LOOSE CHANGE: New 9/11 documentary receives media coverage

The thing that gets me is, I can tell you haven't done a bit of research into the "official" story. You assume that you know all the facts when it's clear you don't. Have you done any of your own research, other than for what the media has mislead you to think regarding the attacks?

Also, what are your credentials, and why should I believe something that you say over the numerous structural engineers and physicists, like professor Steven Jones, who despute the official story with their findings that totally tear apart the "fire brought the buildings down" lie?

 

Yes, we know what it takes to demolish a building. We know how long it takes.

I take it you didn't watch the video. Of course not, you already have all the answers, apparently.

 

Nobody ever said that it collapsed from the bottom. The bottom was blown out first, likely to ensure the building would fall onto its footprint and would collapse all the way down.

How do you explain these eyewitness accounts? Are these people lying? Was the damage described caused by something else other than explosives?

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2004/281104undergroundexplosions.htm

Not yet convinced?

http://www.prisonplanet.com/911.html#bombs

So you believe that all 47 collumns failed at one, causing the building to fall straight down at free-fall speeds while turning to dust?

Or was the inner core blown?

Again, you prove how disingenuous you are. Either that, or you like talking like you know something you in fact know very little about.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/seismic.html

http://www.americanfreepress.net/09_03_02/NEW_SEISMIC_/new_seismic_.html

 

I didn't say concrete powders by themselves would burn. I said that there could be an interaction between the concrete particles and molten aluminum that could release heat. There would be a lot of surface area between the concrete powder and the molten aluminum, whereby aluminum could grab oxygen from the concrete and release heat. It might explain why there were reports of hot pools of molten metal in the pit after the collapse.

As I said in the previous post, I would have to look into this more. I don't claim to know everything, although some have unfairly accused me of this.

One of the contentions of Jones is that there were what looked like ingots of molten metal with slag on top of them that had solidified. He contends it was molten iron caused by thermite used to intentionally demolish the buildings. Molten aluminum seems more plausible considering the the fires alone were enough to melt aluminum of the aircraft and the building facade.

It would have been easy to tell what type of metal it was. One could have put a magnet to it. If it was actually steel, the magnet would have stuck. If not, it was aluminum.

So much of the debris got moved so quickly that things were not documented as properly as they should have been. That's one of the unfortunate aspects of the cleanup of WTC. Much information that could have helped us determine it's collapse better and how to improve building design was lost.

The scientific american article mentions something similar about aluminum but with molten aluminum acting upon solid concrete:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000B7FEB-A88C-1C75-9B81809EC588EF21&pageNumber=3&catID=4

"Others have pointed out the possibility that the aviation fuel fires burned sufficiently hot to melt and ignite the airliners' aluminum airframe structures. Aluminum, a pyrophoric metal, could have added to the conflagrations. Hot molten aluminum, suggests one well-informed correspondent, could have seeped down into the floor systems, doing significant damage. "Aluminum melts into burning 'goblet puddles' that would pool around depressions, [such as] beam joints, service openings in the floor, stair wells and so forth...The goblets are white hot, burning at an estimated 1800 degrees Celsius. At this temperature, the water of hydration in the concrete is vaporized and consumed by the aluminum. This evolves hydrogen gas that burns.

Aluminum burning in concrete produces a calcium oxide/silicate slag covered by a white aluminum oxide ash, all of which serve to insulate and contain the aluminum puddle. This keeps the metal hot and burning. If you look at pictures of Iraqi aircraft destroyed in their concrete shelters [during the Persian Gulf war], you will notice a deep imprint of the burned aircraft on the concrete floor."

.

 

Ok

So let us say for arguments sake that Rat and Lick are right.

What then?

Let us say that they convinced a majority of the American public.

What then?

**

Lick is calling for a full and transparent inquiry into 9/1, I support that, but how is it meant to be brought about?

By election?

Would Lick ask people to elect all pro-inquiry candidates, would that mean not caring if they were otherwise politically of the right or left?

Rat claims that all political parties are controlled by ‘the conspiracy’ so a presume he would say it wasn’t worth voting, even if there was a chance of getting the inquiry?

By Revolution?

Rat says that once enough people have ‘woken up’ they can do something, he also claims that the ‘system’ is completely corrupt.

