Re: [Vo]:Re: Nano-thermite aka Superthermite
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Tue, 9 Sep 2008 14:51:39 -0700 (PDT): Hi, [snip] But even in Mills CQM when oxygen is active, if I am not mistaken, - it is the O++ catalyst and not the hydrino, which emits the excess energy. In CQM, the O++ first absorbs 54 eV from the Hydrino, becoming O+++ in the process. Then later, the O+++ recaptures the lost electron to become O++ again, reemitting the 54 eV that it absorbed from the Hydrino. Usually it doesn't stop there, but also grabs as many other loose electrons as it can get it's paws on, trying to become O--. In the mean time, having relinquished 54 eV to O++, the Hydrino has become unstable and promptly drops to a stable level dumping even more energy in the process. ERGO one might ask this pregnant question: ... in the superthermite reaction, where aluminum appears to steal two oxygen ions from iron oxide - and the result is an apparent 2xHartree energy gain - is this some kind of redundant ground state but hydrino-less reaction which involves oxygen, not hydrogen, facilitating the exchange by appearing to have a reduced orbital ? I have wondered about He iso H undergoing shrinkage, and have previously also suggested that perhaps virtually any nucleus could steal a shrunken electron from a Hydrino. However I doubt that there is really anything like this going on in super thermite. From the very little that I have read, I get the impression that it just reacts faster than normal because the particles are (much) smaller. See your own quote:- The advantage (of using nanometals) is in how fast you can get their energy out, Son says. Son says that the chemical reactions of superthermites are faster and therefore release greater amounts of energy more rapidly... Son, who has been working on nanoenergetics for more than three years, says that scientists can engineer nanoaluminum powders with different particle sizes to vary the energy release rates. This enables the material to be used in many applications, including underwater explosive devices However, researchers aren't permitted to discuss what practical military applications may come from this research. Dr Son has now apparently been silenced by the powers that be, and has no further comment. Not surprising. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [Vo]: Re: No Thermite ?
John Steck wrote: ANY resistance from 'pan caking' or structural failure would have shown up in a significant increase in collapse time... several orders of magnitude more. That is incorrect. Many buildings have collapsed, on purpose and by accident, and they fall nearly as quickly as with a freefall. And that is not even touching the fact that the resulting SYMMETRICAL damage profile is completely wrong for that hypothesis. Then why do ALL building engineers worldwide agree this is expected? Why are they not outraged at the conclusions made by NIST and others? How is it that these exerts are so foolish? This is like asserting that 200 electrochemists do not recognize recombination when they see it. The ONLY way for ANY structure like that to free fall collapse completely is staged demolition. All supports removed in an instant from top to bottom at regular intervals. Period. That is completely incorrect. I suggest you review the methods employed by Controlled Demolition. They do not remove all supports on all floors. One set of supports is enough. The others are broken instantly as the building collapses, and it happens at freefall speed. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Re: No Thermite ?
I do not think they went down in freefall, after a few seconds the rate looks like it nearly stabilises as the resistance from the undamaged structure below just about cancels the acceleration of the mass above - I suspect this figure of 9 or 10 seconds need to be examined from the videos and the free fall time needs to recalculated... Nick Palmer
Re: [Vo]: Re: No Thermite ?
Nick Palmer wrote: I do not think they went down in freefall, after a few seconds the rate looks like it nearly stabilises as the resistance from the undamaged structure below just about cancels the acceleration of the mass above - I suspect this figure of 9 or 10 seconds need to be examined from the videos and the free fall time needs to recalculated... If it pancaked down, no matter what the cause, it should have fallen at nearly free-fall speed. By nearly I mean within a second or so, top to bottom. This is simple physics; I worked out part of it in an earlier email to this list -- enough to see what the result looks like. Anyone with time on their hands and an understanding of x = (1/2)at^2 should be able to carry it through to the bottom. The result may not jibe with intuition, so I found it a worthwhile exercise to at least start. The hesitation at each floor before it gave way should have been miniscule, simply because as the mass falls, the next floor it hits will either break away at (or before) the moment of maximum stress, /or/, if it survives the moment of maximum stress, it won't break and the collapse will stop at that floor, because after the initial shock the stress on the supports declines. If the maximum stress doesn't break it, smaller stresses won't either. The moment of maximum stress comes when the shock wave from the impacting mass reaches the supports, which is essentially instantaneous: the shock wave travels through the material of the floor at the speed of sound, and it doesn't have very far to go. So, again, whether the demolition was controlled or uncontrolled, caused by an airplane, thermite, a nuclear bomb, or the Tooth Fairy, the fall speed should have been very much like what we see in the videos. Something else worth pointing out: WE CAN'T SEE THE COLLAPSE in the video. We can see the cloud coming out of the building, which shows where all the windows have blown out. But, the floors were falling /inside/ the building, and we can't see them fall -- we can only see the results of the fall. It is quite conceivable that the falling mass inside the building actually leads the cloud and flying debris we see on the outside of the building by several floors. Nick Palmer
Re: [Vo]: Re: No Thermite ?
this is not true. we have footage that shows the collapse of the inside of the building for the first few seconds, and arial footage showing it from the inside. On 2/27/07, Stephen A. Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nick Palmer wrote: I do not think they went down in freefall, after a few seconds the rate looks like it nearly stabilises as the resistance from the undamaged structure below just about cancels the acceleration of the mass above - I suspect this figure of 9 or 10 seconds need to be examined from the videos and the free fall time needs to recalculated... If it pancaked down, no matter what the cause, it should have fallen at nearly free-fall speed. By nearly I mean within a second or so, top to bottom. This is simple physics; I worked out part of it in an earlier email to this list -- enough to see what the result looks like. Anyone with time on their hands and an understanding of x = (1/2)at^2 should be able to carry it through to the bottom. The result may not jibe with intuition, so I found it a worthwhile exercise to at least start. The hesitation at each floor before it gave way should have been miniscule, simply because as the mass falls, the next floor it hits will either break away at (or before) the moment of maximum stress, /or/, if it survives the moment of maximum stress, it won't break and the collapse will stop at that floor, because after the initial shock the stress on the supports declines. If the maximum stress doesn't break it, smaller stresses won't either. The moment of maximum stress comes when the shock wave from the impacting mass reaches the supports, which is essentially instantaneous: the shock wave travels through the material of the floor at the speed of sound, and it doesn't have very far to go. So, again, whether the demolition was controlled or uncontrolled, caused by an airplane, thermite, a nuclear bomb, or the Tooth Fairy, the fall speed should have been very much like what we see in the videos. Something else worth pointing out: WE CAN'T SEE THE COLLAPSE in the video. We can see the cloud coming out of the building, which shows where all the windows have blown out. But, the floors were falling /inside/ the building, and we can't see them fall -- we can only see the results of the fall. It is quite conceivable that the falling mass inside the building actually leads the cloud and flying debris we see on the outside of the building by several floors. Nick Palmer -- That which yields isn't always weak.
