The alternative explanation to the government reports on 9/11

[mike2810]

But Thoreau72 believes it was nukes that killed people and destroyed the towers! Why aren't you showing/debating that he's wrong in addition to the "official story"? "Truthatallcost" right?

That is a trend here. The controlled demolition supporters will not say if the others are wrong. They will not challenge them. It is always directed at the fire induced collapse.

I have even asked if Prager is correct or is AE911T analysis of there were no nukes correct. No answer. Just a dance around and back to well the govt is wrong.

 

[gamolon]

That is a trend here. The controlled demolition supporters will not say if the others are wrong. They will not challenge them. It is always directed at the fire induced collapse.

I have even asked if Prager is correct or is AE911T analysis of there were no nukes correct. No answer. Just a dance around and back to well the govt is wrong.

Agreed. They don't challenge each other. It the same "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" mentality. They don't want to piss each other because that will take away from them all converging on the evil government. It seems that "truth at all cost" only applies to only those challenging the government.

 

[Quag]

But Thoreau72 believes it was nukes that killed people and destroyed the towers! Why aren't you showing/debating that he's wrong in addition to the "official story"? "Truthatallcost" right?

Radioactive nukes that exploded and didn't explode while emitting no radiation planted in the basement that caused the towers to collapse many stories above ground at the point of impact of the planes that did not strike the buildings.


Seriously the cognitive dissonance on display by truthers really is astounding

Yes I said cognitive dissonance now drink!

 

[truthatallcost]

Yeh, right.

Yet you don't want to discuss particulars

You mean ..

I wanted to quote all 3 of you to get your opinions about this fact that engineers were trying to figure out during the initial investigation into why WTC 7 collapsed.

From the NYT, November 29, 2001;

"..experts said no building like it, a modern, steel-reinforced high rise, had ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire...

(regarding 7's fireproofing) "... experts said buildings the size of WTC 7 that are treated with such coatings have never collapsed in a fire of any duration".

(Dr. Jonathan Barnett, professor of fire protection engineering) A combination of uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to be partly EVAPORATED in extraordinary high temperatures Dr. Barnett said.

A NATION CHALLENGED: THE SITE; Engineers Have a Culprit in the Strange Collapse of 7 World Trade Center: Diesel Fuel - The New York Times

Here we have proof from 2001 that portions of steel showed signs of evaporation, which must point to an explanation beyond your mere fire theory.

 

[Quag]

I wanted to quote all 3 of you to get your opinions about this fact that engineers were trying to figure out during the initial investigation into why WTC 7 collapsed.

From the NYT, November 29, 2001;



Here we have proof from 2001 that portions of steel showed signs of evaporation, which must point to an explanation beyond your mere fire theory.

You still havent provided a rational explanation of why anyone would need to cause the collapses.
As to YOU not understanding something that does not mean the ebil govt did it.
What is far more unbelievable is that anyone would go through the trouble to plant explosives or tons and tons of thermite or mini-nukes (without being noticed) all to cause some buildings to collapse in what would still have been the worst terrorist attack in US history if they didn't.

 

[truthatallcost]

You still havent provided a rational explanation of why anyone would need to cause the collapses.
As to YOU not understanding something that does not mean the ebil govt did it.

Then you have no explanation for the evaporated steel either. Thank you. Do continue to criticize all of us trying to find answers to questions that you yourself can't answer, and are apparently content to leave unanswered.

But I'll offer you my opinion why the towers needed to be demolished;

Larry Silverstein, who signed the lease on the WTC 6 weeks prior to 9/11, was trying to collect full insurance payouts for each building that was demolished. If the 3 WTC buildings hadn't collapsed, he couldn't have collected nearly as much in insurance money, as buildings 1 & 2 would have been salvageable, and building 7 wouldn't be damaged at all without the collapse of 1 & 2.

"Silverstein contended that the two jetliners crashing into the twin towers about 15 minutes apart should be considered two separate events, which would allow him to collect the maximum from the insurers for each tower, as much as $7 billion.

