William Rodriguez Vindicated by Newly Released 9/11 Commission Notes

[Blake]

Quit being a . I am trying to approach this with an open mind not just accept whatever someone tells me. I have no definitive opinion on the matter and I definitely do not come with some preconceived notion or agenda. TBH I see this as a good thought exercise.

If you are truly looking for info, this isn't really the place.

As for the firefighters I do not know what they were directed to look for and quite frankly neither do you. You are hardly an authority on the matter nor do you have personal knowledge of the situation. Quit acting like you are or you do.

RG has posted numerous links to back whatver info he is claiming.

You have posted nothing except that you are smartier than everyone else in physics.

Quit being a .

[Galileo]

Your a sell out!

You believe anything they tell you. That picture was not even 24 hours old clean up didn't take place till weeks later. Like some fool is going to cut a steel beam at a 45 degree angle with a sharp re bar sticking in his ass?

You all can argue amongst yourselves from now on. I told you many times if your going to Bull me with a lie about this photo you lost all debate creds.

In a way I am Glad Chump and his salad tossing pals think this cut was done during a clean up? it really shows how desperate you all are.

I'm sorry, but there's enough proof that the WTC was a demolition, to not resort to bogus arguments.

What's your evidence this photo was taken within 24 hours?

Why would they need to put thermite that close to the ground?

[Blake]

I'm sorry, but there's enough proof that the WTC was a demolition, to not resort to bogus arguments.

you mean the earwitness testimony?

I thought we went over this, that "no, someone saying he heard an explosion is not considered proof"

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You still don't understand.

Explosives were not needed once the top of the building started falling.

There were no explosives.

There is no evidence of explosives whatsoever.

20 acres of office building can do it all by itself. Really. Go stand under 20 acres of office building, drop it and try to stop it. Let me know how it works out for you.

Every time you break a piece of structure, strain energy is consumed. The amount of strain energy built into a structure thus depends on how many times you break the parts. The amount of potential energy, PE, due to downward movement of the WTC 1 upper part mass was definitely too small to destroy the lower structure in 100 000's of pieces and dust. There is 1000 times more strain energy, SE, built into the structure below than any PE applied from above! Calculations are given below and here.

http://www.ae911truth.org/

[FuzzyLumpkins]

If you are truly looking for info, this isn't really the place.




RG has posted numerous links to back whatver info he is claiming.

You have posted nothing except that you are smartier than everyone else in physics.

Quit being a .

I've never made any claim to my a en in physics.

Also you obviously do not know the difference between looking for information and a thought exercise.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

This has been thoroughly explained in the past, and they fell like they did because of how they were made. If you study the videos carefully, you see evidence of the inner core falling several seconds before the outside frame starts to come apart. These building had a huge footprint, and gravity pulls objects strait down. The joints between trusses was an insignificant length compared to the footprint to twist or bend the building any significant distance.

No I'm not. Sulfer residue was found? Is that why the thermate claim? Before it was thermite. The conspiracy theorists keep changing the story. With thermite, magnesium or and/or other elements would have been fused in the residue. With thermate, other elements yet. The residue was not consistant with either.

Buildings have steel and you can bet there was allot of aluminum there too. Enough rust from the burning fire, contact with aluminum, and the force of collapse was plenty to start a thermitic reaction. Not enough to cause any more damage because it would be trace amounts, but enough trace to register for someone looking for signs of thermite or thermate. They just didn't complete the analysis to see the other elements were missing.

ummmm.... Now keep in mind that this report is from FEMA:

FEMA's investigators inferred that a "liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur" formed during a "hot corrosion attack on the steel." The eutectic mixture (having the elements in such proportion as to have the lowest possible melting point) penetrated the steel down grain boundaries, making it "susceptible to erosion." Following are excerpts from Appendix C, Limited Metallurgical Examination.
Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.
...
The thinning of the steel occurred by high temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation.
...
The unusual thinning of the member is most likely due to an attack of the steel by grain boundary penetration of sulfur forming sulfides that contain both iron and copper.
...
liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.
...
The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure. A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evid...rgy/index.html

Also if they were to design a building such that if part of it collapsed that the rest of it would collapse to in a precise manner that is pretty sad.

[ChumpDumper]

http://www.ae911truth.org/

Next you'll be showing the cardboard box demonstration.

[Blake]

I've never made any claim to my a en in physics.

I know quite a bit of 'basic' science and quite a bit more than just that.

My apologies. Apparently you just know quite a bit more than just 'basic' science.

Also you obviously do not know the difference between looking for information and a thought exercise.

You obviously do not have enough correct information in order to play your thought exercise game.

[ChumpDumper]

Nevermind, I'll do it.

[Blake]

Next you'll be showing the cardboard box demonstration.

It's part of his "thought exercise"

[Alex Jones]

I'm sorry, but there's enough proof that the WTC was a demolition, to not resort to bogus arguments.

Have you told that to ChumpDumper?

What's your evidence this photo was taken within 24 hours?

http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=5091

Core column stubs at Ground Zero (source) Note the sharp 45 degree cut, with molten slag, on the massive steel column in the far background. Quite a glaring contradiction to the official theory that the Twin Towers simply collapsed spontaneously from fire and impact. This had to have been quite a talented cataclysm to make such a neat cut. Any steel worker or demolition expert will immediately recognize that such a cut in steel could only be made with some kind of torch or other method that can produce intense, sharply focused heat and energy, leaving the tell-tale slag. But this steel is way too thick for an acetylene hand torch to cut straight through. That leaves one other obvious suspect: a shaped cutter-charge.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...71955308136871

Why would they need to put thermite that close to the ground?

I take it you never cut a tree down before. Just you asking this question proves you deserve any cyber ass raping Chump gives you.

[Galileo]

Have you told that to ChumpDumper?



http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=5091

Core column stubs at Ground Zero (source) Note the sharp 45 degree cut, with molten slag, on the massive steel column in the far background. Quite a glaring contradiction to the official theory that the Twin Towers simply collapsed spontaneously from fire and impact. This had to have been quite a talented cataclysm to make such a neat cut. Any steel worker or demolition expert will immediately recognize that such a cut in steel could only be made with some kind of torch or other method that can produce intense, sharply focused heat and energy, leaving the tell-tale slag. But this steel is way too thick for an acetylene hand torch to cut straight through. That leaves one other obvious suspect: a shaped cutter-charge.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...71955308136871





I take it you never cut a tree down before. Just you asking this question proves you deserve any cyber ass raping Chump gives you.

your "souce" doesn't tell where the photo originally came from, nor more importantly, how you know that it was taken within 24 hours.

As for your "cutting down a tree" analogy, the WTC was a top down demolition. It wasn't cut down like a tree.

[ChumpDumper]

http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=5091

Core column stubs at Ground Zero (source) Note the sharp 45 degree cut, with molten slag, on the massive steel column in the far background. Quite a glaring contradiction to the official theory that the Twin Towers simply collapsed spontaneously from fire and impact. This had to have been quite a talented cataclysm to make such a neat cut. Any steel worker or demolition expert will immediately recognize that such a cut in steel could only be made with some kind of torch or other method that can produce intense, sharply focused heat and energy, leaving the tell-tale slag. But this steel is way too thick for an acetylene hand torch to cut straight through. That leaves one other obvious suspect: a shaped cutter-charge.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...71955308136871

The self-written bio of the author of that piece:



Student of history, religion, exoteric and esoteric, the Humanities in general and advocate for peace, justice and the unity of humankind, not through force, but through self-realization and mutual respect. I have also just come out with my first book, a combination of poetry, photography and essays en led "Post Katrina Blues", my reflections on the Gulf Coast and New Orleans two years after Katrina struck.

I didn't see "Explosives Expert" or "Experienced Steel Structure Demolitionist" anywhere in there.

That explains how his hand torch argument is this easy to upon:

[Galileo]

The self-written bio of the author of that piece:



Student of history, religion, exoteric and esoteric, the Humanities in general and advocate for peace, justice and the unity of humankind, not through force, but through self-realization and mutual respect. I have also just come out with my first book, a combination of poetry, photography and essays en led "Post Katrina Blues", my reflections on the Gulf Coast and New Orleans two years after Katrina struck.

I didn't see "Explosives Expert" or "Experienced Steel Structure Demolitionist" anywhere in there.

That explains how his hand torch argument is this easy to upon:

notice how Chumpdumper argues by character asassination, which has nothing to do with trying to determine when the photo in question was taken.