Re: [Vo]: Re: No Thermite ?
leaking pen wrote: this is not true. we have footage that shows the collapse of the inside of the building for the first few seconds, and arial footage showing it from the inside. Really! I didn't realize that. Is it possible to line up the view from the inside and the images from the outside, and so determine where the falling floors are at each moment in the outside video? I would doubt it, as I doubt that one can see a lot of detail in the aerial view, and I very much doubt the true inside view lasts long enough to be of much help. But it would be very interesting if one could, in that it would help a lot with understanding what we're seeing in the external videos. On 2/27/07, Stephen A. Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nick Palmer wrote: I do not think they went down in freefall, after a few seconds the rate looks like it nearly stabilises as the resistance from the undamaged structure below just about cancels the acceleration of the mass above - I suspect this figure of 9 or 10 seconds need to be examined from the videos and the free fall time needs to recalculated... If it pancaked down, no matter what the cause, it should have fallen at nearly free-fall speed. By nearly I mean within a second or so, top to bottom. This is simple physics; I worked out part of it in an earlier email to this list -- enough to see what the result looks like. Anyone with time on their hands and an understanding of x = (1/2)at^2 should be able to carry it through to the bottom. The result may not jibe with intuition, so I found it a worthwhile exercise to at least start. The hesitation at each floor before it gave way should have been miniscule, simply because as the mass falls, the next floor it hits will either break away at (or before) the moment of maximum stress, /or/, if it survives the moment of maximum stress, it won't break and the collapse will stop at that floor, because after the initial shock the stress on the supports declines. If the maximum stress doesn't break it, smaller stresses won't either. The moment of maximum stress comes when the shock wave from the impacting mass reaches the supports, which is essentially instantaneous: the shock wave travels through the material of the floor at the speed of sound, and it doesn't have very far to go. So, again, whether the demolition was controlled or uncontrolled, caused by an airplane, thermite, a nuclear bomb, or the Tooth Fairy, the fall speed should have been very much like what we see in the videos. Something else worth pointing out: WE CAN'T SEE THE COLLAPSE in the video. We can see the cloud coming out of the building, which shows where all the windows have blown out. But, the floors were falling /inside/ the building, and we can't see them fall -- we can only see the results of the fall. It is quite conceivable that the falling mass inside the building actually leads the cloud and flying debris we see on the outside of the building by several floors. Nick Palmer
RE: [Vo]: Re: No Thermite ?
A rock dropped from the top of either tower would have taken approximately 9 seconds to hit the ground free fall. Both towers fell in the same time frame 9 and 10 seconds approximately... free fall. ANY resistance from 'pan caking' or structural failure would have shown up in a significant increase in collapse time... several orders of magnitude more. And that is not even touching the fact that the resulting SYMMETRICAL damage profile is completely wrong for that hypothesis. Crash 10 fully fueled 767s into it if you want. You would never get even the worst tower ever built to collapse like that. The ONLY way for ANY structure like that to free fall collapse completely is staged demolition. All supports removed in an instant from top to bottom at regular intervals. Period. Those buildings were dropped (and nicely in one spot too). By who, why, or how is all a matter of conjecture after one recognizes that basic mathematical observation. NOT conspiracy theory. NOT arm chair science. No 'experts' needed. Simple math. Yes, please do apply a modicum of quantitative thinking, basic physics and common sense to your assertions. -j -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 9:50 AM To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]: Re: No Thermite ? Let me say something here, people: This is a science forum. Please apply a modicum of quantitative thinking, basic physics and common sense to your assertions. You should realize that airplanes are much larger now than they were in 1945, and therefore the kinetic energy from an airplane crash is much greater. - Jed
RE: [Vo]: Re: No Thermite ?
Zell, Chris wrote: More than that, I doubt the WTC buildings were as well built as the Empire State building - when it survived A collision with a WWII vintage bomber. That is incorrect. The Towers were far stronger and better built than the Empire State building. If you were to try to build a structure as tall as the Towers using 1930s construction materials techniques, it would fall over. Furthermore, the Pentagon is built with 1930s techniques, and it was destroyed by an airplane. The Empire State building would have crumbled and fallen immediately, just as a large section of the Pentagon did. The Empire State building did not collapse in 1945 because the momentum from the B25 was at least 52 times smaller than from the Boeing 767: B25 Empty weight: 9,580 kg Estimated speed at time of collision: 322 kph (89 m/s) Kinetic energy (M*V^2)/2: 37,941,590 joules (38 MJ) Boeing 767 Empty weight: 82,377 Estimated speed at time of collision: 790 kph (219 m/s) Kinetic energy: 1,975,441,649 joules (1,975 MJ) A Boeing 767 can carry 65,000 kg of fuel. Probably of fuel and payload were heavier than the entire B25. By the way, 65,000 kg of jet fuel produces 2,795,000 MJ. Approximately 31,000 kg of that fuel burned inside each Tower, which produced 1,333,000 MJ of heat. The B25 did not spill much fuel inside the Empire State Building. Let me say something here, people: This is a science forum. Please apply a modicum of quantitative thinking, basic physics and common sense to your assertions. You should realize that airplanes are much larger now than they were in 1945, and therefore the kinetic energy from an airplane crash is much greater. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Re: No Thermite ?