Silverstein contended that document had been supplanted by a second form which did not include a definition of "occurrence," opening the door for collecting separately for each tower. But attorney for Swiss Re, Barry Ostrager, called that a "fanciful claim."

CNN.com - Verdict in 9/11 insurance battle - Apr 29, 2004

Maximum coverage for Silverstein's buildings was $3.55 billion. By demolishing the buildings, he then believed he could sue for twice the amount, based on separate attacks, which only works if the buildings are unsalvageable.

The government stood to make much more than Silverstein did however; just the war in Iraq alone cost $2.7 trillion.

What is far more unbelievable is that anyone would go through the trouble to plant explosives or tons and tons of thermite or mini-nukes (without being noticed) all to cause some buildings to collapse in what would still have been the worst terrorist attack in US history if they didn't.

Huh, really? Would the American people have supported razing the Middle East without the WTC buildings collapsing? Absolutely not. Without the collapse of 1,2 &7, you'd end up with enough support for the invasion of Afghanistan, but not Iraq.

 

[mike2810]

I wanted to quote all 3 of you to get your opinions about this fact that engineers were trying to figure out during the initial investigation into why WTC 7 collapsed.

From the NYT, November 29, 2001;



Here we have proof from 2001 that portions of steel showed signs of evaporation, which must point to an explanation beyond your mere fire theory.

Note who the author is of this paper.
https://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf

Look at what the summary has to say. .......


Sulfidated and evaporated steel, page 3

" In his April 2002 report, Dr. Barnett did not mention evaporation or use the term at all after analyzing the steel, nor did he claim that any of the steel he examined had reached a temperature above 1000C. "

The news article was written and published before Dr. Barnett did his analysis .

 

[Quag]

Then you have no explanation for the evaporated steel either. Thank you. Do continue to criticize all of us trying to find answers to questions that you yourself can't answer, and are apparently content to leave unanswered.

But I'll offer you my opinion why the towers needed to be demolished;

Larry Silverstein, who signed the lease on the WTC 6 weeks prior to 9/11, was trying to collect full insurance payouts for each building that was demolished. If the 3 WTC buildings hadn't collapsed, he couldn't have collected nearly as much in insurance money, as buildings 1 & 2 would have been salvageable, and building 7 wouldn't be damaged at all without the collapse of 1 & 2.

"Silverstein contended that the two jetliners crashing into the twin towers about 15 minutes apart should be considered two separate events, which would allow him to collect the maximum from the insurers for each tower, as much as $7 billion.

Silverstein contended that document had been supplanted by a second form which did not include a definition of "occurrence," opening the door for collecting separately for each tower. But attorney for Swiss Re, Barry Ostrager, called that a "fanciful claim."

CNN.com - Verdict in 9/11 insurance battle - Apr 29, 2004

Maximum coverage for Silverstein's buildings was $3.55 billion. By demolishing the buildings, he then believed he could sue for twice the amount, based on separate attacks, which only works if the buildings are unsalvageable.

The government stood to make much more than Silverstein did however; just the war in Iraq alone cost $2.7 trillion.



Huh, really? Would the American people have supported razing the Middle East without the WTC buildings collapsing? Absolutely not. Without the collapse of 1,2 &7, you'd end up with enough support for the invasion of Afghanistan, but not Iraq.

Your question was a diversion from the question asked. It is a well used truther tactic at attempting to avoid answering questions. Untill you actually deal with the question asked I see no reason to deal with diversionary questions.
I am pleased that you tacitly acknowledged the false claim of needing to collapse the buildings to kill more people by not repeating it. That's a start at least.
As to Larry Silverstein and the insurance myth truthers like to throw out there, he actually lost money on 911 so there goes that BS motive.

As we write the insurance payments are not going to reach $7.1 billion. The current situation is $4.6 billion at a maximum, although this may be subject to change (up or down) as a result of court rulings.
And of course this isn't profit for Silverstein. The money is being provided for him to rebuild the WTC complex, and it turns out that's quite expensive ($6.3 billion in April 2006, see here).

