Reply With Quote
See how much you can learn from conspiracy theorists if you just open your mind?
Although a simple concrete barrier can sucker punch a dump truck to a dead stop and virtually atomize a fighter jet, we should expect the impact site of a passenger jet on the world's largest reinforced concrete building to be marked by a plane-shaped hole in the wall.
See how much you can learn from conspiracy theorists if you just open your mind?
Last edited by RandomGuy; 05-07-2007 at 10:07 AM.
this video is going to cost me at least 1,200.00 dollars but thanks to TMZ I will get twice that amount when they see this topic posted. this is first hand be fast and copy
Since verbose, difficult-to-read scientific reports contradict my claims of conspiracy, I'll use a different approach: Nothing says "Science" like lots of photos, drawings, and short captions in a PowerPoint or Flash animation backed by spooky "conspiracy music."
This really was a pretty good prank by mouse. The payoff -- the "videos" -- was hilarious.
A commonly repeated 9/11conspiracy theory is that an incendiary, thermite or thermate, rather than an explosive, was used to cut the huge steel columns, causing the WTC buildings to collapse. Steven E. Jones, a (former) physicist at Brigham Young University in Salt Lake City, and (former) co-chair of the 9/11 conspiracy-promoting “Scholars for Truth,” is the chief proponent of this theory.
In his paper “Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?” Jones shows a startling propensity for abandoning the scientific method in favor of jumping to unsubstantiated conclusions. As with his “evi-dence” that Jesus Christ visited the Americas (a Mormon tenet), in his 9/11 work Jones promotes faith over intellectual rigor.
For example, in this rambling defense of his theories, Jones cites an EPA report by Erik Swartz as evidence of the presence of thermite at the WTC: “Large amounts of 1,3 diphenylpropane strongly suggests the high-tech thermite arson used on the WTC buildings...” (bolding mine).
Swartz’s EPA report says nothing of the kind:
One molecule, described by the EPA's Erik Swartz, was present at levels "that dwarfed all others": 1,3-diphenylpropane. "We've never observed it in any sampling we've ever done," Swartz said. He said it was most likely produced by the plastic of tens of thousands of burning computers. http://tinyurl.com/rp7xg The report abstract is here: http://tinyurl.com/qvzd7
In it, Swartz says, “In addition, the compound 1,3-diphenylpropane- [ 1',1'-(1,3-propanediyl) bis-benzene] was observed, and to our knowledge, this species has not previously been re-ported from ambient sampling. It has been associated with polystyrene and other plastics, which are in abundance at the WTC site.”
Steven Jones claims to have found traces of thermate (thermite with a small amount of sulfur and a large amount of barium nitrate added) on a piece of steel from the WTC. This claim is baseless. Jones found some sulfur and other trace metals, and nothing could be less surprising. Sulfur-based drywall was the third most-used construction material at the WTC. Thousands of gallons of fuel oil containing sulfur was spilled beneath the rubble piles, along with numerous other sulfur-containing inflammables. Thermate typically contains only 2% sulfur, so if the sulfur Jones detected was from thermate, we would expect to see the re-action byproducts of its main ingredients, iron oxide, aluminum, and barium nitrate, in proportionally greater amounts. The qualitative chemical analyses performed on sulfidated steel from WTC 7, 1, and 2 shows no signs of the presence of the incendiaries Jones says were used. http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf
An excellent paper by chemist Frank Greening discusses sources of sulfur at the WTC site and examines the sulfidation observed in some steel found in the debris pile: http://911myths.com/Sulfur.pdf
A common CT claim is that the angled column in the photo below is evidence of a cut made by thermite / thermate. Until recently this photo was prominently featured on the “Scholars for Truth” website and in Steven Jones’ papers. It still is featured on the page of another website promoting a debate challenge by the Scholars on teamliberty.net ( I have accepted the debate challenge, and as of this writing the debate the de-bate may be moved to my alma mater, Franklin Pierce College in New Hampshire.)
Had these CTs taken a minute to enlarge the photo, as I have done below, they would have seen that the column shows obvious blowtorch marks, and slag sitting on top of the loose debris. Ironworkers used oxyacetylene torches to cut the WTC steel.
None of the hundreds of photos I have of Ground Zero show any sign of steel being cut by incendiaries or blasted by explosives. Thermite/thermate cuts vertically, with gravity. For example, the military uses thermite to disable materiel to prevent it being used by the enemy. A thermite grenade placed on the horizontal hood of a truck will melt straight down through the engine block.
Therefore, to attack a thick vertical steel column with thermite, a large, complex, and extremely durable (capable of withstanding temperatures of 4000 F) apparatus would have to be attached to each column to hold the thermite against the steel throughout the cutting process. And equally durable ignition de-vices (timers / wiring / radio receivers: take your pick) would need to survive the aircraft impacts/debris impacts and raging fires, and work perfectly when needed.
The huge thermite/ate devices would have to be attached to many columns, for redundancy, because the “conspirators” would not know exactly where the planes or debris would hit. Obviously, it would be highly su ious if the building collapses initiated in an undamaged area.
Needless to say, no such devices were found in the 1.6 billion pounds of debris that was meticulously sorted by FBI investigators and NYPD detectives at Fresh Kills Landfill, and no evidence of ther-mite/ate use at the WTC has ever been found. Professor Jones simply ignores the many possible sources of the trace chemicals he found on steel, and he neglects to mention that he did not find traces of some of the most common byproducts of thermite/ate. Nor does he have a chain of custody for this steel that would rule out other sources of contamination.
I’ve only delved this far into this subject to show how quickly the CT claims unravel when examined in the light of the facts. Thanks to “Huntsman” at the JREF forum for his enlightening posts regarding his military experience with explosives and incendiaries.
For now, perhaps we should leave the final word on this issue to Brent Blanchard of Protec, from his paper A Critical Analysis of the Collapse of WTC Towers 1, 2 & 7 from an Explosives and Conven-tional Demolition Industry Viewpoint:
Dr. Jones acknowledges that his investigation is still in the research phase and that questions regarding the viability of his theory remain unanswered. For example, it is unknown how thermite’s destructive process could have been applied and initiated simultaneously on so many beams – in several buildings – undetected and/or under such extreme conditions. It is also unusual that no demolition personnel at any level noticed telltale signs of thermite’s de-generative “fingerprint” on any beams during the eight months of debris removal. http://tinyurl.com/z6zyc
Still waiting on that history.
Why lookie what happened. Mouse started faking more stuff. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
This prank is not a year old, but only six months old. My bad.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 10-17-2007 at 08:27 AM.
Bump. Maybe he meant this thursday, i.e. today...
Bump. Maybe he meant this thursday, i.e. today...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions