Spork Boards

WAR!

Robert Taylor – December 12, 2007 10:15AM Reply Quote
Well, at least B?K! got a head start.

El Jeffe – April 14, 2009 07:39AM Reply Quote
What a journey.
Look at all those white folks clinging to democracy. :)

rino – April 14, 2009 07:43AM Reply Quote
In America, the only respectable form of socialism is socialism for the rich.
I'm not chiding them for meeting in a democratic fashion, but for the entire socialist thread and not paying taxes and burning books and fear. Such sore fucking losers.

Turn in your medicaid and social security cards please. Return your military pensions. Stop driving on the national highway system and pay for it yourself. Stop buying our subsidized crops. In fact, move away and try some sustenance living. That'll get you off the tax roles.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/14/2009 07:43AM by rino.

tliet – April 14, 2009 07:50AM Reply Quote
OK, I stand corrected. Not 737s but 757 and 767 were used, both comparable to the 707, for which the buildings were designed although the 767 was indeed bigger.

Let's just say that the former administration has been proven to lie about everything when it suited them. In addition, the US has a history of using/abusing major events to influence public opinion. That's why I think it could never hurt to have independent research follow leads.

El Jeffe – April 14, 2009 08:11AM Reply Quote
What a journey.
rino - i wasn't commenting on you. I just saw the crowd/room and thought how white it was. I could not sit through the video.

You're fine, though.

stan adams – April 14, 2009 08:35AM Reply Quote
tliet:

I happened to have done some microscopy work with Walter McCrone, one the world's foremost experts in microscopic analysis. http://www.mcri.org/home/section/10/courses

I often remember him cautioning us, as students, to be careful in making assumptions about what we found on a slide, where it could have found it way to a slide, and what its purpose was. For instance, when he evaluated art work (or icons) for their authenticity he was very scrupulous to merely note the relative percentages of non-period authentic pigments, and rarely would he decisively report that a piece that has large amounts of non-authentic pigment was automatically a fake -- some times there are poor restorations / touch-ups, contaminations from being in more modern artists's studio, accidents. He would leave that for the insurers / owners to conclude...

In the case of this 'nano thermite' I would not hesitate to say that tiny particles of oxidized iron are more likely to distributed across NYC by the wearing of disk brakes and the rolling of subway wheels than by the effects of 100s of tons of explosives that went unnoticed...

Mokers (Moderator) – April 14, 2009 09:04AM Reply Quote
Formerly Remy Martin
tliet,

I think the argument doesn't hold up, particularly how you say that the buildings were built to withstand a 707, as if in the entire history of engineering building to a spec has always proven completely adequate when those specs were challenged under real world conditions. It could very likely be the case that they were built to withstand something 10 times bigger than a 707. The fact that they failed under a set of conditions that they thought they withstand does not lead me to believe that there was some coverup before everything else, rather perhaps the statistical analysis they were able to do back when the towers were built was not as sophisticated as it was today.

Edit: Or perhaps not everything was built up to spec. Shocking that their might be some corruption in the NY building industry, I know.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/14/2009 12:20PM by Mokers.

Bruce Robertson – April 14, 2009 11:16AM Reply Quote
Tliet: forget the leads, forget your claim of scientific interest. It's bullshit.

Just tell us your fantasy.

tliet – April 14, 2009 12:37PM Reply Quote
Bruce, I suggest you watch this first:



Then we'll talk about fantasies and reality.

Bruce Robertson – April 14, 2009 01:37PM Reply Quote
I'm going to download and watch an hour+ nutjob documentary because Mr. Factman tells me to?

Not very likely. Summarize please. What am I looking for?

I mean, you're right up there with Ahmadinejad and the holocaust deniers, you know.

Some bizarre motivation to deny the obvious, no credibility.

tliet – April 14, 2009 05:19PM Reply Quote
OK, then the discussion is closed.

ARL (Moderator) – April 14, 2009 05:28PM Reply Quote
I whinge therefore I am!
About 6 months or a year after 9/11 there was some doco on the TV about how either corners were cut during construction or there were design flaws in the WTC buildings so that (regardless of whatever claims about the buildings) they would collapse if hit front on by a 747. The doco concluded along the lines of "if they'd built it this way instead, they might have been fine".

The gist of all that is - the buildings weren't really built to withstand a direct hit from a 747. And 9/11 was a pretty convincing demonstration of that.

tliet - you're clinging to the mistaken belief that the buildings were able to withstand such a hit and therefore because they didn't, it's proof of your conspiracy theory. Is there something in the Netherlands water that stops you from using Occams razor with your logic?

tliet – April 14, 2009 05:34PM Reply Quote
I'm not claiming the building could not have collapsed, evidently they did. I'm just noting that the official account of what happened is as unbelievable as some of the more lunatic claims out there.

stan adams – April 14, 2009 06:16PM Reply Quote
I am pretty sure that some building standard body did a "mock up" or the same sort of pretty low tech fireproofing the the WTC had. These same building science guys then did the whole "blast with equivalent amount of heat for equivalent amount of time" and WHA LA the support beams weakened to the extent that they would catastrophically fail, the additional weight of the concrete slab, with the subsequently compromised columns /beams inevitably led to the whole thing falling in on itself.