That's my point exactly. What I am saying has solid evidence to back it up, and you counter with 'Bush is a twit'. Which while obviously true, no one is claiming he did any of the technical stuff, members of the intelligence community did that. Further no one is claiming there were suicide pilots on the planes, of any race, you just show how little you've looked into it to say something like that. It's only a theory if there isn't absolute proof. On 2/22/07, Zell, Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Perhaps the answer lies in the Monty Python sketch in which a building is maintained by hypnosis. The problem with conspiracies is the obvious contradiction with real world government competence. Take a good look at Iraq or the intellectual depth of Bush and reason accordingly. I don't see any reason why conspirators should haul Sacks of thermite and ignite them in synchrony with ( extremely reliable) suicide bombers - when explosives would do a better job. More than that, I doubt the WTC buildings were as well built as the Empire State building - when it survived A collision with a WWII vintage bomber.
Re: [Vo]: Re: No Thermite ?
That's my point exactly. What I am saying has solid evidence to back it up, and you counter with 'Bush is a twit'. Which while obviously true, no one is claiming he did any of the technical stuff, members of the intelligence community did that. Further no one is claiming there were suicide pilots on the planes, of any race, you just show how little you've looked into it to say something like that. On 2/22/07, Zell, Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Perhaps the answer lies in the Monty Python sketch in which a building is maintained by hypnosis. The problem with conspiracies is the obvious contradiction with real world government competence. Take a good look at Iraq or the intellectual depth of Bush and reason accordingly. I don't see any reason why conspirators should haul Sacks of thermite and ignite them in synchrony with ( extremely reliable) suicide bombers - when explosives would do a better job. More than that, I doubt the WTC buildings were as well built as the Empire State building - when it survived A collision with a WWII vintage bomber.
Re: [Vo]: Re: No Thermite ?
Umm, so, if there were no suicide pilots, who was flying? On 2/21/07, John Berry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's my point exactly. What I am saying has solid evidence to back it up, and you counter with 'Bush is a twit'. Which while obviously true, no one is claiming he did any of the technical stuff, members of the intelligence community did that. Further no one is claiming there were suicide pilots on the planes, of any race, you just show how little you've looked into it to say something like that. On 2/22/07, Zell, Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Perhaps the answer lies in the Monty Python sketch in which a building is maintained by hypnosis. The problem with conspiracies is the obvious contradiction with real world government competence. Take a good look at Iraq or the intellectual depth of Bush and reason accordingly. I don't see any reason why conspirators should haul Sacks of thermite and ignite them in synchrony with ( extremely reliable) suicide bombers - when explosives would do a better job. More than that, I doubt the WTC buildings were as well built as the Empire State building - when it survived A collision with a WWII vintage bomber. -- That which yields isn't always weak.
Re: [Vo]: Re: No Thermite ?
Stranger and stranger. So how do you qualify the pilots, if not suicide pilots? Michel - Original Message - From: John Berry [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 7:13 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: No Thermite ? That's my point exactly. What I am saying has solid evidence to back it up, and you counter with 'Bush is a twit'. Which while obviously true, no one is claiming he did any of the technical stuff, members of the intelligence community did that. Further no one is claiming there were suicide pilots on the planes, of any race, you just show how little you've looked into it to say something like that. It's only a theory if there isn't absolute proof. On 2/22/07, Zell, Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Perhaps the answer lies in the Monty Python sketch in which a building is maintained by hypnosis. The problem with conspiracies is the obvious contradiction with real world government competence. Take a good look at Iraq or the intellectual depth of Bush and reason accordingly. I don't see any reason why conspirators should haul Sacks of thermite and ignite them in synchrony with ( extremely reliable) suicide bombers - when explosives would do a better job. More than that, I doubt the WTC buildings were as well built as the Empire State building - when it survived A collision with a WWII vintage bomber.
Re: [Vo]: Re: No Thermite ?
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Jed, you have said more than once that (nearly) all the expert engineers /knew/ it would collapse. That's absolutely not what I read in the mainstream press reports . . . These reports were premature, and wrong. Later interviews and testimony by experts revealed that most of them expected the Towers to fall. : The buildings were capable of taking a hit from a good sized jet with a certain amount of jet fuel on board. No, they were designed for circa 1970 jets coming in for a landing at LaGuardia at low speed. Modern jets are much larger and these were going much faster than landing speed. Actually, little serious consideration was paid to this possibility, and modern computer modeling was not available. Quoting NIST: As stated in Section 5.3.2 of NIST NCSTAR 1, a document from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) indicated that the impact of a [single, not multiple] Boeing 707 aircraft was analyzed during the design stage of the WTC towers. However, NIST investigators were unable to locate any documentation of the criteria and method used in the impact analysis and, therefore, were unable to verify the assertion that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building. The capability to conduct rigorous simulations of the aircraft impact, the growth and spread of the ensuing fires, and the effects of fires on the structure is a recent development. Since the approach to structural modeling was developed for the NIST WTC investigation, the technical capability available to the PANYNJ and its consultants and contactors to perform such analyses in the 1960s would have been quite limited in comparison to the capabilities brought to bear in the NIST investigation. The damage from the impact of a Boeing 767 aircraft (which is about 20 percent bigger than a Boeing 707) into each tower is well documented in NCSTAR 1-2. . . . Whether what actually happened was a big enough wallop to bring them down was _not_ _obvious_, to _anyone_. As I said, several experts later testified that they knew the buildings would fall. They were also interviewed in the Discovery Channel documentaries. Opinions as to whether they would fall or not were little more than guesses, as far as I can tell. Incorrect. These were carefully considered conclusions rendered by world-class experts. Actually, they were surprised that the towers held up as long as they did. Again, I seriously doubt your repeated assertions that all the experts were convinced the buildings _WOULD_ collapse after the planes hit. I suggest you read the official documents from NIST and elsewhere. That's tantamount to saying the people running the show on the ground really screwed up bigtime by not evacuating, and I don't think it's called for . . . Not just tantamount; that is exactly what the experts asserted. One of them, from Britain, says he tried frantically to contact the New York City police to tell them to evacuate, but he could not get through. There is no question that the people running the show really screwed up bigtime. If they had panicked less than listened more carefully to expert advice, they would have known that the police and firemen could do nothing and should be ordered out of the building. The police and firemen died in vain. Particularly after the first building collapsed no one should have doubted the other would soon fall. We do not like to think about heroes dying in vain. It makes an awful tragedy seem even worse, somehow. The history books seldom mention such outcomes, even though they are common. For example, I read a careful analysis of major Allied airborne troops deployments in the invasion of Europe -- at D-Day, the crossing of the Rhine River, and Market Garden. The analysis shows that they contributed little or nothing to the operations. These operations would probably have succeeded (or failed, in the latter case) without the airborne troops. Tremendous resources were used to supply these troops with enough aircraft, fuel and equipment, and the troops suffered disproportionately high casualties, but alas, they were not very effective. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Re: No Thermite ?