Silverstein Properties and the Port Authority continue to be guided by a lease each signed six weeks before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The lease stipulates that should the complex be destroyed, Silverstein must continue to pay the $120 million a year rent in order to maintain the right to rebuild.
404 Not Found

Windfall
Plus all the legal costs involved means he lost a fair chunk of change on 911.

The USA invaded Afghanistan because of 911, not Iraq. The main reason given for that war was non compliance with UN resolutions and WMDs. The war cost the govt money it didn't make the govt money.
On top of that 4 passenger jets hijacked and crashed would still have been the largest terrorist attack on American soil and would have led to all that followed whether or not the buildings collapsed.
Now onto the collapses. More than just 3 buildings were destroyed on 911

Along with the 110-floor Twin Towers, numerous other buildings at the World Trade Center site were destroyed or badly damaged, including WTC buildings 3 through 7 and St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church.[164] The North Tower, South Tower, the Marriott Hotel (3 WTC), and 7 WTC were completely destroyed. The U.S. Customs House (6 World Trade Center), 4 World Trade Center, 5 World Trade Center, and both pedestrian bridges connecting buildings were severely damaged. The Deutsche Bank Building on 130 Liberty Street was partially damaged and demolished some years later, starting in 2007.[165][166] The two buildings of the World Financial Center also suffered damage.[165]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks#Damage
A building doesn't have to collapse to be destroyed Heck the Deutsche bank had to be demolished several years later.
Amazing that 2 aircraft could have multiple buildings to be destroyed yet the 2 that suffered that actual impacts needed CD to bring them down

 

[truthatallcost]

Note who the author is of this paper.
https://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf

Look at what the summary has to say. .......


Sulfidated and evaporated steel, page 3

" In his April 2002 report, Dr. Barnett did not mention evaporation or use the term at all after analyzing the steel, nor did he claim that any of the steel he examined had reached a temperature above 1000C. "

The news article was written and published before Dr. Barnett did his analysis .

When exactly was Barnett permitted to examine the steel then? His comments regarding evaporation were from November 29, 2001, but according to the Chicago Tribune, 50k tons of WTC steel was auctioned off to a Chinese company, with the first shipment leaving for China in mid-December, some 2 weeks after Barnett made his comments to the NYT.

You have a situation here that looks like the government was in a hurry to get 50k tons of evidence off to the recycling center after Dr. Barnett's story surfaces in a major media publication.


Mangled WTC steel bought by China - tribunedigital-chicagotribune

Further, the story says that Baosteel was given the scrap remains for $120 a ton. The going rate today for scrap steel is $2000 a ton. Even considering the amount of time that has elapsed here, $120 a ton sounds like someone just wanted to get rid of a lot of evidence, and wasn't really concerned about achieving any kind of fair price in return.

 

[truthatallcost]

Your question was a diversion from the question asked. It is a well used truther tactic at attempting to avoid answering questions. Untill you actually deal with the question asked I see no reason to deal with diversionary questions.
I am pleased that you tacitly acknowledged the false claim of needing to collapse the buildings to kill more people by not repeating it. That's a start at least.
As to Larry Silverstein and the insurance myth truthers like to throw out there, he actually lost money on 911 so there goes that BS motive.

You're confusing his intentions with results. Just because his plan for suing everybody under the sun didn't exactly work out how intended it to, doesn't mean that he wasn't a participant.

"Real estate developer Larry Silverstein and World Trade Center Properties have already collected nearly $5 billion toward reconstruction."

As of 2013, Silverstein had already been compensated $5 billion. But he wanted more, and had his lawyers sue United Airlines and American Airlines for another $3.5 billion.

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/wtc-owners-bid-sue-airlines-blocked-article-1.1402923

Remember that Silversteins initial claim against his insurance company was for $7 billion, then he thought he could suck another $3.5 billion out of the airlines. So Silversteins total intent was for $10.5 billion.

Plus all the legal costs involved means he lost a fair chunk of change on 911.

Then he needs to sue Cheney or the people who talked him into blowing up his buildings.

The USA invaded Afghanistan because of 911, not Iraq. The main reason given for that war was non compliance with UN resolutions and WMDs.

Do you not remember the time period of which your speaking? Within days of the WTC attack, Rumsfeld was gathering information on the possibility of blaming Saddam Hussein for 9/11 to justify an invasion. By 2003, almost 70% of Americans thought Hussein had something to do with 9/11. Why do you think that is?

Donald Rumsfeld Iraq War Lie - Business Insider

The war cost the govt money it didn't make the govt money.

Correction: The war cost Americans money. The government is made up of individuals, who just so happened to profit enormously from the war.

On top of that 4 passenger jets hijacked and crashed would still have been the largest terrorist attack on American soil and would have led to all that followed whether or not the buildings collapsed.
Now onto the collapses.

Total casualties would have been roughly the same in number as the OKC bombing. The Bush neocons needed something far bigger than 200-300 deaths to warrant invading Iraq and seizing the oil fields.

More than just 3 buildings were destroyed on 911

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks#Damage
A building doesn't have to collapse to be destroyed Heck the Deutsche bank had to be demolished several years later.
Amazing that 2 aircraft could have multiple buildings to be destroyed yet the 2 that suffered that actual impacts needed CD to bring them down

Go watch the footage of the firemen who were actually at the WTC when the towers fell. These men witnessed hundreds of building fires in their careers, and also served as safety personnel at official building demolitions. Several veteran firemen are on film stating that the collapse of 1&2 reminded them of controlled demolitions. Their experience counts for more with me than a thousand internet articles written by people who weren't even there that day.

 

[mike2810]

When exactly was Barnett permitted to examine the steel then? His comments regarding evaporation were from November 29, 2001, but according to the Chicago Tribune, 50k tons of WTC steel was auctioned off to a Chinese company, with the first shipment leaving for China in mid-December, some 2 weeks after Barnett made his comments to the NYT.

You have a situation here that looks like the government was in a hurry to get 50k tons of evidence off to the recycling center after Dr. Barnett's story surfaces in a major media publication.


Mangled WTC steel bought by China - tribunedigital-chicagotribune

Further, the story says that Baosteel was given the scrap remains for $120 a ton. The going rate today for scrap steel is $2000 a ton. Even considering the amount of time that has elapsed here, $120 a ton sounds like someone just wanted to get rid of a lot of evidence, and wasn't really concerned about achieving any kind of fair price in return.

Let's face it. You took what the news article stated hook, line and sinker. You reacted to a story written in a paper before the lab analysis was done.
Sorry, pretty poor research on your part.

Trying to misdirect again. You have been shown your vaporization comment is not supported. Even by the researcher who made it.

Please provide a source that states today's scrap steel prices are worth $2000/ton. The ones I found don't even come close to that.

Even your own linked article state about China, "Today, it relies on other countries for its raw material. In 2000, the country imported 5.1 million tons of scrap, according to the Shanghai Daily. The average selling price is about $150 a ton, the newspaper said." So the $120/ton back in 2001 doesn't seem that unreasonable.

Seems your just wanting to throw anything to see what sticks.

Noted: you have not addressed the lack of other researches being able to duplicate Harrit analysis. You have not address the fact that Harrit stated it would have taken thousands of metric tons of the alleged "thermite" to produce the percentage of iron spheres found in the sample he used.

Why do you only address fire induced collapse questions when T72 claims it was mini neutron bombs. When are you going to challenge him?

 

[Quag]

You're confusing his intentions with results. Just because his plan for suing everybody under the sun didn't exactly work out how intended it to, doesn't mean that he wasn't a participant.

"Real estate developer Larry Silverstein and World Trade Center Properties have already collected nearly $5 billion toward reconstruction."

As of 2013, Silverstein had already been compensated $5 billion. But he wanted more, and had his lawyers sue United Airlines and American Airlines for another $3.5 billion.

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/wtc-owners-bid-sue-airlines-blocked-article-1.1402923

Remember that Silversteins initial claim against his insurance company was for $7 billion, then he thought he could suck another $3.5 billion out of the airlines. So Silversteins total intent was for $10.5 billion.