Gravity is a pretty "one outcome" kind of force, all the fancy talk of the 'controlled demolition' guys make it sound like making a nice tidy pile of rubble is a hard thing to do. Quite the opposite. The more massive a structure the EASIER it is for ONE failure to trigger an nearly perfectly symmetric collapse. It is NOT at all consistent that MULTIPLE blasts would be required. Very very little 'redundant' support is built into ANY modern building. While far from a "house of cards" the FORCES of static loads (stuff in the building from people to water to furniture) and dynamic loading upon the building (mostly wind, but also sesmic and thermal forces) have been well understood for hundreds of years. The slide rules and calculators are used not make buildings "invincible" but to squeeze every bit of leasable space into the place with the smallest expenditure of material.

Logic demands that we accept the perpetrators of this crime were bright enough to realize that slamming a HUGE aircraft, loaded with fuel, at fantastic VELOCITY into a hyper-tall, hyper massive TOWER had a GOOD probability of destruction. The resulting FIRESTORM that resulted from focusing too intently on the BIGGEST building almost certainly over-stressed the smaller buildings and lead to their demise.

A conspiracy on such a scale takes far too many "insiders" and is wholly implausible.

tliet – April 14, 2009 06:58PM Reply Quote
While it might be plausible that the towers collapsed from suffering from structural damage of planes flying in to them, doesn't make the collapse of WTC building 7 very plausible though.

Coming back to the original post, apparently it has now been proven via different means that 'nano thermite' has been found in multiple dust samples that were taken from multiple places at multiple times, what could be wrong in investigating this further? Why is everything immediately discredited as 'black helicopter' stuff and are people researching the official account about what happened (which reads as one of the most fantastic conspiracy stories ever) considered nutjobs?

If one looks at the motivational factors (a leading clue in police investigations) the US government and the military industrial complex had a lot to gain from a semi permanent state of war.

This is stuff that's impacting everybody's daily life, people's most basic rights are being taken away from them under the pretense of protecting these rights. And yet, anyone questioning if the course of action is the right one, or if what is being told by the government makes any sense, is being discredited as a nut job, without any further investigation or questioning.

How odd.

stan adams – April 14, 2009 07:09PM Reply Quote
Simpler is better.

tliet – April 14, 2009 07:21PM Reply Quote
Ah, I guess that's why the world is not able to rid itself of religion either.

stan adams – April 14, 2009 07:37PM Reply Quote
Probably.

Alan Lehman – April 14, 2009 08:06PM Reply Quote
Tliet,

I'm going to be blunt. This nanoThermite stuff is crap. Period. I read about half of that Harrit article and that was more than enough to tell me what I needed to know. I'm not going to do an extensive blow by blow take down because it's not worth the time. I will make these few points. The danish guy does a lot of fancy experiments with a lot of fancy equipment. That's nice but it's all smoke and mirrors. Harrit is a single source. If he had wanted to do the experiments properly, they would have been properly blinded and controlled. They aren't. Moreover, Harrit could easily have spiked the samples, in fact this is likely. There was no external monitoring. The samples were sent to him directly. No third party evaluated any of his samples (especially before he got them) or corroborated his data externally.

Also, the size of the particles if ludicrously large. If I recall correctly they were measured between 500 microns and 3 mm. Take a handful of 500µm to 3 mm particles and throw them. Do you know what happens? They fall at your feet. They don't go far at all. They certainly don't drift on the wind for many blocks. Dude, they're half iron and half aluminum. They fall to the fucking ground. 3mm is the size of grains of sand. How far does sand drift when thrown? Actual dust particles that can drift a long way are either much smaller or much less dense. I spent several years working with nanoparticles. Mine were much less dense than nano thermite and even they fell to the ground when spilled.

Also, he estimates the amount of nano thermite in the sample as 0.1%. How many million tons of dust do you think were generated by the collapse? Take that number and divide it by 1000 and you'll have the amount of nano thermite Harrit claims was blowing in the wind. It's a staggeringly large amount, especially since presumably the majority of it didn't blow away. Where do you think they hid those hundreds of thousand of pounds of thermite?

And never mind that a bunch of non-pilots managed to accurately hit the exact floors where the thermite was stored.

Finally, so there was a bunch of thermite in the WTC and it 'went off.' I've used thermite. More than once in fact. It's a lot of fun and I recommend it. Having used it, I can tell you this with authority: It makes a very distinctive mark on whatever it touches. Use hundreds of thousands of lbs and you'll make a BIG MARK! Show me one steel beam with anything resembling a thermite burn and I'll eat my words. I know what to look for. There were press covering the cleanup for weeks on end. There is no way that anybody could have covered up the marks on those beams that would have resulted from any significant amount of thermite, nano or otherwise. I've seen the pictures of the beams from the actual points of impact (I've actually touched a WTC beam too but presumably not from the POI). No thermite burns. Not even close.

It's fun to play conspiracy theory but it's a suckers game. Don't be a sucker.

tliet – April 14, 2009 08:31PM Reply Quote
Thanks for the constructive comment Alan. I'm not a scientist but I'm sure if people like yourself take a good look to this data they might come to the same conclusion. I'm sure this guy will get a lot of questions.

Still, I'm all for more research into the official claims, especially in the light of earlier events.

stan adams – April 15, 2009 03:27AM Reply Quote
Alan spent more effort on this than I wanted to, but I can corroborate everything about regular thermite. Like Alan I have real doubts that particles of iron or aluminum in the size range mentioned are traceable to any sort of explosive event. I have worked with real military grade explosives (like RDX) and the relative particle size and uniformity are orders of magnitude different than what you'd find in any other source.

btw, I was present at an unfortunate thermite explosion where the vessel with the molten thermite fractured and showered the lecture area with 2000 degree metal. Very different than a jet fuel fire, looks like something more like the aftermath of a volcanic explosion...

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login