atoms away from the iron and they react with the aluminum and it spits out molten iron and aluminum oxide. Since it has its own oxygen, it will react underwater (they use it for underwater welding) and it will react quickly until it all done. There's no way thermite could have been the source of heat days or weeks later. The reason thermite gets so hot is it released all its energy as quick as it can (looked up some of this.) For this, reason, it's actually a poor candidate to do what the conspiracists claim it did at the WTC.
It's not a high explosive like used in demolitions and it's uneven, erratic reaction, you couldn't guarantee it would all take the same amount of time on each column. Which if you're trying to hide what you did is a giant risk.
It's actually not good at heating things long term. You know what things are more energy dense than thermite? Desks, office chairs, files cabinets full of paper. This is because thermite is metal, a cubic foot would be much heavier the things in the office that would burn quite nicely, you would literally need several tons of it to take out a floor symmetrically at the WTC, let alone 90 of them.) It's very high temperature, but not a lot of heat per pound.
Temperature and Heat are different. A glacier has more heat than cigarette lighter. Because while the cigarette lighter will get very, very hot and melt part of the glacier, its fuel will run out way before the glacier is melted.
It also is not easy to ignite. And the things that ignite it would not last in fire for an hour.
How old is this list? This was debunked right after the first version of Loose Change came out. DM, it's so hilarious, you discovered this so late, because so much of what you point has been settled for years. Remember the 9/11 conspiracy didn't kick in for years. It was only after Iraq it really gained steam. So conspiracists were searching for photos from years earlier and they found angle cuts like used in building demolition. BECAUSE IT was used in BUILDING DEMOLITION. The cuts were made while trying to clean up the pile of rubble and there are photos of guys in the pile making these cuts. Also if you don't know, to get to the beams, you would have to rip up occupied offices and clean them up with no one noticing then or after 9/11 that something was up. Also the torches that cut steel have some nasty fumes they leave. That would be trapped in an open office.
WTC 7 did not fall symmetrically. (Also what about WTC 5 or any of the others buildings that collapsed that day --yes there were other collapses--why do the conspiracists never bring those up?) Does DM know he is using a deceptive clip? What this gif shows is the very end of the collapse. WTC 7 was a tube within a tube. What these shows is the collapse of the outer perimeter once the insides have already collapsed.
When you look at the full sequence, you see that Mechanical structure on the roof on the building collapses long before the perimeter. This means the support underneath this has gone out. Then you see a "kink" in the roof as the perimeter goes down. Here's the full sequence. It was not symmetrical.
https://i1.wp.com/k007.kiwi6.com/hotlink/muh1jkz993/wtc7funnyone-o.gif
WTC was a massive office fire. The building was the size of a football field and fire burned on several floors over the course of hours. Hours before the building collapsed, the NYFD notice the building was bulging on one of the corners. Not a good sign. This means hours before it went down the structural integrity was compromised. As they tried to fight the fire the NYFD heard the building creaking. This is when they decided to "pull" the rescue effort.
This is just silly. What was pulled was the fire fighters and Silverstein did not make that decision a FDNY captain did. And you don't "pull" a building when you use explosives. That is for other types of demolitions.
This one is new to me, but still silly. You're going off a slip of the tongue now? You really think there were secret design meetings before 9/11? What would be the purpose of this?
There are several accounts of jet fuel exploding in the elevator shafts way below the impact. There were several explosions throughout the building including the subbasements where this janitor was. How he was able to determine which sound was the plane impact is pretty unclear to me. He had no visual reference of the plane. How did he know which sound was the plane. He was much closer to the exploding fireballs, so they probably sounded louder than the plane which he was what 900 feet below? He seems much more likely he simply was confused about what he heard. The other witnesses did not hear it the same way.
As you read the witnesses stories, you will hear a lot of injuries like you would get in jet fuel fireball igniting. People had severe burns and even their clothes burned off, but they did not have the types of injuries you get when high explosives detonate. Jet Fuel doesn't detonate, the technical term for what it does is Deflagration which means the wave created is slower than the speed of sound. High explosives detonate at such high speed they create pressure waves. Pressure waves can cause internal organ damage even if you were not close enough to be burned, they also pop eardrums.