[ChumpDumper]

notice how Chumpdumper argues by character asassination, which has nothing to do with trying to determine when the photo in question was taken.

The time really doesn't matter -- it's a hand torch used on a thick steel beam at the WTC site, which your hero:

says is impossible.

Notice how Galileo argues by completely failing to understand the point made and changing the subject.

[DarrinS]

Your a sell out!

You believe anything they tell you. That picture was not even 24 hours old clean up didn't take place till weeks later. Like some fool is going to cut a steel beam at a 45 degree angle with a sharp re bar sticking in his ass?

You all can argue amongst yourselves from now on. I told you many times if your going to Bull me with a lie about this photo you lost all debate creds.

In a way I am Glad Chump and his salad tossing pals think this cut was done during a clean up? it really shows how desperate you all are.

Infighting amongst twoofers? Thought I'd never see it.


Actually, that's what has destroyed some of these groups.


The no-planers, video fakery geeks, and energy beamers don't always see eye-to-eye with the controlled demolition w/ unnecessary hijacked planes crowd. I don't even know where the missle-hit-Pentagon people fit into the clique.

[RandomGuy]

Quit being a . I am trying to approach this with an open mind not just accept whatever someone tells me. I have no definitive opinion on the matter and I definitely do not come with some preconceived notion or agenda. TBH I see this as a good thought exercise.

As for the dating on the photos, where is your evidence to the time frame. At this point the entire issue sounds as a he said-she said scenario. Also usually you cut metal at 90 degree angles because its a shorter distance. It really comes down to when those pictures were taken.

And nice strawman. Noone claimed that it was 110 stories or any particular amount.

As for the firefighters I do not know what they were directed to look for and quite frankly neither do you. You are hardly an authority on the matter nor do you have personal knowledge of the situation. Quit acting like you are or you do.

1) I was deliberately trying not to be a . I don't know you yet. I was at all condescending, and, in case you didn't notice, I didn't insult you at all.

2) Since you have asked for a source for my claim of the dating of the photos, I will work to provide it. The debunking website I read that bit on, if memory serves, did provide sources for it. It is a common CT claim, and someone DID debunk it in that manner. Give me a bit to re-find it.

3) It isn't a strawman at all, most conspiracy theorists I have talked to insist that the entire building was wired "because there was no resistance". I merely referred to the most commonly held perception.

4) As for the firefighters, I do know what they saw because many of them have specifically addressed this in personal accounts. In the days following the attacks, it was supposed that there might have been additional bombs, and everybody at ground zero was, if I remember what I read correctly, on the lookout for such things.

I took a look into the CT claims and in the course of fact-checking them, came across enough damning material about how poorly put together the CT "claims" are to come to the conclusion that they are pretty much all full of , and not really worth putting any stock in on their face.

Since you have asked though, I will re-trace my steps and provide the source links required to support my conclusion. The distinguishing feature of debunking websites is that, unlike most "truth" websites, they tend to be very good about sourcing their material with outside, non-biased links.

[ChumpDumper]

Furthermore, no one ever said that every cut was made by a hand torch.

These twoofers think alike -- might have something to do with the foliage in the background of the author's picture.

[Galileo]

The time really doesn't matter -- it's a hand torch used on a thick steel beam at the WTC site, which your hero:

says is impossible.

Notice how Galileo argues by completely failing to understand the point made and changing the subject.

That doesn't explain when the photo was taken either.

[RandomGuy]

Since the 9-11 CTers like to copy and paste ad inifinitum, let's see if we can get some good stuff here.

It might surprise you CTers but there is a whole cottage industry built up around your bull .

They don't sell T-shirts, mugs, or crappy videos.

http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr/

http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...24912447824934

http://www.911mysteriesguide.com/

http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.pdf

Here is a gem: The 9-11 "truthers" in their own "like, words". Icky.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...66640147&hl=en

http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...w/1227842.html

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/

http://wtc.nist.gov/

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

http://www.911myths.com/

Best one out of all the lot so far:
http://www.debunking911.com/

Mike Walter talking about the plane hitting the pentagon, and how irritated he is with the 9-11 "truth" movement for lying about what he said.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycPUDktZpCU

Link to a TON of debunking links:
http://www.debunking911.com/links.htm

Here ARE SOME REALLY PRECIOUS LINKS.

9-11 "truth" scholars turning on each other. You thought they were unstable and kooky when they talk about the government, wait until they start talking about each other.