So presumably he would want to change it? But what would he put in it’s place?

He has claimed to be a libertarian, supported libertarian type policies, wants a ‘return’ to the US constitution, claims to want small government (although is unable to say what he means) and is on record as saying he thinks some Republican policies are too left wing.

It makes you wonder what kind of US would come about after a Rat Revolution and is Lick supporting him?

**

You have to ask yourselves, what are Rat and Lick up to are they really wanting to work toward a better future if so what is their vision of that future and are they the same future?

 

Balbus, whilst Rat and I (and millions of others) may share certain views on the fraud of 911 and the unilateralist agenda being played out in its wake, I do not appreciate the glib manner in which you attempt to lump our views together. Rat has no need for my endorsement nor I his.

For my part, I have already stated my lack of any confidence that sufficient public awakening will occur in my lifetime to make any "revolution" possible, certainly not on the basis of information alone. The corporate media blinders have been in place for too many generations to believe that the American public would rise up against the very system which has been incrementally and systematically dispossessing and disenfranchising them until and unless the petrodollar economy itself collapses (which i and many others envisage within the next half century).

Only when personal suffering reaches critical mass in our longtime cozy lands of debt financed apathy will people act in their own REAL interests against the elite class.

As regards the more thread-related question of transparent enquiry into 911, you seem to have forgotten that the US at least already has well established civic watchdog entities like the ACLU through which such a public enquiry could be organised and conducted.

 

Lick

So let me get this straight

I said by revolution or election, so by saying a revolution is not imminently possible and by saying that Congress could be forced to set up an inquiry, I presume you believe in the electoral route?

If so, do you care who you would vote for if they said they would support an inquiry? I mean if the only pro-inquiry candidate was a complete right wing racist thug would you still try and get them into power? What if they were libertarian or conservative, would you care?

This is the thing, if you got your inquiry do you care about anything else or are you goals wider?

**

You mention the ACLU but I think Rat would say that this was already a tool of ‘the conspiracy’ (as is Congress and the whole system) so who should we listen to in this particular debate, people with views like Rat’s or yourself?

 

I do not subscribe to the electoral process of my country Balbus, neither do I consider revolution possible at this time. Do you wish to beat this thread to death with neverending questions that steer the discussion entirely off course as you do with most every other thread or can we leave it at that?

As for the enquiry, no I would not vote for an utter right wing lunatic nor a left wing one simply because of some rhetorical promise to support an enquiry since any true public enquiry would not be initiated by anyone straightjacketed into the corporate owned, corporate serving position of either the Executive or Legislative branches of my nation's governing system.

As I said above, which you utterly failed to take note of apparently (unsurprisingly), civic organisations such as the ACLU would be the organising foundation for any true enquiry. All that is required is sufficient public pressure to force compliance of subpoena by the relevant intelligence and military agencies (FEMA, NORAD, Pentagon, CIA, etc.) or face summary indictment and imprisonment of key officials until that complaince is met with.

But this is neither here nor there until the public shakes off the bogus media assisted conspiracy theory and recognises that the larger agenda at work since is directly against the national interest.

Being a cynic, I defer back to my previous response to you. Nothing will change until the pain and suffering of mainstream America reaches a critical mass with the total collapse of the petrodollar economy.

Doubtless not in my lifetime.

Now, you have my view (speaking from my own academic and professional knowledge), can we leave it at that or will you be badgering this issue to death as well? (whoever this proverbial "we" is that YOU presume to speak for).

 

No.. in your own mind it is not dishonest..maybe i was a little harsh. proof after proof is given to dispell your rationale.. but you continue not to believe otherwise.

You can 'maintain' all you like.. thats another 'lie' you perpetuate.. Maintaining your reasoning even though proof is given otherwise is NO proof you are right.. Just maintaining the 'lie' you continue to think you are right. No indication or aknowledgement you could be wrong on anything you say.

There was a Video made by one of the bombers... Your response to this would be the lie. There HAS been deep investigations and it is PROVEN it was carried out by those in that CCTV image. You would suggest that it was goverment orchestrated.. this is the easy answer for more difficult questions and answers.. you seem not willing to address.
Blame the goverment and spout on about the CIA FBI etc etc etc .. no actual proof at all. All the 'proof' is hidden and will never be given and is being repressed by 'coporate media' and the elite etc etc etc .. how very conveniant.