Then he needs to sue Cheney or the people who talked him into blowing up his buildings.



Do you not remember the time period of which your speaking? Within days of the WTC attack, Rumsfeld was gathering information on the possibility of blaming Saddam Hussein for 9/11 to justify an invasion. By 2003, almost 70% of Americans thought Hussein had something to do with 9/11. Why do you think that is?

Donald Rumsfeld Iraq War Lie - Business Insider





Correction: The war cost Americans money. The government is made up of individuals, who just so happened to profit enormously from the war.




Total casualties would have been roughly the same in number as the OKC bombing. The Bush neocons needed something far bigger than 200-300 deaths to warrant invading Iraq and seizing the oil fields.






Go watch the footage of the firemen who were actually at the WTC when the towers fell. These men witnessed hundreds of building fires in their careers, and also served as safety personnel at official building demolitions. Several veteran firemen are on film stating that the collapse of 1&2 reminded them of controlled demolitions. Their experience counts for more with me than a thousand internet articles written by people who weren't even there that day.

I'm sorry your failure to actually look at the truth is a problem for you.
Silverstein never had a chance to make money from 911 as he was underinsured
Windfall
After 911 they went after Osama in Afghanistan why would they not have directly blamed Saddam if he was the target?
Oh yeah that right because they didn't cause the collapses/
So the US govt LOST money good to know you admit it.
The collapses were irrelevant to the invasion of Afghanistan the 4 hijackings and crashes were more than enough and how do you estimate 300 deaths if no collapses (not that it would matter)
Now what about all the buildings destroyed other than WTC1,2,7 obviously as you accept the hijackings/impacts they should still be standing according to your logic.

Your typical truther argument seems to be they were moronic evil geniuses that got the hard part right and the easy part all wrong. Sorry logic says you are incorrect

 

[truthatallcost]

Let's face it. You took what the news article stated hook, line and sinker. You reacted to a story written in a paper before the lab analysis was done.
Sorry, pretty poor research on your part.

Trying to misdirect again. You have been shown your vaporization comment is not supported. Even by the researcher who made it.

Please provide a source that states today's scrap steel prices are worth $2000/ton. The ones I found don't even come close to that.

Even your own linked article state about China, "Today, it relies on other countries for its raw material. In 2000, the country imported 5.1 million tons of scrap, according to the Shanghai Daily. The average selling price is about $150 a ton, the newspaper said." So the $120/ton back in 2001 doesn't seem that unreasonable.

Seems your just wanting to throw anything to see what sticks.

Noted: you have not addressed the lack of other researches being able to duplicate Harrit analysis. You have not address the fact that Harrit stated it would have taken thousands of metric tons of the alleged "thermite" to produce the percentage of iron spheres found in the sample he used.

Why do you only address fire induced collapse questions when T72 claims it was mini neutron bombs. When are you going to challenge him?

Fine, subtract the information about the price of the scrap steel then and answer my question to you; was the 50k tons of steel sent to China before or after Dr Barnett had a chance to analyze steel samples.

Noted: you have not addressed the lack of other researches being able to duplicate Harrit analysis. You have not address the fact that Harrit stated it would have taken thousands of metric tons of the alleged "thermite" to produce the percentage of iron spheres found in the sample he used.

Well Harrit isn't exactly an extension of the U.S. government, right? We can't possibly expect him to be as perfect in his hypothesis as our dear government officials. Who by the way, couldn't prove their initial theory either. Remember that NIST had Underwriters Laboratories conduct fire tests of similar steel beams, and couldn't quite get their beams to produce 'collapse' results. UL even used temperatures that exceeded the ones that were present in the towers.

I can understand why the government reluctantly allowed archived recordings of firemen in the towers to be heard; go find the audiotape of Orio Palmer, the FDNY chief who reached floor 79 of the south tower on 9/11. His eyewitness accounts of what he did and saw refutes the government's version of structural damage + towering infernos.

 

[mike2810]

Fine, subtract the information about the price of the scrap steel then and answer my question to you; was the 50k tons of steel sent to China before or after Dr Barnett had a chance to analyze steel samples.