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


A whole page of youtube debunking videos

A whole page of decent debunking links and one of the best ones so far.

I will start by selecting a link from this page.

[Galileo]

Infighting amongst twoofers? Thought I'd never see it.


Actually, that's what has destroyed some of these groups.


The no-planers, video fakery geeks, and energy beamers don't always see eye-to-eye with the controlled demolition w/ unnecessary hijacked planes crowd. I don't even know where the missle-hit-Pentagon people fit into the clique.

in-fighting between republicrats and social democrats runs pretty strong as well.

[DarrinS]

in-fighting between republicrats and social democrats runs pretty strong as well.

I actually see eye-to-eye with them on this dumbass issue.

[RandomGuy]

Well that took less than a minute.

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

I will add the material in an edit to this post.



There are a number of things they claim with this photo. One is the timeline. They say the photo has firemen which means this was during the rescue operation which only lasted two weeks. Why would they have fireman after the rescue operations? This suggests to them that the cut on the columns were made very close to September 11. The suggestion here is that it was done during the collapse.

They claim that the angle of the cut can't be created by a welding tool and/or is designed to have the building fall in a certain direction.

The other is a yellow substance they claim is residue from a thermite reaction.

Let's examine these claims one by one to see where the evidence takes us...


Timeline and Firemen

The rescue operation took about two weeks. They figured anyone left alive would have died by then anyway, so they started clean up operations and body recovery. During this time there was always at least 50 policemen and 50 firemen left on the scene to recover their fallen brothers. There were even more than that on ground zero until the city of NY told them to leave in November 2001. The city couldn't justify risking the health of 150 police and fireman for body recovery. In fact there was a protest about it which ended with the mayor allowing 50 members of each department on the scene.

Citing safety concerns, Giuliani had sought to scale back the number of firefighters working at ground zero to 25. At one point there had been as many as 150 firefighters and police officers at the site.

The decision angered firefighters still mourning the loss of 343 colleagues in the attacks. Many bodies have not been recovered, and the firefighters said they wanted to help find the remains of their friends and colleagues.

The number of firefighters working at the site was increased to 50 on Thursday.

http://www.firehouse.com/news/2001/11/10_APcharges.html

Below are photos of firemen well after September 11.\

October


December 15th 2001

So the fact that there are firemen in the photo doesn't mean anything. That cut could have been done at any time during the clean up and recovery. Lets not forget the building went down some 6 stories underground. The firemen were recovering bodies mainly from the core and some were in the lobby when it happened. So it's not unreasonable to expect firemen there well after the event. Long enough for an ironworker to cut the column.

Angle and yellow residue

Another point is the angle of the cut. The argument here is that it suggests the column was cut at an angle so the building fell in a certain direction, like a tree. But is it possible the column was cut at an angle so just the column fell in a certain direction during cleanup? This can't be, surely the scholars would have asked an ironworker or someone else on the scene. I bet there isn't one photograph someone can find on the internet of a column which is cut at an angle. Remember, we're talking about "Scholars" here.





Once again, a close up of their column...


Scholars Photo:
http://hereisnewyork.org/gallery/thu...ID=5&picnum=13

The above photo
http://hereisnewyork.org/gallery/thu...ID=5&picnum=73

Note the yellow smoke and residue left behind by the ironworker.

Thermite in general makes an ugly hole with molten metal drips/blobs. It doesn't make clean cuts. It's a powder that undergoes a violent chemical reaction as seen in the video below.

http://www.guzer.com/videos/thermite_car.php

Note how much thermite is used. The pot is about a liter, but how much thermite is that?

Stoichiometric thermite requires 2 moles of Al per 1 mole of Fe2O3

2Al + Fe2O3 = Al2O3 + 2Fe


2 moles of Al weigh 54 g
1 mole of Fe2O3 weighs 160 g

density of Al=2.64 g/cc
density of Fe2O3=5.24 g/cc


54 grams of Al is equivalent to 20.5 cc of Al.
160g of Fe2O3 is equivalent to 30.5 cc of Fe2O3

Therefore, 51 cc of fully dense powder of 20.5 cc Al and 30.5 cc Fe2O3 weighs (54+160) g = 214 g.