leaking pen wrote: Umm, so, if there were no suicide pilots, who was flying? The planes were remote controlled, by CIA agents hiding behind the grassy knoll, of course. Haven't you been following the discussion? You've really gotta get with the program, Pen. The passengers were all off-loaded safely at a remote location in New Jersey. I'm not sure what happened to them after that, but I imagine they were well paid for their silence. The only ones that messed up were the pilots of the plane destined for the White House, who couldn't find the secret airport they were supposed to land at. On 2/21/07, John Berry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's my point exactly. What I am saying has solid evidence to back it up, and you counter with 'Bush is a twit'. Which while obviously true, no one is claiming he did any of the technical stuff, members of the intelligence community did that. Further no one is claiming there were suicide pilots on the planes, of any race, you just show how little you've looked into it to say something like that. On 2/22/07, Zell, Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Perhaps the answer lies in the Monty Python sketch in which a building is maintained by hypnosis. The problem with conspiracies is the obvious contradiction with real world government competence. Take a good look at Iraq or the intellectual depth of Bush and reason accordingly. I don't see any reason why conspirators should haul Sacks of thermite and ignite them in synchrony with ( extremely reliable) suicide bombers - when explosives would do a better job. More than that, I doubt the WTC buildings were as well built as the Empire State building - when it survived A collision with a WWII vintage bomber.
RE: [Vo]: Re: No Thermite ?
No one is claiming there were suicide pilots on the planes? How deep does this fantasy go? Remote control? Robots? My point about government competence still stands and is confirmed everyday with the continuing failure to pacify Iraq. It's far more than 'Bush is a twit'. And the intelligence community is somehow above and beyond this level of ineptitude? You mean like WMD's in Iraq? or decades of mole-ridden ineffectiveness in the cold war? Soviet missile estimates? Success in Vietnam? Predictions that Cuba will collapse? Completely in the dark about Manhattan Project spies? Surprize by Sputnik? Surprize by Soviet nuclear success? Surprize by the fall of the Iron Curtain? Plots to discreetly kill Hugo Chavez instead of letting him return after a coup? Anything you wish to explain by competence - which is demanded in an extreme degree by a multi faceted and highly complex conspiracy - can be more easily explained by an inept government led by naive hacks -- and examined by paranoids who see God-like ability in those they despise. Can I also tell you how wildly ignorant Bill Clinton was? How reports surfaced that he made huge promises about healthcare and the budget without the simplest knowledge that the government was subject to bond traders and couldn't afford his plans? that he got upset with his aides when they told him this after he became president? Can I go on about other Presidents? How LBJ exposed his genitals to journalists to make a point? How frighteningly naive Carter was ( and is!) How the press quietly agreed not to talk about Reagan's Alzheimers? It's all a mess, not a conspiracy. From: John Berry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 1:14 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: No Thermite ? That's my point exactly. What I am saying has solid evidence to back it up, and you counter with 'Bush is a twit'. Which while obviously true, no one is claiming he did any of the technical stuff, members of the intelligence community did that. Further no one is claiming there were suicide pilots on the planes, of any race, you just show how little you've looked into it to say something like that. It's only a theory if there isn't absolute proof. On 2/22/07, Zell, Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Perhaps the answer lies in the Monty Python sketch in which a building is maintained by hypnosis. The problem with conspiracies is the obvious contradiction with real world government competence. Take a good look at Iraq or the intellectual depth of Bush and reason accordingly. I don't see any reason why conspirators should haul Sacks of thermite and ignite them in synchrony with ( extremely reliable) suicide bombers - when explosives would do a better job. More than that, I doubt the WTC buildings were as well built as the Empire State building - when it survived A collision with a WWII vintage bomber.
Re: [Vo]: Re: No Thermite ?
Well I must say at first I didn't believe it, but when you look at the evidence the planes were clearly switched. It starts off with the boarding of some of the flights, there were oddities with different gates and such, very confusing, the details of one of the planes was given, it was boarding at 2 different gates, the one it usually boarded at and another one. http://911wideopen.com/mirror/twin11-1/twin-11-mod.htm There were also reports of two of the planes landing safely at an airport, yes really. (according to the Mayor anyway: http://www.rense.com/general68/says.htm) The transponder signals were turned off over an airport and turned back on, but it would not have been possible for the plane to have pulled off the flying required for it to be where the signal turns back on. Then there is the fact that people at the commercial airport would likely have noticed the modifications (the pod which is clearly visible in all shots all on the same side). And then people saw not an airline plane but what they described as a cargo plane, with no windows, painted up to look like the right flights only not. Then there is the fact that at least one of the planes meant to have crashed was found to still be in service. (If I looked hard enough I could find that article no doubt) The fact that the crash sites at the Pentagon and Pennsylvania simply didn't fit, there wasn't a Boeing's wreckage, however there were wreckage parts that could not have come from a Boeing. (A turbine that some say is the Honeywell APU but Honeywell says isn't) The building shows no damage from the wings, jet engines or tail. People at the Pentagon say they could smell Cordite. Witnesses reported that debris rain down for minutes after the crash. Care to calculate how high (and how directly upwards) metal debris would need to be thrust upwards to rain down for minutes, the photos indeed show an increase of Debris in latter photos, were Debris being sprinkled from above? (is the idea that debris can be so high as to take minutes to fall any less absurd?) Yes, there were eye witnesses that say a plane hit the Pentagon, but there were also video cameras which were immediately taken from the hotel across the road and other locations never to be seen again, there were also other eye witnesses that gave other accounts. The employees at the hotel were told never to discuss what they had seen. (Employees watched the film several times in shock and horror before the tape was confiscated) There were ham radio operators that did pick up a transmitter from the WTC that day which ended after the hits, it was seemingly being used as a navigation aid, also the infra red laser (not seen by people but picked up by cameras) is plainly visible, it even projects on the smoke, why else would someone be projecting an infra red laser normally used for painting targets at the building?). They have previously flown large aircraft of such size by wire with no one on board, successful landings and takeoffs. Eye witnesses at Pennsylvania say they saw a small white jet hit low objects before going over a hill followed by the crash. The pilot of one the of the planes had taken part in a mock attack on the WTC in the 80's by the Pentagon, quite the co-incidence. BTW no Arabs were on the flight manifest on the plane that was meant to hit the pentagon, the autopsy report doesn't bother to invent any either. http://www.sierratimes.com/03/07/02/article_tro.htm The families of those on the flights indeed reacted differently to other victims families, for one they don't question the official report, even though many of the other victims families do, along with at this point in time a majority of people according to Zogby polls. Also it is well established that they couldn't have made the calls that were meant to be have made. (people had experimented and confirmed it) Watch Loose Change, 2nd edition: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WsyEqKQRBY On 2/22/07, leaking pen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Umm, so, if there were no suicide pilots, who was flying? On 2/21/07, John Berry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's my point exactly. What I am saying has solid evidence to back it up, and you counter with 'Bush is a twit'. Which while obviously true, no one is claiming he did any of the technical stuff, members of the intelligence community did that. Further no one is claiming there were suicide pilots on the planes, of any race, you just show how little you've looked into it to say something like that. On 2/22/07, Zell, Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Perhaps the answer lies in the Monty Python sketch in which a building is maintained by hypnosis. The problem with conspiracies is the obvious contradiction with real world government competence. Take a good look at Iraq or the intellectual depth of Bush and reason accordingly. I don't see any reason why conspirators should haul Sacks of thermite and ignite them in synchrony with ( extremely
Re: [Vo]: Re: No Thermite ?
John Berry wrote: There were also reports of two of the planes landing safely at an airport, yes really. (according to the Mayor anyway: http://www.rense.com/general68/says.htm) The transponder signals were turned off over an airport and turned back on, but it would not have been possible for the plane to have pulled off the flying required for it to be where the signal turns back on. Then there is the fact that people at the commercial airport would likely have noticed the modifications (the pod which is clearly visible in all shots all on the same side). My goodness. Since many gullible people believe this sort of thing, I suppose it is no wonder that a 2006 Harris poll showed that 64% of Americans thought Saddam Hussein had strong links to al Qaeda, or that 55% of voters do not believe in evolution. People will believe -- or not believe -- just about anything. This shows why it is so difficult to persuade the public that cold fusion is real. For many people, evidence, logic, plausibility, commonsense and the known laws of physics count for nothing. Rumors and wishful thinking dominate. Chris Zell summed it up perfectly: Anything you wish to explain by competence - which is demanded in an extreme degree by a multi faceted and highly complex conspiracy - can be more easily explained by an inept government led by naive hacks -- and examined by paranoids who see God-like ability in those they despise. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Re: No Thermite ?
Oh dear it's unbelievable one can believe such things. My remote controlled live whales scheme pales in comparison :) Michel - Original Message - From: John Berry [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 10:13 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: No Thermite ? Well I must say at first I didn't believe it, but when you look at the evidence the planes were clearly switched. It starts off with the boarding of some of the flights, there were oddities with different gates and such, very confusing, the details of one of the planes was given, it was boarding at 2 different gates, the one it usually boarded at and another one. http://911wideopen.com/mirror/twin11-1/twin-11-mod.htm There were also reports of two of the planes landing safely at an airport, yes really. (according to the Mayor anyway: http://www.rense.com/general68/says.htm) The transponder signals were turned off over an airport and turned back on, but it would not have been possible for the plane to have pulled off the flying required for it to be where the signal turns back on. Then there is the fact that people at the commercial airport would likely have noticed the modifications (the pod which is clearly visible in all shots all on the same side). And then people saw not an airline plane but what they described as a cargo plane, with no windows, painted up to look like the right flights only not. Then there is the fact that at least one of the planes meant to have crashed was found to still be in service. (If I looked hard enough I could find that article no doubt) The fact that the crash sites at the Pentagon and Pennsylvania simply didn't fit, there wasn't a Boeing's wreckage, however there were wreckage parts that could not have come from a Boeing. (A turbine that some say is the Honeywell APU but Honeywell says isn't) The building shows no damage from the wings, jet engines or tail. People at the Pentagon say they could smell Cordite. Witnesses reported that debris rain down for minutes after the crash. Care to calculate how high (and how directly upwards) metal debris would need to be thrust upwards to rain down for minutes, the photos indeed show an increase of Debris in latter photos, were Debris being sprinkled from above? (is the idea that debris can be so high as to take minutes to fall any less absurd?) Yes, there were eye witnesses that say a plane hit the Pentagon, but there were also video cameras which were immediately taken from the hotel across the road and other locations never to be seen again, there were also other eye witnesses that gave other accounts. The employees at the hotel were told never to discuss what they had seen. (Employees watched the film several times in shock and horror before the tape was confiscated) There were ham radio operators that did pick up a transmitter from the WTC that day which ended after the hits, it was seemingly being used as a navigation aid, also the infra red laser (not seen by people but picked up by cameras) is plainly visible, it even projects on the smoke, why else would someone be projecting an infra red laser normally used for painting targets at the building?). They have previously flown large aircraft of such size by wire with no one on board, successful landings and takeoffs. Eye witnesses at Pennsylvania say they saw a small white jet hit low objects before going over a hill followed by the crash. The pilot of one the of the planes had taken part in a mock attack on the WTC in the 80's by the Pentagon, quite the co-incidence. BTW no Arabs were on the flight manifest on the plane that was meant to hit the pentagon, the autopsy report doesn't bother to invent any either. http://www.sierratimes.com/03/07/02/article_tro.htm The families of those on the flights indeed reacted differently to other victims families, for one they don't question the official report, even though many of the other victims families do, along with at this point in time a majority of people according to Zogby polls. Also it is well established that they couldn't have made the calls that were meant to be have made. (people had experimented and confirmed it) Watch Loose Change, 2nd edition: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WsyEqKQRBY On 2/22/07, leaking pen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Umm, so, if there were no suicide pilots, who was flying? On 2/21/07, John Berry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's my point exactly. What I am saying has solid evidence to back it up, and you counter with 'Bush is a twit'. Which while obviously true, no one is claiming he did any of the technical stuff, members of the intelligence community did that. Further no one is claiming there were suicide pilots on the planes, of any race, you just show how little you've looked into it to say something like that. On 2/22/07, Zell, Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Perhaps
Re: [Vo]: Re: No Thermite ?
On 2/22/07, Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh dear it's unbelievable one can believe such things. My remote controlled live whales scheme pales in comparison :) Oh look, your rhetoric made solid evidence disappear. *poof* Good job you don't have to deal with all those nasty facts.
RE: [Vo]: Re: No Thermite ?
I have been sitting back in total OH!! over this thread.
I have even had Night Mares ('Scientists Gone Wild')
SO if I understand what has been going on, (Maybe) It's felt the Bush Admin
is implementing a what? (State), Communist?
Okay if you all feel this (the ones that are so adamant about it, what is
the trade off? Pure BS Socialism? Guess if you live CA that is what you want
or believe in.
How in the world did a scientist get the idea he/she was in any position to
get involved in politics or region?
Gentleman your colors are showing
Vort(s)! What happened to Science?
I can not say it more clearly, this is CRAP
-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 3:16 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]: Re: No Thermite ?
leaking pen wrote:
not a skeptic, but, with the flow inside and out of the girder almost
even, that one looks more like it sheared off at an angle, and then
molten metal dripped over it.
Exactly. Anyone who says the NIST report somehow eliminated thermite as
contributory agent is seriously in error. They never considered it at
all. From the NIST site:
Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being
brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for
explosives or thermite residues?
Answer: NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.
IOW the only tests which were done looking for residue of thermite-
those of Steven Jones FOUND thermite residue. Did he plant that residue
there?
Here is the only scientific report ever to consider the details of a
contributory agent:
http://physics911.net/thermite
But the report is careful not to say that there was thermite present
since NO AGENCY including NIST had ever tested for the residue.
Steven Jones was the first to test for it - and he found it.
Not conclusive - but once again - it is making the case to reopen the
shoddy NIST investigation with a true scientific investigation
and, as someone that uses the stuff, that is NOT what thermite
leftovers looks like.
Hmm. Would you care to explain that.
Jones
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.18.1/690 - Release Date:
2/16/2007 2:25 PM
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.18.1/690 - Release Date: 2/16/2007
2:25 PM
Re: [Vo]: Re: No Thermite ?
Jones Beene wrote: Exactly. Anyone who says the NIST report somehow eliminated thermite as contributory agent is seriously in error. They never considered it at all. From the NIST site: Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? And why didn't they look? Two reasons: one stated in the report and one so obvious it hardly needs to be listed, because it puts the whole idea into Lala land: 1. As stated it would take thousands of pounds, placed inconspicuously ahead of time, remotely ignited, and somehow held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building. NIST calls this unlikely to be polite. I would call it ridiculous. 2. Suppose, for the sake of argument, thermite was used. Let us look at the facts: We know where the destruction began: right on the floors struck by the airplanes. You can see this from the videos, and the physical evidence. The destruction did not start above those floors, or below them. There would be no point to installing thermite on the lower floors because the falling building had more than enough energy to destroy itself. As I said, putting thermite on the lower floors would be a complete waste, and it would accomplish nothing. (Not to mention the fact that the work would almost certainly be discovered while in progress, which would reveal the plot.) It would be like shooting a missile into the building a moment before an airplane hits it with thousands of times more kinetic energy than the missile supplies. SO, the only place you could put thermite would be on the exact floor where the airplane was going to strike, and the only reason to put it there would be to ensure that the building falls in case the airplane does not supply enough energy. PROBLEM: How do you know what airplane is going to hit? That is impossible to predict! The kamikaze jihad pilots barely managed hit the buildings. Do you think they could have struck the exact right floor in coordination with the people who installed the thermite weeks before? That is preposterous. Looking for thermite is exactly like looking for a chemical reaction in a cold fusion cell that might produce 100 MJ per 1 g of palladium. It is so fundamentally impossible, and so far-fetched and obviously wrong that no sensible expert would even entertain the idea long enough to bother checking. You might as well demand that we look for evidence that Martians caused the destruction. Let's apply a little common sense in this analysis. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Re: No Thermite ?
Yes, thermite, at least the more comonly used stuff, is iron II oxide and aluminum powder. it reduces the aluminum to aluminum oxide, and creates molten iron. So you get molten iron, which cools black and lumpy, and you get a blackish purplish slag laying on top of it, which is the aluminum oxide. the cooled metal there looks to me like melted cooled aluminum, not iron. its too smooth, thin, and silvery. On 2/20/07, Jones Beene [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: leaking pen wrote: not a skeptic, but, with the flow inside and out of the girder almost even, that one looks more like it sheared off at an angle, and then molten metal dripped over it. Exactly. Anyone who says the NIST report somehow eliminated thermite as contributory agent is seriously in error. They never considered it at all. From the NIST site: Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? Answer: NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel. IOW the only tests which were done looking for residue of thermite- those of Steven Jones FOUND thermite residue. Did he plant that residue there? Here is the only scientific report ever to consider the details of a contributory agent: http://physics911.net/thermite But the report is careful not to say that there was thermite present since NO AGENCY including NIST had ever tested for the residue. Steven Jones was the first to test for it - and he found it. Not conclusive - but once again - it is making the case to reopen the shoddy NIST investigation with a true scientific investigation and, as someone that uses the stuff, that is NOT what thermite leftovers looks like. Hmm. Would you care to explain that. Jones -- That which yields isn't always weak.
Re: [Vo]: Re: No Thermite ?