Well Harrit isn't exactly an extension of the U.S. government, right? We can't possibly expect him to be as perfect in his hypothesis as our dear government officials. Who by the way, couldn't prove their initial theory either. Remember that NIST had Underwriters Laboratories conduct fire tests of similar steel beams, and couldn't quite get their beams to produce 'collapse' results. UL even used temperatures that exceeded the ones that were present in the towers.

I can understand why the government reluctantly allowed archived recordings of firemen in the towers to be heard; go find the audiotape of Orio Palmer, the FDNY chief who reached floor 79 of the south tower on 9/11. His eyewitness accounts of what he did and saw refutes the government's version of structural damage + towering infernos.

Not going to do your research for you regarding when the steel was shipped and when Dr Barnett did his analysis.
That said. Are questioning that Dr Barnett did not have ample representative samples to work with to conduct his research. Did Dr Barnett state that the steel should not have been shipped or he needed more samples?

I take Jones, Gage, Harrit for what they say and write. Jones states nanothermite has a much higher ignition temp than the sample Harrit ignited. No explanation as to the difference.
You also seem to have forgotten the quotes from post 172.
"
"On July 27, 2011, Niels Harrit (chief author of the 2009 nanothermite paper) presented a calculation for how much thermitic material would have been necessary to explain the presence of the many tiny iron-rich spheres in the dust (assuming that a thermite reaction was the source of the spheres). He gave a range of numbers, based on lower and higher concentrations of the thermite formulation. His lowest figure amounted to 29,000 metric tons of thermitic explosive per tower – a value hundreds of times greater than the calculation for conventional explosives. His “conservative” estimate (based on 10% iron-oxide in the thermitic material) was 143,000 metric tons of thermitic material that would have been placed in each tower. Let’s be realistic: How could the perpetrators drag in and plant over 100,000 tons of explosive without being seen? Even 29,000 tons is hard to imagine and would have been rather difficult to do unnoticed."

No rational person would believe that 29,000 - 143,000 metric tons of Harrits nanothermite could have been brought into each of the buildings. The quantity is Harri's , not the govt., not mine. As far as not being perfect. If you are accepting the fact he could be way off, I would question the rest of his research.

Did any fireman report seeing bombs before the towers came down?

 

[Thoreau72]

Fine, subtract the information about the price of the scrap steel then and answer my question to you; was the 50k tons of steel sent to China before or after Dr Barnett had a chance to analyze steel samples.



Well Harrit isn't exactly an extension of the U.S. government, right? We can't possibly expect him to be as perfect in his hypothesis as our dear government officials. Who by the way, couldn't prove their initial theory either. Remember that NIST had Underwriters Laboratories conduct fire tests of similar steel beams, and couldn't quite get their beams to produce 'collapse' results. UL even used temperatures that exceeded the ones that were present in the towers.

I can understand why the government reluctantly allowed archived recordings of firemen in the towers to be heard; go find the audiotape of Orio Palmer, the FDNY chief who reached floor 79 of the south tower on 9/11. His eyewitness accounts of what he did and saw refutes the government's version of structural damage + towering infernos.

Not just Orio Palmer's testimony or Willy Rodriguez' testimony, but most all testimony and fact contradict and refute the official story.

 

[gamolon]

go find the audiotape of Orio Palmer, the FDNY chief who reached floor 79 of the south tower on 9/11. His eyewitness accounts of what he did and saw refutes the government's version of structural damage + towering infernos.

Did you even read the transcripts from Orio? Do you know the location of where the impact damage from the plane actually was in comparison to where Orio was?

Here is the link to the transcripts: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/September_11th_FDNY_Radio_Transcripts

The 78th and 79th floors were where the tip of the wing and engine impacted. The rest of the damage went up to the 82nd floor. How can you say that the governments version of damage and towering inferno was wrong based on Orio's account of the 78th floor only? Through smoke and fire? Pure stupidity.

