... then showing that it's nonsense would conclude the debate, wouldn't it?

No longer any debate among those with two working eyes and a nose to sniff out
the stench informing the Offal-CIAl Story. We know it was a multi-building
demolition project using chemical and human agents. I'm guessing the Military had
operational control and authority that day, as I'm guessing it still has.

The problem for the "truth movement" is that Cole's odious bullshit doesn't stand up so well with people who also employ their brains.

Example: Cole claims that molten aluminum is silvery in color, not glowing orange like the stuff seen flowing out of the building. It's amazing that someone with an engineering degree is apparently unaware that, while aluminum is silvery at it's melting point, it will glow just like any other metal if it's heated above it's melting point.

Example: Cole shows the video of the fireman saying he saw "molten steel." The fireman never says why he assumed it was steel when there are far better guesses available (e.g. aluminum or even glass), but since it's absurd to think that steel melted by therm*te when the buildings were destroyed would still be molten weeks later, this particular piece of "evidence" seems to only appeal to people who haven't actually given it any real thought.

Example: If therm*te had been used to destroy the buildings, the debris pile should be full of steel showing thermite-like melting. In fact, even though the steel was inspected by private-citizen, volunteer engineers and scientists who saved "interesting" pieces, there is not a single piece of any such evidence of thermite cutting or melting. Instead, Cole shows us a sample that he must know is the result of a eutectic, sulfidization reaction that took place at a temperature of only about 1000 degrees C over a period of hours or days, so it is cetainly not the result of thermate burning. Cole should know that because that was the conclusion of the study from which he obtained that photo.

Example: Cole shows the iron-rich microspheres found in the dust and claims them to be the product of therm*te burning. In fact, the lightweight concrete used in the building included fly ash, which is full of iron-rich microspheres produced in incinerators. In fact, there are many other possible sources, such as the welding that was done to erect the building. So, if anyone wants to claim that there are also microspheres produced by therm*te when the towers were destroyed, they need to start by explaining how they separated out those microspheres from the ones that we know were already in the building. For some strange reason, "truther scientists" like Cole and Jones completely duck that issue, too.

Example: Cole informs us that the "peer reviewed" Harrit/Jones paper found nanothermite in the dust. In reality, what the data in that paper shows that the stuff does not look like or behave like any known form of thermite, so these scientific geniuses "conclude" it must be some sort of mysterious secret, military, "highly engineered" supernanothermite. After completely failing to do the types of tests that could have proved any thermitic reaction at all occurred (i.e., that their samples weren't simply burning in air, which they certainly appear to be doing), or that such a reaction was even theoretically possible (e.g. whether or not there was any elemental aluminum present rather than aluminum oxide), the paper offers up conclusions that aren't even supported by the data it does present! As the paper itself pretends to admit then refute, the most obvious explanation is that they are simply looking at paint chips, yet the paper's section that purports to rule out paint is astonishingly inadequate even to non-scientists: These "scientists" didn't even bother trying to find out what kind of paint was used in the building! Instead of looking in the NIST report to find that, Jones scraped some paint off of BYU's stadium bleachers and says, nope, not the same stuff. DUH! And then we find out that the chips are chemical identical to the rustproofing paint used on the floor joists! Don't you think an intellectually honest person should be embarrassed by that? But no, these "truthers" refuse to give up their "peer reviewed" paper after having paid to have it published. But when a paper is that absurd, the issue of whether or not it had any "peer review" is moot, since abject horseshit obviously survived whatever review it may have had.

There's a lot more that could be said about that one video, but that's more than enough to make this point: If the debate is over, T S, then it's because "truthers" have walked away from it, leaving a shitload of issues and unanswered questions about their claims. Most people take that as a concession, T S.

Although, it certainly proves out a superior solution to what brought the complex down
than NIST "science" provides. And, because controlled demolition can be the only conclusion to reach, imo, and, from my perspective, the least bizarre, I must again reject the Government's conclusions and thus its theories. Independent researchers are doing the best work and providing the best explanations for the problems that continue to plague all the issues surrounding the events of 9-11.