Also DM, witness reports burning jet fuel at 9:12 AM.
Unknown location:
9:12: WTC Police Desk radios PO Lim/K-9 asking if that is the smell of jet fuel. PO Lim/K-9 replies, "That's burning jet fuel."
That's at least 9 minutes after the second plane impacted and 27 minutes after first impact.
Spherical nodules of metal can be produced by nanothermite. But that entire debate doesn't matter if you consider the only guaranteed byproduct of all thermite mixtures is molten iron which was, DING DING DING DING DING DING, found abundantly in the basements of the WTCs.
Back to the support column debate a steel high rise will remain standing with even 80% of its support columns severed. A complete failure due to the collapse of only a few support columns is highly unlikely and impossible to produce the highly synchronized collapse we saw on 9/11. So says a man who demolishes steel buildings for a living. The symmetry with which WTC 1, 2 and 7 collapsed is impossible. Again WTC 7 is the most damning proof a demolition occurred.
Moving on, explosions like those heard during a building demolition are clearly audible various times before the collapses.
I stopped at "there were enough air pockets to keep them burning". It's preposterous to argue that "air pockets" could sustain any type of combustion hot enough to keep metal in liquid form for over a month. Seriously that's beyond the pale.
Spherical nodules of metal can be produced by nanothermite.
Spherical nodules of metal can be produced a lot of ways. Many of them were present at the WTC collapse.
Truthers claim they can only be produced at super high temperatures. But a Bic lighter is all you need when the particles are small.....just like the dust samples they burned. They dust samples they didn't take to any chemical experts to test in their study. The dust samples they won't share with scientists who want to duplicate their results. This is proof of nothing. It's like saying I tested going to work on pogo stick, therefore a pogo stick must be the way people get to work.
But that entire debate doesn't matter if you consider the only guaranteed byproduct of all thermite mixtures is molten iron
This is false. Thermite is not a compound, it's a type of reaction. Just as all explosives are not dynamite, all thermite is not iron oxide thermite. This is by far the most common, though. You can make themite from copper like here
3 CuO + 2 Al → 3 Cu + Al2O3
which was, DING DING DING DING DING DING, found abundantly in the basements of the WTCs.
I'm going to introduce to you an argument term here: Assuming facts not in evidence. You have no idea what the molten metal is and to say it's iron is to assume a fact you don't have evidence for.
Back to the support column debate a steel high rise will remain standing with even 80% of its support columns severed.
There's no way this can be true. there's too much variation in building designs. And I'm assuming the 20% of the remaining columns are spaced out appropriately. In the case of WTC, with its design, this is impossible. The core columns were not 80% of the total columns and if you removed those the building surely would collapse.
Unprotected Steel structures fail due to fire all the time. WTC 1 and 2 were unprotected structures at the time of the fire, because the Spray-on Fire Resistant Material was removed from steel supports by the plane impact. WTC 7 was one of the most massive office fires ever. It might have been bigger than the towers because it was on more floors and it burned with out any fire suppression for a few hours longer than the SFRM was rated for.
Since 9/11 fire has brought down other steel structures. In one case the building had a concrete part and a steel part and only the steel part collapsed.
So says a man who demolishes steel buildings for a living
Um, no. He's an explosives loader. He has no special knowledge of physics, engineering, chemistry etc. On a blasting crew, he is literally less knowledgeable than a job that has the title of a "Powder Carrier "
To become licensed explosives loader in NYC, you have to pass a 20 question test. The questions are like this
All explosives and blasting caps must be stored in:
(A) the blaster's truck.
(B) a magazine.
(C) the site supervisor's shed.
(D) underground vaults.
The word "EXPLOSIVES" painted on the rear of a truck carrying explosives must be
painted in which color?
(A) Black.
(B) Red.
(C) Green.
(D) White.
He does not demolishes steel buildings for a living. He works...or worked for 2 years at a company that demolishes buildings for a living. He's an embarrassingly weak witness. Here's his boss explaining why the WTC were not a controlled demolition. His response to the truther who claims the explosives could have been placed before the building was occupied is just priceless.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nj6ZtXt6W90
Here's some of his work which absolutely demolishes the idea that noises like a controlled demolition were heard.
https://youtu.be/Zr6Jb0MQafI?t=166
If you want to cut steel, you can't make explosives quiet. To make them quiet would reduce their power. It's impossible. This is why truthers started looking at thermite. Because a controlled demolition through explosives was ludicrous.