Even the 'opposition' don't think it was the goverment for pitys sake..

You highlight many possible historical facts this is true.. this is why i could be nearly fooled.. As a whole it is clear you are supporting a ratioanale that is deeply flawed.. let others believe you.. i don't .. You can call me all the names you wish .. i don't mind.

What legislative power was being attempted to be 'grabbed' as 52 plus people were killed in London.. ?.
There is ongoing criticism for the war.. bombs don't go off everyday do they ?..

I read and watch the mass media as much as you.. this does not ultimatley inform my POV at the end of the day.. only helps... just like you do and ALL the other sources i have to inform me.
I consider the media to be deeply flawed and illogical and many of the things you do... nice try.. but blameing my lack of not agreeing with you on the 'media' is laughable.

 

False matthew, link after of admitted assumption and tortured convoluted falsification of the structure design, materials integrity, etc. was paraded by PB without so much as a pause to ask the very simple question (already readdressed by me) of the political pressure on these institutes and government contract-dependent agencies/companies to conform to the US administration's ridiculous coverstory or face losing precious government financing. That thought never once crosses your sheepish mind since you fail to appreciate just how deeply ideological this present neocon cabal is in pursuing their global agenda.

Proof after proof was already given long ago to validate the misreporting (by FEMA and susbsequently most mainstream news outlets) of the very design of the WTC towers themselves, which a priori signals a fraud in the works.

The facts remain that:

1. there was no "inferno" capable of melting let alone softening the steel
2. The molten slag found in the deep footprint of the towers and testitifed to by on sight inspectors was steel and not aluminum, thus indicating thermite detonation of the central cores allowing the building to free fall into their own footprint.
3. The "pancake" theory remains laughable given that the actual structural design (not mentioned by your "official theory" suppositionists) comprise additional cross supports for all floors used for heavy installations. These floors would have abruptly stopped the pancaking early enough in any non-demolition collapse to prevent more than upper story demage in both towers).

More analysis you'll likely just ignore or dismiss

You just go right on believing your uncritical fictions and missing completely the transparent purpose of 911 as well as those most plausibly suspect in its planning and execution.

PROVE its a lie, matt. You can't because all you have is the official word which you believe without reservation. The resulting announcement of Al Qaeda responsibility (according to some easily produced "website" admission) by the UK Gov along with the expected unhindered rollout of its shoot to kill policy speaks volumes to those who actually comprehend the political game being played.

Since I doubt you have an ounce of political sensitivity let alone acadmic knowledge of the same, you can do nothing but rail against any who dare challenge your faith in the pronouncement of government spokespersons.

See above, obviously you dont pay attention to the timelines of government policymaking too carefully.

Good day to you dupe.

 

MILLION'S???????? wtf , where did you come up with those number's?

 

I guess from the millions that marched against the war.. with a poulation of 6 billion it is concievale MILLIONS share the same belief as MILLIONS share mine.. and MILLIONS share your POV.. others i guess you can count on one hand the amount of people that believe it.. but thats never going to be quantifiable..

 

Does anyone anywhere use thermite for demolition? I can´t find any examples. And, notably, although we are supposed to believe thermite can instantly melt the support structure for one of the largest buildings in the world, the military doesn´t use thermite against armoured targets. Strange.

 

Thermite is usually used to melt metals for the purposed of welding them together. It can be used to repair a structure in-place. There are some special types of thermite or thermate that can be made explosive. I'm not aware of it being used extensively for demolition as an explosive. Even if it was, the amounts would be very small relative to the amount of debris in the WTC collapses. Molten aluminum from the aircraft and facade is understandable, though. It's difficult to imagine there was no molten aluminum from the aircraft and building. The fires were more than hot enough to melt aluminum.

.

 

I know thermite can explode, and i know it can melt things because it is hot. My question is why, if "thermite charges" can cut through the presumably massive WTC steel pillars, nobody uses thermite in demolition, or as an anti-armor weapon? As far as I can tell, thermite demolition charges are a concept made up purely to fill in a gap in a conspiracy theory.