After people start seeing the real truth, the false propaganda and fake science they've seen and heard daily since 9-11-2001 begins to take on all of the importance and relevance of wall paper. And, further, the Bush Theory Movement has a double disadvantage to overcome. The first part is the people who were in charge when everything happened. They are liars and mass murderers by way of invasion and rationale. They are provably fascists, with their titular head being the ideological and biological grandson of a WWII Nazi. They are, in fact, prime suspects. The second part is NIST's laughable attempts to side-step Sir Isaac and physical law.

But I'll say this. It must be tough to be in the shoes of someone in the Bush Theory Movement, unless he's getting paid. And, if that's the case, I'd tell him or her to keep digging, you're almost there, lol. Later.

Is that all you got?
You make a good case for why the truther movement dies a little more every day....

That's already been rebutted. If you disagree with the rebuttal, you can make arguments on your own behalf. Otherwise, Seger wins the argument hands down.

"I saw it on the Intertubez" is not an argument that inspires confidence.

My argument is the Chandler series, which is the subject of the OP. Which has not been
rebutted in the least, despite your arrogant insistence that it has. As for the irony, independent
research is no good because it's posted online, but, Government and sympathetic followers' crap
that appears online is gold. Do I have that right? Lol!

Any of us can read your response to Seger's post #6. You didn't lay a glove on it. You can go back and address that, or I suppose you can try to change the subject.

"Example: Cole claims that molten aluminum is silvery in color, not glowing orange like the stuff seen flowing out of the building. It's amazing that someone with an engineering degree is apparently unaware that, while aluminum is silvery at it's melting point, it will glow just like any other metal if it's heated above it's melting point. "

Can you please give evidence for this false assertion? At what temperature does Al begin to glow like any other metal?
shouldn't you guys be arguing that it's Pb and not Al?

At the temperature that all metals glow orange. Aluminium's melting point is far below other metals, but the color spectrum of heated metals applies to it like any other metal. It's one of the requirement to be a metal.

and turn orange? Not even NIST tries to claim that. They claim it's bits of flaming contaminants in the aluminum.

But the fact of melted steel in the rubble pile contradicts that. "I saw melting of girders" said Dr. Abolhassan Astananeh-Asl, a professor of structural engineering at Berkeley.

It's typical of someone who is really not concerned with what HE believes is true, as long as he can convince YOU that it is true. It's like it is some kind of mission or something.

... when he doesn't know what he's talking about.

"Truthers" are known for their hypocrisy. It's like it is some kind of mission or something. It seems that you are less than half-informed about the nature of black body radiation.

> It's typical of someone who is really not concerned with what HE believes is true, as long as he can convince YOU that it is true.

Do you happen to have a shiny aluminum mirror? Someone who was actually concerned about whether or not molten aluminum can glow red might have spent a couple of minutes searching Google images, which is where I found lots of examples like these:

I see plenty of pictures of hot aluminum glowing red, orange, and yellow bright enough to appear white in photos -- pretty much as predicted by the theory of black body radiation. On the other hand, I see you pretending to know some secret physics that refutes that theory. Seems to me you're the one who could use some luck with peddling that bullshit.

posted earlier. What is the temp of the metal flowing from the building here?



1100 C ?
1200 C ?

We have no way of ascertaining what exact color that is because of camera issues, color correction, being in shadow vs. being in direct sunlight, etc. But to be glowing like that at all means it's pretty darn hot.

Now I get your Pb comment. Yes, I'm one of those who thinks that's actually lead with other debris from the Uninterrupted Power Supply room that was in that precise location in the building -- lead batteries in the heat of one of the major fires in the South Tower liquefying in their cases until they burst and flowed out.

would reflect sunlight much and all as it's emitting it's own light & the pictures and videos show the molten metal flowing from the building to be very bright almost white. I don't think it Pb either! It remains silvery also until raised above what temp?
Pretty darn hot indeed though! I'd guess maybe 1100-1200 C minimum!

it's actually brighter than in the pics?

have that same characteristic?

Where did you get your information that it does?

If the concrete contained fly ash, why would they leave dozens or hundreds of tons of useless iron in it?

... depending on whatever is most readily available and cheapest in the area. Along the East Coast, that is fly ash by a wide margin, because while there are thousands of coal-burning power stations, there are very few exposed volcanic flows. In fact, most of the pumice used as aggregate on the East Coast is shipped in from the Greek island of Yali in the Mediterranean.

> If the concrete contained fly ash, why would they leave dozens or hundreds of tons of useless iron in it?

Because it wasn't until the '90s or so that people started going to the trouble of magnetically removing the iron.

But that did not stop you from declaring emphatically "In fact, the lightweight concrete used in the building included fly ash."

What was your source for this information? Did you just make it up? Did you rely on the unsupported claims of anonymous internet propagandists?

How can you expect anybody to believe anything you say?

Given the vast bulk of the necessary admixture, shipping in from Greece or removing unnecessary iron would have been worth the trouble.

... in the dust and in the lungs of first responders.

The fact that there is apparently no record of the formula for the lightweight concrete is actually the reason I'm quite sure that fly ash was used: The contractor would not have gone to the extra expense of using pumice unless the engineers had explicitly specified it, and apparently they didn't. I don't find that surprising, since in my five years as a structural draftsman on the East Coast (Alexandria), i never heard of a single building where pumice was specified.

So, yes, I do have reasons for believing that it is a fact that the WTC concrete contained fly ash. Prove me wrong.

So how do we know how the fly ash got there? Maybe the guy lived on a toxic dump site.
Gosh, show your confirmation bias much?

Fly ash found in the dust?

Gee, does fireproofing compound have fly ash in it?

Gee, does drywall mud have fly ash in it?

Gee, does drywall have fly ash in it?

Gee, does spackle have fly ash in it?

Gee, does tile grout have fly ash in it?

Gosh, show your confirmation bias much?


You didn't answer the question. What was your source for the emphatic claim that "In fact, the lightweight concrete used in the building included fly ash"? Are you ashamed of your sources?

... is any mention of pumice, so let's add that to the list of reasons I've already given you. I have already acknowledged that it appears the composition of the concrete was not documented, but a specification of pumice would have been documented since it's more expensive and uncommon on the East Coast.

While it's true that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence of pumice in the mix, let's review for a moment where the burden of proof really lies here: If someone wants to argue that the iron spherules must be the result of thermite burning, as Jones & Co do, then by the principle of parsimony they are obliged to prove that they didn't come from more a more mundane source, and simply refusing to acknowledge that the concrete is the most likely source doesn't do the trick. Extraordinary claims, Occam's Razon, and all that.

to separate out a mineral of no particular interest?

It's not like specimens of concrete were particularly rare. There were some chunks--some must have been almost 8" in diameter. If you want to claim that the microspheres came from the concrete, it's for you to assay the concrete and find out.

What if all of these tests that NIST "forgot" to do were actually done and they decided to suppress the results because they were not to the Department of Commerce's liking?

And you STILL didn't answer the question. What was your source for the emphatic claim that "In fact, the lightweight concrete used in the building included fly ash"? Are you ashamed of your sources? Did you have no sources? Where did you get your extreme confidence of something you apparently can't demonstrate? Did you get it from some authority figure? Divine inspiration? The back of a cereal box?

The report documents glass fiber, plate glass, and leaded glass, but no volcanic glass.

I no longer remember where I first read that fly ash was used the concrete, and I can't now find any authoritative source. However, I told you why it agreed with what I know about common lightweight concrete at that time, from personal experience as a structural draftsman in the early '70s. Nonetheless,even if that information is incorrect, the issue is that there are multiple possible sources of fly ash and iron spherules in the dust, and the important thing from a scientific point of view is that Jones & Co did nothing whatsoever to identify those sources and rule them out. I'm sorry you don't understand why that would be necessary, but that's irrelevant.

You are the one making claims--that they were in fly ash in the lightweight concrete--that you can't prove.

... and you don't understand why the burden of proof is on Jones & Co that the spherules were produced by thermite, then you are manifestly unqualified to discuss the subject. But that's never stopped you from posting ad nauseum before, has it.

here.

I'm interested in the burden on you,which you utterly failed to fulfill. You said the slabs used fly ash, but you provide no evidence of it. You provide evidence that ONE first responder had fly ash in his lungs, but we don't know when his exposure was or how. Maybe he lived in an ash pit.

Why would lightweight concrete incorporate many thousands of tons of useless weight in the form of iron microspheres?

It must be frustrating to be so compulsively argumentative and yet be wrong so often, and I doubt that anyone is surprised to learn that you don't actually give a shit about the issue.