You still dishonestly using a gif that does not show the full collapse of WTC7.
Please AreWeSure of course I know that. By " byproduct" I meant the result of thermite burning through metal is, duh, molten metal.
"Assuming facts not in evidence. You have no idea what the molten metal is"
Correct! That's why Trump needs to reopen the investigation because NIST said no molten metal was found AT ALL. That's clearly not the case given the testimony of numerous people who took part in the rescue and subsequent clean up.
"'80% of its support columns severed.'.....There's no way this can be true."
That's your opinion. You're neither an engineer or work in the building demolition business. It's certainly possible given, DING DING DING, the towers were built 6 times stronger than they needed to be.
"Since 9/11 fire has brought down other steel structures."
Apples to oranges. A bridge is not a building please stop implying they're the same thing. A steel bridge can just collapse without even a fire, see the bridge collapse in Minneapolis.
"He's an explosives loader. He has no special knowledge of physics, engineering, chemistry etc."
That's called the Appeal to Authority fallacy. Scientific truths don't care how many people believe them, where they went to school, what degree they got or whether they own a demolition company. Facts are facts. And the facts clearly point to serious weaknesses in the NIST theory of the collapse.
You should welcome a new WTC collapse investigation. Scientific facts aren't afraid and they don't run away from a fight. In fact they welcome a challenge. In my almost 30 years in the software engineering field I have come across all sorts of science both good and bad. I've also been exposed to many good and bad ideas. Without fail the bad ideas I've come across are always above reproach. They're never allowed to be questioned and if you do there's hell to pay for it.
Then one day you come into work and the bad idea is gone, it got fired or laid off and all that's left is a smoking crater.
view the rest of the comments →
DarkMath ago
AreWeSure I eagerly await your explanation normalizing whatever the fuck this guy's into:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJBtJaISlqc
Don't let me down.
:-D
Are_we_sure ago
I'm much more of a BABY HULK vs HULK MOM kind of guy. That video is fantastic.
DarkMath ago
Like I said AreWeSure you're the most naive person I've ever met in my life.
The worst is your taking the 9/11 story hook, line and sinker. I'm pretty sure you're an SEIU guy at this point. To see you take David Rockefeller at face value is disheartening.
https://www.google.com/#q=Rockefeller+union+busting
How the hell are you people ever going to get a leg up when you let the Rockefeller's drive over you for the past 100 years.
Remember I'm a poor person just like you. My bank account is running on vapors on a daily basis. I've been lower middle class all my life. I'd love to join a union like SEIU. Do they cover IT workers?
Sigh.......
Are_we_sure ago
You're the guy who always bring politics into a scientific argument. You don't understand the science, so you bring in David Rockefeller.
Also a fan of George Webb should be banned for life from calling anyone naive.
DarkMath ago
I didn't know this but I'm sure you did working for the SEIU down in DC. Evidently Andrew McCabe has to sign a disclosure every quarter listing any financial gifts he or anyone in his family have received over $200.
I'm an engineer so all this bureaucracy stuff is new to me. So when you laugh and dismiss things I can't immediately respond because I have to research the issue and perform the due diligence any objective person would do. But come on AreWeSure this isn't even debatable anymore. Andrew McCabe has broken the law here. His wife received somewhere between $650,000 and $1,200,000 in campaign contributions which Andrew was supposed to disclose. McCabe's failure to disclose makes his arrest virtually assured. He also loses his immunity if he's violated its conditions and failure to disclose a $650,000 gift is more than enough. It shows INTENT to obstruct justice. And Robert Mueller violating his obligation to remain objective violate HIS implicit immunity being the lead investigator. Trump can even fire Mueller at any time for obstruction of justice which Andrew McCabe's case clearly imply. You can say "But Nixon..." all you want. The problem is Nixon didn't have the former 1 and 2 at the FBI dead to rights. Remember?
What's going on here is Jeff Sessions is just giving McCabe enough rope with which to hang himself. It's all over but the cryin' AreWeSure. Jeff Sessions is basically a lion playing with a baby gazelle he just caught hunting on the Serengeti. This is bad, real bad. I remember Bill Still reporting on a Hillary Clinton tirade after that infamous Matt Lauer interview. After the debate Hillary screamed at her staff:
"If that fucking bastard[Trump] wins we all hang from nooses!"
Well McCabe just guaranteed that.
Muahahahaha
:-D
Are_we_sure ago
I truly have no idea why you believe any of that, unless deep down you need to, but it's nonsense. Here's a clue when something that would obviously be noticed a year ago comes out as some sort of big news, it's usually nonsense. Did you think the FBI wouldn't notice that his wife was running for senate in Virginia? Seriously? Did you think any of the pro-Trump FBI guys wouldn't mention something if he was out of compliance? It's ludicrous.l
First of all learn what a financial gift is. It's not campaign contributions. Second of all McCabe long ago complied with what he needed to.
It's not debatable. You are completely wrong on this issue and swallowing talking points. All this was debunked last year. This is an attack on law enforcement because Donald Trump is in severe legal jeopardy.
There's absolutely nothing that says if you work for the FBI, your wife can run for office. There is, however, an Office of Integrity and Compliance and you would need to consult with them and follow their guidelines which is what McCabe did.
As smears go, this is a particularly dumb one. But they need to work with what they.
DarkMath ago
"Did you think the FBI wouldn't notice that his wife was running for senate in Virginia?"
You mean the one person above Andrew by the name of James Comey? Come on AreWeSure, you're not this naive. The leadership of the FBI can't investigate itself. That's why there's special prosecutors. This reminds me of when you dismissed allegations the CIA was involved in drug running by pointing me to the fact the CIA had investigated itself and found no wrong doing. ROFLMAO. Remember that one AreWeSure? I laughed for hours.
"You are completely wrong on this issue"
Are you denying Andrew McCabe's wife got a $650,000 campaign donation?
"There's absolutely nothing that says if you work for the FBI, your wife can run for office."
And there it is: The Straw Man! He always shows up with you. Of course an FBI employee's spouse can run for office. However the FBI employee must report any monetary gifts given to their family of greater than $200 and recuse themselves if there's a conflict of interest.
Are you denying that Andrew McCabe's wife getting $650,000 from Democratic sources would produce a conflict of interest in the investigation into Hillary's email server and possibly sending classified documents?
You better think long and hard on that one AreWeSure.
:-D
Are_we_sure ago
You're getting dumber by the day.
It's not a gift
DarkMath ago
"It's not a gift"
I was using the broadest interpretation of "gift" given disclosure rules but to make you happy I'll say campaign contribution. It's still the same question:
Is Andrew McCabe's wife getting a $650,000 campaign contribution from a close associate of Hillary Clinton a potential conflict of interest given McCabe's investigation into Hillary's use of an unencrypted email server?
Here's a little something to get you started.
Just in case clicking a link is too much effort:
Sure seems like your industrial strength naivete has clouded your vision again. Just in case you forgot, here's your most recent browbeater accusing me and The Inspector General of the Department of Justice and the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee of being "dumb":
:-D
DarkMath ago
"You don't understand the science"
I just sent you this via a private message but I'll copy it in here in case anyone wants to read my response.
"no evidence of demolition"
That's simply wrong. There were numerous pieces of evidence that pointed to demolition:
1) The WTC contains spherical nodules of steel consistent with the use of thermite or nanothermite.
2) What appears to be molten steel pouring out of the towers around the impact sites.
3) The FDNY witnesses who saw "rivers of molten steel" in the basements of the WTCs. (You can debate whether it was steel but they saw molten metal.)
4) The temperature recorded at hot spots during clean-up were above anything jet fuel or an office fire could have produced.
5) Numerous steel girders showed diagonal cuts were similar to cuts made during building demolition. (again it's debatable who put the diagonal cuts there's just speculation on both sides)
6) WTC 7 fell symmetrically despite the off-center damage NIST found would require an UNSYMMETRICAL collapse.