Stiffler Scientific wrote: I can not say it more clearly, this is CRAP Agreed. And who needs a flame war on top of crap. This is my last posting on this subject. Jones
Re: [Vo]: Re: No Thermite ?
of course, the traces of thermite are , again, iron, aluminum, and the oxides of each. ohh, and high heat. i think its safe to say the site was FULL of said materials. (besides, the sheared angle of the broken girder looks more like a shaped charge explosive cutting through. which would have been faster, more controllable, and easier to hide. On 2/20/07, Jones Beene [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jed Rothwell wrote: Jones Beene wrote: Exactly. Anyone who says the NIST report somehow eliminated thermite as contributory agent is seriously in error. They never considered it at all. From the NIST site: Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? And why didn't they look? Two reasons: one stated in the report and one so obvious it hardly needs to be listed, because it puts the whole idea into Lala land: Total baloney and crap. It would have required a de minimis effort to do this kind of testing. Three or four hours of lab time for initial results and then several confirmation tests. If S. Jones is correct, and the evidence is there - then we can only conclude logically that NIST did do the testing, but political pressures have forced them into further lies - compounded lies on top of the original lies - - which is basically what that list of high-level critics of this work have been saying for years. Jones -- That which yields isn't always weak.
Re: [Vo]: Re: No Thermite ?
I wrote: PROBLEM: How do you know what airplane is going to hit? I meant what floor the airplane is going to hit. Sorry about that. Did he conclude the building was brought down by explosives? Then he is a flake with a PhD, like Steve Jones. Why do we need that kind of comment in a serious discussion? Why the ad hominem? Actually, this is not ad hominem. Calling into question a person's qualifications to make a technical judgment, or pointing out that he has no relevant experience, or that he has made grievous errors in previous similar technical arguments is a valid criticism. It was intemperate, and it was an Appeal to Ridicule which is a logical fallacies, but not ad hominem. See: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. . . . The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made). Also, by the way, I have not committed an Appeal to Authority error, but Jones did: An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form: Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S. Person A makes claim C about subject S. Therefore, C is true. This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious. This sort of reasoning is fallacious when the person in question is not an expert. . . . Jones committed this fallacy by pointing to people like Max Cleland in a discussion of thermite. I point to real experts in the subject, at NIST. If we are discussing high-level Washington conspiracies then Cleland is as expert. That's a different topic. Hey, if you vehemence here is some kind of show ... say, trying to somehow divorce yourself, as a spokesperson for one controversial subject (LENR) . . . Nothing like that. I oppose the 9/11 thermite hypotheses on the same grounds that I support cold fusion: because experts are right. (Usually.) In both cases we have unqualified flakes contradicting careful expert research with bogus reasons. Also, let me get make it clear that I have no opinion about the likelihood of a conspiracy by the administration. That has nothing to do with this discussion. The only question at issue here is: what caused the building to fall? Not who caused it, or why, but only how. It was the airplanes. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Re: No Thermite ?
- Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 11:49 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: No Thermite ? I meant what floor the airplane is going to hit. Sorry about that. Err, I haven't followed the debate closely (many points escape me) but Jed's question makes sense technically, any thermite causing the collapse would have had to be installed at the floor where the collapse initiated, i.e. where the airplane hit, but how could they know which floor it was going to be? Did they plant all floors? Or did the pilots aim at a given range of planted floors? Michel (not taking sides, nor trying to revive the heated debate, just wondering what's the theory on this)
Re: [Vo]: Re: No Thermite ?
Actually it has been pointed out that there was a light (laser?) beam visible on the building which was probably used for painting the taget, the most likely would be a range of floors and they simply triggered the one hit. Go here: http://www.letsrollforums.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2195 On 2/21/07, Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 11:49 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: No Thermite ? I meant what floor the airplane is going to hit. Sorry about that. Err, I haven't followed the debate closely (many points escape me) but Jed's question makes sense technically, any thermite causing the collapse would have had to be installed at the floor where the collapse initiated, i.e. where the airplane hit, but how could they know which floor it was going to be? Did they plant all floors? Or did the pilots aim at a given range of planted floors? Michel (not taking sides, nor trying to revive the heated debate, just wondering what's the theory on this)
Re: [Vo]: Re: No Thermite ?
John Berry writes: Actually it has been pointed out that there was a light (laser?) beam visible on the building which was probably used for painting the taget . . . These were amateur pilots. An experienced pilot would have great difficulty doing that. Many of the Japanese kamikaze pilots missed their targets (battleships or aircraft carriers) by a wide margin. It is remarkable that they both hit and it would be a miracle if they could see and hit a laser spot. . . . the most likely would be a range of floors and they simply triggered the one hit. A range of floors? Let's say 10 floors, with 5 thouand pounds of thermite on each one. You are suggesting that the following took place: In the months leading up to the attack, someone brought in 50,000 pounds of thermite into the building without being detected. They tore down a large number of walls next to the elevators to explose the main beams around the elevator shafts. They cut through concrete with jackhammers and prepared thermite, fuses, electric wires and so on. They stockpiled a huge number of tools, which would allow them to cut several hundreds of beams per floor quickly (20 minutes or so -- a world record). While all this was happening, no one in the building noticed. Thousand of tenants walked right past this work, and lived with the noise, dust and commotion for weeks, but not a single one complained or raised questions. Hundreds of workers showed up every day on ten floors for weeks preparing the demolition, but nobody noticed. They trained maybe 500 people to do this (50 people per floor) and had them show up and remain inconspicuous even though they were wearing industrial clothing, welder's masks, gloves and so on. Then, when the airplane struck, 50 of these people miraculously survived without oxygen in roaring flames, and they went to work cutting away at the beams. And after a while they cut through the beams. Following that, even though the most intense police and forensic investigation in history was performed, and even though there were thousand of pounds of unused thermite, enough tools and equipment to fill a small factory, 500 dead people wearing heavy clothing, welder's masks and so on, on 10 floors, not a single trace of this evidence was found. Do you really think this is plausible? Do you really take this seriously? Because this is the only way this could happen. No one can hide 50,000 tons of thermite, or perform a major demolition in ten minutes. I suggest you THINK about how things really work. Stop throwing around the word thermite as if it was magic dust that someone can throw at a building and have it fall down minutes later. Think about how construction and demolitions are performed, how long they take, what steps are needed, where the main beams in a building are located, how a workman would access them, and so on. You will see that the scenario you imagine is utterly impossible. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Re: No Thermite ?