The miscrospheres remain open.

It's those like you who demonstrate by your willingness to invent your facts that you don't give a shit.

I am not interested in the mysteries being solved by anonymous internet posters in obscure chatrooms. I am interested in having a qualified investigation with subpoena power free of the corrupting influence of the Bush administration.

... but I have told you why I accept it, and you have given me no reason not to. You say it's not your problem that Jones & Co can't rule out any of the obvious possible sources of the spherules -- you don't even want to know what they are -- but you think there very existence warrants another investigation because you don't know where they came from. All I can say is, don't hold your breath.

For the remotest chance of bringing down a steel building with fire, the structural steel of the ENTIRE building would have to be exposed to the flames not just a few floors at the top. The entire building would have to be engulfed in flames for days if not weeks. Burning a few floors at the top for less than an hour isn't going to do it.

Part of the problem here may be ambiguity about the phrase "with fire." You appear to think that it is impossible for a collapse initiated near the top of a building to lead to the destruction of the entire building, but you didn't say why. (Also, you appear to have discounted the damage done by the collisions.)

* the weight of a small block cannot pulverize a much larger, heavier block to dust within a matter of seconds.

* You don't see stacks of floors piling up on each other like pancakes do you?
What you see is the towers exploding to bits as they come to the ground.

That indicates explosives.

I think the towers were too tall to bring down by conventional demolition/conventional means.

so they had to use more powerful explosives to pulverize the floors one by one.

the sheer height and mass of these towers were too great, they would not collapse neatly into a small pile using conventional demolition. There's probably a limit to how high a skyscraper can be for conventional CD to work. Above a certain height, conventional CD will fail to bring it down neatly. I'm no expert on CD but that's my theory which I think its reasonable.

The towers didn't do this.

Anyone who can look at pictures of Ground Zero and think "neatly into small pile" isn't considering all of the facts.

I don't think you can ever make a building that tall fall neatly into a small pile, regardless of CD techniques.

but only relatively neat compared to regular conventional CD.
using conventional CD would probably make them topple over!

the goal is to make the pile as small as possible.

In the case of the WTC towers, if this was the goal, then the demolition people failed.

"using conventional CD would probably make them topple over!"

No. That's another common misperception that the 9/11 Truth Movement uses to make its point. To topple over, those buildings would need a pivot point able to support the entire weight of the building as it developed enough lateral motion to topple. The way the buildings were built, individual connections in any potential pivot point would have failed before toppling could happen.

and buildings can not topple.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196064/Tumbling-tower-China-Amazing-pictures-13-storey-block-flats-toppled-over.html

Bolo didn't say "buildings can not topple"; he said, "The way the buildings were built, individual connections in any potential pivot point would have failed before toppling could happen." Whether or not a building can be made to topple like the ones in your video depends completely on the construction details. The toppling buildings shown in the video are actually trying to rotate around their center of mass. If there is enough lateral resistance available at the pivot point to allow pushing the center of mass past the edge of the building, then it can be made to topple. Otherwise, it can't, regardless of what caused the initial collapse: If whatever is being pushed against collapses, the toppling cannot proceed. (That's a valid example of Newton's 3rd Law, btw.)

And this is all explained to us by our patient anonymous internet propagandists.

For your next trick you can explain why a 747 is too big to take off, because those little elevators in the rear can't possibly lift the nose wheel off the ground.

1) You have a peculiar reaction to being wrong; and 2) you really shouldn't undertake arguing about structural mechanics. As I said, it depends on the construction details of the particular building, and in the case of all three WTC buildings, I'm not guessing: We have Finite Element Analysis simulations that show that the columns could not resist lateral forces sufficient to allow toppling.

... that the columns could not resist lateral forces sufficient to allow toppling"?

Where do you have that?

The sims show that when the buildings started to tilt, the pivot points were pushed in the opposite direction. The reason is explained by Bazant et al.:

resist lateral forces sufficient to cause toppling. I asked you to where was that FEA and you started talking about the towers.

You're blowing stinky smoke, as usual.

When the top of WTC 7 starts to tilt toward the south, the base of falling section kicks toward the north because the columns could not resist the lateral force. And 2) that's why the lower part of the building fell on the Verizon building, so the sim is accurate.