7) WTC 7 wasn't hit by an airplane and its collapse due to demolition is much easier to believe than the official story it collapsed due to minor structural damage and an office fire.
8) WTC owner Larry Silverstein used the common building demolition term "pull" implying a decision was made to bring down WTC 7 on purpose. Again this points to a controlled demolition and not a collapse due to fire.
9) Larry Silverstein has made several slips of the tongue implying he had advanced knowledge of 9/11 the most egregious being this one.
10) WTC head janitor heard and felt explosions in the basements of WTC 1 and 2 BEFORE impacts.
So yeah, there is ample evidence pointing to building demolition AreWeSure. The problem is you refuse to consider it.
:-D
Are_we_sure ago
You put this in the Elsa thread??
Anyhoo.
Spherical nodules of iron basically appear if have hot small bits of iron, and not much oxygen. If you like steel wool with a cigarette lighter, you can make these. Wait, how can a cigarette light ignite steel wool? Properties of metals, like ignition and melting point change when the are very small like the threads of steel wool.]
Here's a photography page that show how dramatically make spherical nodules. (ok, I did look this up.) https://digital-photography-school.com/playing-fire-steel-wool-spinning-landscape/
You know what else produces them. Submitting steel columns coated in the primer paint they use on steel columns.
Another way to create them would be friction. The WTC would have produced a helluva lot of friction as it came down.
3 is basically the same as above.
4 relies on you not knowing how thermite works. The hotspots at the WTC, were a fire that was burning under the pile for weeks I believe, there were enough air pockets to keep them burning and sometimes, the rubble was super hot and if moved the top layer, fires would spring up again, once the air hit the hot rubble. Thermite under goes such a strong when heated because it has its own oxygen source. It's basically a mixture of metals where one of them is an oxide. The most common recipe is iron oxide, aka Rust mixed with elemental aluminum. Once it gets hot enough to react, it rips the oxygen atoms away from the iron and they react with the aluminum and it spits out molten iron and aluminum oxide. Since it has its own oxygen, it will react underwater (they use it for underwater welding) and it will react quickly until it all done. There's no way thermite could have been the source of heat days or weeks later. The reason thermite gets so hot is it released all its energy as quick as it can (looked up some of this.) For this, reason, it's actually a poor candidate to do what the conspiracists claim it did at the WTC.
It's not a high explosive like used in demolitions and it's uneven, erratic reaction, you couldn't guarantee it would all take the same amount of time on each column. Which if you're trying to hide what you did is a giant risk.
It's actually not good at heating things long term. You know what things are more energy dense than thermite? Desks, office chairs, files cabinets full of paper. This is because thermite is metal, a cubic foot would be much heavier the things in the office that would burn quite nicely, you would literally need several tons of it to take out a floor symmetrically at the WTC, let alone 90 of them.) It's very high temperature, but not a lot of heat per pound. Temperature and Heat are different. A glacier has more heat than cigarette lighter. Because while the cigarette lighter will get very, very hot and melt part of the glacier, its fuel will run out way before the glacier is melted.
It also is not easy to ignite. And the things that ignite it would not last in fire for an hour.
How old is this list? This was debunked right after the first version of Loose Change came out. DM, it's so hilarious, you discovered this so late, because so much of what you point has been settled for years. Remember the 9/11 conspiracy didn't kick in for years. It was only after Iraq it really gained steam. So conspiracists were searching for photos from years earlier and they found angle cuts like used in building demolition. BECAUSE IT was used in BUILDING DEMOLITION. The cuts were made while trying to clean up the pile of rubble and there are photos of guys in the pile making these cuts. Also if you don't know, to get to the beams, you would have to rip up occupied offices and clean them up with no one noticing then or after 9/11 that something was up. Also the torches that cut steel have some nasty fumes they leave. That would be trapped in an open office.
WTC 7 did not fall symmetrically. (Also what about WTC 5 or any of the others buildings that collapsed that day --yes there were other collapses--why do the conspiracists never bring those up?) Does DM know he is using a deceptive clip? What this gif shows is the very end of the collapse. WTC 7 was a tube within a tube. What these shows is the collapse of the outer perimeter once the insides have already collapsed.