I saw one pseudo-science article on a conspiracy website explaining how "thermite demolition charges" could work (without showing that they exist or have ever been used for that purpose), it basically threw around a bunch of equations and numbers (notably assuming that 100% of the energy of the charges is absorbed as heat by the steel columns, a miraculous level of efficiency).

Anyway I was just wondering if it is one of those "the plane just disappeared after the missile hit the pentagon, this makes sense and doesn´t need to be explained" type things, where conspiracy theorist can just make things up and never have to explain them.

 

Some of the conspiracy advocates including Jones are contending that thermate was used because it contains sulfur and sulfur was found on the sites.

A metallurgical analysis was done on samples of some of the steel from the WTC buildings. The grain boundaries of the metal were found to contain sulfur.

However, sulfur is also found in oils, plastics, and in gypsum board which is calcium sulfate. Considering the very large amounts of gypsum board and polymers in the trade center buildings and the fact that it was crushed to powder and dispersed all over the pit, it's not surprising that sulfur would show up in steel beams that remained at temperatures near 600C for many weeks in the pit. The amount of sulfur in the gypsum and polymers dwarfs the amount of sulfur that there would be in any intentionally placed thermate charges.

It's not surprising that sufur was found in WTC7 steel either, since gypsum powder and high temperatures were present in WTC7 after it's collapse. Also, diesel fires were burning in WTC7. Sulfur is a common impurity in diesel fuel. These are much more plausible explanations than sulfur originating from intentionally placed explosives.

The strange corrosion of steel beams that Jones and others refer to is not all that strange either. Hot corrosion of steel is accelerated by the presence of sulfur pentrating into the grain boundaries. This can account for why pieces of steel were observed with their cross-sections reduced by as much as 50% with some exhibiting perforations (conspiracy advocates contend that perforations were caused by thermite or thermate melting the metal).

.

 

Once again:


http://www.prisonplanet.com/911.html#bombs

 

ENGINEERS ARE BAFFLED OVER THE COLLAPSE OF 7 WTC

From the New York Times - 11/29/01


UNEXPLAINED EXPLOSION AT 9/11 COLLAPSE

From American Free Press


WHERE'S THE INFERNO?



FIRST-HAND ACCOUNTS OF UNDERGROUND EXPLOSIONS IN THE NORTH TOWER

CONSTRUCTION WORKER GIVES ANOTHER ACCOUNT OF UNDERGROUND BLASTS IN THE WTC



WTC CONSTRUCTION CERTIFIERS SAY TOWERS SHOULD HAVE EASILY WITHSTOOD JET FUEL TEMPERATURES

RESCUE FIREMAN LOUIE CACCHIOLI - "WE THINK THERE WAS BOMBS SET IN THE BUILDING"

 

EYEWITNESS REPORTS OF BOMBS PERSIST AT WTC

Christopher Bollyn - American Free Press - 12/2/01

MORE PHOTOGRAPHS UNEARTHED TO SUGGEST BOMBS IN THE TWIN TOWERS

Propaganda Matrix

EXPERT SAYS EXPLOSIVES BROUGHT DOWN THE TOWERS - THEN STRANGELY CHANGES HIS MIND DAYS LATER

Albuquerque Journal - 9/21/01

STEEL NOT SEEN AS FACTOR IN WTC COLLAPSE

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel - 8/27/02

NBC: FDNY CHIEF OF SAFETY REPORTED BOMBS WITHIN THE TOWERS AND ON THE PLANES ON 9/11

GUILIANI RECEIVED WARNING WTC TOWERS WERE GOING TO COLLAPSE

WTC CONSTRUCTION MANAGER: TOWERS WERE DESIGNED TO TAKE NUMEROUS PLANE CRASHES

ALEX JONES AT GROUND ZERO: THE USE OF EXPLOSIVES IN THE 9/11 ATTACK

CLOSE-UP OF WTC-7 SHOWS UNMISTAKABLE DEMOLITION CHARGES

VIDEO: AS SOUTH TOWER IS HIT, BOMBS GO OFF IN NORTH TOWER

BOMB SNIFFING DOGS REMOVED FROM WTC DAYS BEFORE COLLAPSE

FULL HORROR OF WTC ATTACK ON FBI TAPE - "THEN COMES A SECOND AND MUCH LARGER EXPLOSION"