also, 5k pounds of thermite would be required to bring it down on its own. thats not the conspiracy theory. the theory is that the thermite was used to melt the concrete and weaken teh steal, allowing the rest of the natural damage from the plane to do it. that requires substantially less thermite. On 2/20/07, Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John Berry writes: Actually it has been pointed out that there was a light (laser?) beam visible on the building which was probably used for painting the taget . . . These were amateur pilots. An experienced pilot would have great difficulty doing that. Many of the Japanese kamikaze pilots missed their targets (battleships or aircraft carriers) by a wide margin. It is remarkable that they both hit and it would be a miracle if they could see and hit a laser spot. . . . the most likely would be a range of floors and they simply triggered the one hit. A range of floors? Let's say 10 floors, with 5 thouand pounds of thermite on each one. You are suggesting that the following took place: In the months leading up to the attack, someone brought in 50,000 pounds of thermite into the building without being detected. They tore down a large number of walls next to the elevators to explose the main beams around the elevator shafts. They cut through concrete with jackhammers and prepared thermite, fuses, electric wires and so on. They stockpiled a huge number of tools, which would allow them to cut several hundreds of beams per floor quickly (20 minutes or so -- a world record). While all this was happening, no one in the building noticed. Thousand of tenants walked right past this work, and lived with the noise, dust and commotion for weeks, but not a single one complained or raised questions. Hundreds of workers showed up every day on ten floors for weeks preparing the demolition, but nobody noticed. They trained maybe 500 people to do this (50 people per floor) and had them show up and remain inconspicuous even though they were wearing industrial clothing, welder's masks, gloves and so on. Then, when the airplane struck, 50 of these people miraculously survived without oxygen in roaring flames, and they went to work cutting away at the beams. And after a while they cut through the beams. Following that, even though the most intense police and forensic investigation in history was performed, and even though there were thousand of pounds of unused thermite, enough tools and equipment to fill a small factory, 500 dead people wearing heavy clothing, welder's masks and so on, on 10 floors, not a single trace of this evidence was found. Do you really think this is plausible? Do you really take this seriously? Because this is the only way this could happen. No one can hide 50,000 tons of thermite, or perform a major demolition in ten minutes. I suggest you THINK about how things really work. Stop throwing around the word thermite as if it was magic dust that someone can throw at a building and have it fall down minutes later. Think about how construction and demolitions are performed, how long they take, what steps are needed, where the main beams in a building are located, how a workman would access them, and so on. You will see that the scenario you imagine is utterly impossible. - Jed -- That which yields isn't always weak.
Re: [Vo]: Re: No Thermite ?
Indeed, i recall experts being brought on teh air as the towers were burning stating they were designed to take this and more. my understanding the engineers who designed and built the suckers were shocked when they fell. On 2/20/07, Stephen A. Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jed Rothwell wrote: I wrote: PROBLEM: How do you know what airplane is going to hit? That is impossible to predict! Some other problems, equally severe, equally obvious: How do you make the thermite work when there are thousands of gallons of flaming kerosene around it, collapsing walls, no remaining telephone connections, and so on? NIST supposes it would be remotely ignited and somehow held in direct contact. Imagine trying to do this on the floor of a building that has been struck by airplane. Suppose it is not done remotely, but by extra suicide volunteers standing by ready to ignite the stuff and hold it next to the pillars. They would be killed instantly, before they could operate the equipment. As I said, installing thermite in the lower floors would contribute nothing to the destruction, and serve no purpose. But let us pretend that the conspirators were extremely stupid and they /thought/ you need to cut more than one floor. (We are talking about someone in the Bush administration, which includes some fairly stupid people, and for that matter bin Laden himself did not think the building would fall down even though he is an engineer.) Jed, you have said more than once that (nearly) all the expert engineers /knew/ it would collapse. That's absolutely not what I read in the mainstream press reports: The buildings were capable of taking a hit from a good sized jet with a certain amount of jet fuel on board. Whether what actually happened was a big enough wallop to bring them down was _not_ _obvious_, to _anyone_. Opinions as to whether they would fall or not were little more than guesses, as far as I can tell. The planes they were socked with were somewhat larger than what had been imagined by the designers, _and_ they had full tanks, which put them at the upper end of lethality. But that puts it into the region where we might reasonably think there was a possibility the buildings would collapse -- it certainly doesn't make it appear inevitable, save possibly in hindsight! Again, I seriously doubt your repeated assertions that all the experts were convinced the buildings _WOULD_ collapse after the planes hit. That's tantamount to saying the people running the show on the ground really screwed up bigtime by not evacuating, and I don't think it's called for -- with hindsight, yeah, they were hit hard enough to bring them down. With foresight I don't think you would have found anything like a consensus among experts to the effect that they _WOULD_ fall, nor even a consensus as to what the probability of collapse would be. In fact, from what I read in the press shortly after the collapse, Bin Laden's view was shared by many of the engineers who were competent to form an opinion: It was surprising that they collapsed -- it was _NOT_ surprising they stood as long as they did. If you disagree please cite something beyond generalities and one or two examples of experts who guessed right about the collapse to support it. Okay, so even though it is hard to imagine an engineer who thinks the building could survive one floor dropping onto a lower floor, Sure, sure, obviously if one floor falls, only God could hold up the floor underneath, but not all engineers, by a long stretch, thought /any/ of the floors would fall as a result of the impact. let's say they put several thousand pounds of thermite on a lower floor. How do they coordinate the thermite cutting with the collapse? Two problems: 1. No one could predict the exact moment when the building would start to fall. You cannot coordinate. If you cut too soon your section of the building starts to fall first -- and everyone see that; if you cut too late you are crushed by the falling building and you contribute nothing. 2. It takes a long time to cut a steel beam with thermite. Hours, actually, but let's pretend it is 20 minutes. Suppose they magically know exactly when the building is going to fall; they still have to start cutting 20 minutes earlier. People would notice a new raging fire in progress on a lower floor as thousands of pounds of thermite went off. You could not hide that, especially with hundreds of television cameras pointed to the building, and hundreds of police and firemen swarming through the place. I could probably think of several other equally compelling common-sense reasons to reject this hypothesis, but the whole notion is so outlandish it is a waste of time to consider it. I am sure the people at NIST felt that way, and they were right. It is, as I said, like spending your time looking for a chemical reaction to explain cold fusion. You should dismiss that hypothesis from the get-go.