When you look at the full sequence, you see that Mechanical structure on the roof on the building collapses long before the perimeter. This means the support underneath this has gone out. Then you see a "kink" in the roof as the perimeter goes down. Here's the full sequence. It was not symmetrical. https://i1.wp.com/k007.kiwi6.com/hotlink/muh1jkz993/wtc7funnyone-o.gif
WTC was a massive office fire. The building was the size of a football field and fire burned on several floors over the course of hours. Hours before the building collapsed, the NYFD notice the building was bulging on one of the corners. Not a good sign. This means hours before it went down the structural integrity was compromised. As they tried to fight the fire the NYFD heard the building creaking. This is when they decided to "pull" the rescue effort.
This is just silly. What was pulled was the fire fighters and Silverstein did not make that decision a FDNY captain did. And you don't "pull" a building when you use explosives. That is for other types of demolitions.
This one is new to me, but still silly. You're going off a slip of the tongue now? You really think there were secret design meetings before 9/11? What would be the purpose of this?
Yeah that janitor's a winner, isn't he.
Anyhow, if you want to hear many, many accounts of people in the towers. You can go here.
https://sites.google.com/site/911stories/insidethenorthtower%3Awitnessaccounts%2Clobb
There are several accounts of jet fuel exploding in the elevator shafts way below the impact. There were several explosions throughout the building including the subbasements where this janitor was. How he was able to determine which sound was the plane impact is pretty unclear to me. He had no visual reference of the plane. How did he know which sound was the plane. He was much closer to the exploding fireballs, so they probably sounded louder than the plane which he was what 900 feet below? He seems much more likely he simply was confused about what he heard. The other witnesses did not hear it the same way.
As you read the witnesses stories, you will hear a lot of injuries like you would get in jet fuel fireball igniting. People had severe burns and even their clothes burned off, but they did not have the types of injuries you get when high explosives detonate. Jet Fuel doesn't detonate, the technical term for what it does is Deflagration which means the wave created is slower than the speed of sound. High explosives detonate at such high speed they create pressure waves. Pressure waves can cause internal organ damage even if you were not close enough to be burned, they also pop eardrums.
Also DM, witness reports burning jet fuel at 9:12 AM.
That's at least 9 minutes after the second plane impacted and 27 minutes after first impact.
DarkMath ago
Spherical nodules of metal can be produced by nanothermite. But that entire debate doesn't matter if you consider the only guaranteed byproduct of all thermite mixtures is molten iron which was, DING DING DING DING DING DING, found abundantly in the basements of the WTCs.
Back to the support column debate a steel high rise will remain standing with even 80% of its support columns severed. A complete failure due to the collapse of only a few support columns is highly unlikely and impossible to produce the highly synchronized collapse we saw on 9/11. So says a man who demolishes steel buildings for a living. The symmetry with which WTC 1, 2 and 7 collapsed is impossible. Again WTC 7 is the most damning proof a demolition occurred.
Moving on, explosions like those heard during a building demolition are clearly audible various times before the collapses.
I stopped at "there were enough air pockets to keep them burning". It's preposterous to argue that "air pockets" could sustain any type of combustion hot enough to keep metal in liquid form for over a month. Seriously that's beyond the pale.
:-D
Are_we_sure ago
Spherical nodules of metal can be produced a lot of ways. Many of them were present at the WTC collapse.
Truthers claim they can only be produced at super high temperatures. But a Bic lighter is all you need when the particles are small.....just like the dust samples they burned. They dust samples they didn't take to any chemical experts to test in their study. The dust samples they won't share with scientists who want to duplicate their results. This is proof of nothing. It's like saying I tested going to work on pogo stick, therefore a pogo stick must be the way people get to work.
This is false. Thermite is not a compound, it's a type of reaction. Just as all explosives are not dynamite, all thermite is not iron oxide thermite. This is by far the most common, though. You can make themite from copper like here 3 CuO + 2 Al → 3 Cu + Al2O3
or chromium oxide 2Al + Cr2O3 → Al2O3 + 2Cr
All of the following can make thermite
Iron(III) Oxide - Fe2O3 Iron(II, III) Oxide - Fe3O4 Copper(II) Oxide - CuO Copper(I) Oxide - Cu2O Tin(IV) Oxide - SnO2 Titanium(IV) Oxide - TiO2 Manganese(IV) Oxide - MnO2 Manganese(III) Oxide - Mn2O3 Chromium(III) Oxide - Cr2O3 Cobalt(II) Oxide - CoO Silicon Dioxide - SiO2 Nickel(II) Oxide - NiO Vanadium(V) Oxide - V2O5 Silver(I) Oxide - Ag2O
I'm going to introduce to you an argument term here: Assuming facts not in evidence. You have no idea what the molten metal is and to say it's iron is to assume a fact you don't have evidence for.
There's no way this can be true. there's too much variation in building designs. And I'm assuming the 20% of the remaining columns are spaced out appropriately. In the case of WTC, with its design, this is impossible. The core columns were not 80% of the total columns and if you removed those the building surely would collapse.
Unprotected Steel structures fail due to fire all the time. WTC 1 and 2 were unprotected structures at the time of the fire, because the Spray-on Fire Resistant Material was removed from steel supports by the plane impact. WTC 7 was one of the most massive office fires ever. It might have been bigger than the towers because it was on more floors and it burned with out any fire suppression for a few hours longer than the SFRM was rated for.
Since 9/11 fire has brought down other steel structures. In one case the building had a concrete part and a steel part and only the steel part collapsed.
Um, no. He's an explosives loader. He has no special knowledge of physics, engineering, chemistry etc. On a blasting crew, he is literally less knowledgeable than a job that has the title of a "Powder Carrier "
To become licensed explosives loader in NYC, you have to pass a 20 question test. The questions are like this
He does not demolishes steel buildings for a living. He works...or worked for 2 years at a company that demolishes buildings for a living. He's an embarrassingly weak witness. Here's his boss explaining why the WTC were not a controlled demolition. His response to the truther who claims the explosives could have been placed before the building was occupied is just priceless. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nj6ZtXt6W90
Here's some of his work which absolutely demolishes the idea that noises like a controlled demolition were heard. https://youtu.be/Zr6Jb0MQafI?t=166
If you want to cut steel, you can't make explosives quiet. To make them quiet would reduce their power. It's impossible. This is why truthers started looking at thermite. Because a controlled demolition through explosives was ludicrous.
You still dishonestly using a gif that does not show the full collapse of WTC7.
DarkMath ago
" Thermite is not a compound"
Please AreWeSure of course I know that. By " byproduct" I meant the result of thermite burning through metal is, duh, molten metal.
"Assuming facts not in evidence. You have no idea what the molten metal is"
Correct! That's why Trump needs to reopen the investigation because NIST said no molten metal was found AT ALL. That's clearly not the case given the testimony of numerous people who took part in the rescue and subsequent clean up.
"'80% of its support columns severed.'.....There's no way this can be true."
That's your opinion. You're neither an engineer or work in the building demolition business. It's certainly possible given, DING DING DING, the towers were built 6 times stronger than they needed to be.
"Since 9/11 fire has brought down other steel structures."
Apples to oranges. A bridge is not a building please stop implying they're the same thing. A steel bridge can just collapse without even a fire, see the bridge collapse in Minneapolis.
"He's an explosives loader. He has no special knowledge of physics, engineering, chemistry etc."
That's called the Appeal to Authority fallacy. Scientific truths don't care how many people believe them, where they went to school, what degree they got or whether they own a demolition company. Facts are facts. And the facts clearly point to serious weaknesses in the NIST theory of the collapse.
You should welcome a new WTC collapse investigation. Scientific facts aren't afraid and they don't run away from a fight. In fact they welcome a challenge. In my almost 30 years in the software engineering field I have come across all sorts of science both good and bad. I've also been exposed to many good and bad ideas. Without fail the bad ideas I've come across are always above reproach. They're never allowed to be questioned and if you do there's hell to pay for it.
Then one day you come into work and the bad idea is gone, it got fired or laid off and all that's left is a smoking crater.
:-D
darkknight111 ago
Are We Sure is just a shill. No better explanation. Therefore he's one of "their" willing servants and thus just as bad as they are.