A volume of 1000 cc would weigh (1000/51)*214 = 4.2 kg

For a powder packing density of 50%, the powder would weigh:

0.5*4.2 kg = 2.1 kg = 4.8 lb

That much just to burn a small hole in a small car engine. I bet it's even an aluminum block but lets say it isn't. How much do you think it would take to burn a massive core column? Then add enough to burn for 6 weeks! You see where we're going. You'd need tons.

Here's a Debunking911 Fun Fact!
How much mass would be required to produce molten iron from thermite equal to the same volume of molten aluminum droplets shown flowing from the south tower window:


A mole of Fe weighs 54 g. For every mole of Fe produced by thermite, one mole of Al and 0.5 mole of Fe2O3 is needed.

2Al + Fe2O3 = Al2O3 + 2Fe


One mole of Al weighs 27 g. 0.5 mole of Fe2O3 weighs 80 g.

Therefore, (27 + 80) g = 107 g of Al and Fe2O3 is needed to produce 54 g of Fe.

That means the mass of the reactants to that of Fe produced is a ratio of 107/54 = 2. The mass of thermite reactants (Al, Fe2O3) is twice that of the molten iron produced.

Comparing the weight of molten aluminum droplets compared with iron:

Iron is 7.9 g/cc. Aluminum is 2.64 g/cc. Fe is denser than Al by a factor of 3. For the same volume of droplets, Fe would have three times the mass as Al.

To produce the iron from thermite requires a reactant mass that is a factor of 2 more than the iron produced. Also, Fe is 3 times as dense as Al. So, it would take 2*3 = 6 times as much mass to produce the same volume of molten iron droplets from thermite compared with molten aluminum droplets.


Example:

Assume 3000 lbs of aluminum fell from the towers. If it had been molten iron produced by thermite, then 6*3000 = 18,000 lbs of thermite reactants would have been required to produce that same volume of falling mass.

Suppose 10 tons of molten aluminum fell from the south tower, about 1/8th of that available from the airplane. If it had been molten iron produced from thermite, 60 tons of thermite reactants would have to have been stored in Fuji Bank to produce the same volume spilling out of the south tower. The section of floor would have to hold all of that plus the aircraft.

*Amount of aluminum can be ascertained by counting the droplets and measuring their size compared to the known size of the window. It's not easy to get a good number on this. It's based on the number of slugs seen in video stills, their size relative to the window width which was about 22 inches, and the density of aluminum, assuming this was aluminum.

http://www.coolmagnetman.com/magconda.htm

The weight of a gallon of aluminum is about 22.5 pounds. A hundred of these would already be 2250 lbs. A gallon size is not unlike the size of the slugs that were pouring out the window. Look at them relative to the window size. They look small at first, but when you realize how big the towers were, the slugs were fairly large. It must have been in the thousands of pounds.

Some of the video stills show what look like 50 to 100 slugs in just one frame.



The thermite wouldn't have only needed to make a clean cut like the photo above, it would have also needed to cut sideways. Not an easy feat for thermite. You see, it's a powder which burns chaotically. Maybe with some device but no working device has been proven to me to work to cut a vertical column. You can direct it with a canister but that method wouldn't work to cut a column. The canister only makes a small hole. Nano-thermite has been talked about but its uses fall far short of cutting these massive columns. It's in its research stage. They include possible uses for welding molecular devices and possible use as a heat signature flare decoy. Then there is a patent of a device which has been brought up but as of yet, there is no evidence the idea went any further. Does it even work? Even if it did, they are "Ganged" together to make the cut. You would still need these boxes all over the columns. Once again the answer to this from the "scholars" is "rationalized technology". They need this technology to exist so it exists. There is some secret super thermite which can be placed in a canister which can survive 1,100 degree C so the primary charge doesn't go off. "Gee debunking, you're so dumb."

[DarrinS]

Furthermore, no one ever said that every cut was made by a hand torch.

These twoofers think alike -- might have something to do with the foliage in the background of the author's picture.

LMAO -- I didn't even notice that.

Was that photo taken in Mouse's back yard?

[ChumpDumper]

That doesn't explain when the photo was taken either.

It doesn't matter when the photo was taken. A hand torch is being used to cut a beam the author claims is too thick to be cut by a hand torch. Therefore, his claim that a hand torch could not have been used to cut the beams at the WTC site has been proven to be completely false.

If you can't understand that, you have no business making arguments in this thread.