Plane damage profiles: 9-11 Review: Jets Impact the Twin Towers

 

[gamolon]

Willy Rodriguez' testimony,

As has been shown to you and other many times before, William embellished hie story as time went on. He was in the limelight doing all kinds of presentations and meeting with celebrities. Of course he had to embellish his descriptions. Just look at what he described just hours after the event.

I was in the basement, which is the support floor for the maintenance company, and we hear like a big rumble. Not like an impact, like a rumble, like moving furniture in a massive way. And all of sudden we hear another rumble, and a guy comes running, running into our office, and all of skin was off his body. All of the skin.

CNN.com - Transcripts

How does that compare to his descriptions months/years later? Total embellishment.

 

[gamolon]

I wanted to quote all 3 of you to get your opinions .

Why are you avoiding my questions about Harrit's paper?

 

[truthatallcost]

Did you even read the transcripts from Orio? Do you know the location of where the impact damage from the plane actually was in comparison to where Orio was?

Yes. Orio reported using Staircase B and later Staircase A.

B should have been damaged beyond use, as it resided on the eastern portion of the south tower. I think Orio said he took B up to around the 78th floor, which is part of the impact zone.

Funny that governmentphiles believe that the plane's impact significantly damaged the core of the south tower, yet the staircase in direct contact with the plane's impact wasn't damaged beyond use.

Here is the link to the transcripts: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/September_11th_FDNY_Radio_Transcripts

The 78th and 79th floors were where the tip of the wing and engine impacted. The rest of the damage went up to the 82nd floor. How can you say that the governments version of damage and towering inferno was wrong based on Orio's account of the 78th floor only? Through smoke and fire? Pure stupidity.

Plane damage profiles: 9-11 Review: Jets Impact the Twin Towers

Read the account of the fires from the site you linked:

In the North tower, flames were visible for the duration of the 102 minutes between its jet impact and its explosive collapse. In the South Tower, flames diminished rapidly and were not visible at the time of its collapse. The North Tower, whose impact was centered, captured much more of its jetliner's fuel than did the South Tower, whose offset impact spilled most of the fuel outside the building.

9-11 Review: Fires in the Twin Towers

Remember that your claim lines up with the government story, that fires weakened the steel, causing collapse.

Why did tower 2 collapse 30 minutes before tower 1, when A) tower 2 was struck by a plane 17 minutes after tower 1, & B) the fires present in tower 1 were much more severe than the fires in tower 2?

 

[truthatallcost]

Not going to do your research for you regarding when the steel was shipped and when Dr Barnett did his analysis.
That said. Are questioning that Dr Barnett did not have ample representative samples to work with to conduct his research. Did Dr Barnett state that the steel should not have been shipped or he needed more samples?

The steel should have been sent for storage until it could be properly examined. Who the hell sells evidence from a crime scene, especially before an official report has been prepared for that crime? You have a massive procedural problem here.

I take Jones, Gage, Harrit for what they say and write. Jones states nanothermite has a much higher ignition temp than the sample Harrit ignited. No explanation as to the difference.
You also seem to have forgotten the quotes from post 172.
"
"On July 27, 2011, Niels Harrit (chief author of the 2009 nanothermite paper) presented a calculation for how much thermitic material would have been necessary to explain the presence of the many tiny iron-rich spheres in the dust (assuming that a thermite reaction was the source of the spheres). He gave a range of numbers, based on lower and higher concentrations of the thermite formulation. His lowest figure amounted to 29,000 metric tons of thermitic explosive per tower – a value hundreds of times greater than the calculation for conventional explosives. His “conservative” estimate (based on 10% iron-oxide in the thermitic material) was 143,000 metric tons of thermitic material that would have been placed in each tower. Let’s be realistic: How could the perpetrators drag in and plant over 100,000 tons of explosive without being seen? Even 29,000 tons is hard to imagine and would have been rather difficult to do unnoticed."

No rational person would believe that 29,000 - 143,000 metric tons of Harrits nanothermite could have been brought into each of the buildings. The quantity is Harri's , not the govt., not mine. As far as not being perfect. If you are accepting the fact he could be way off, I would question the rest of his research.

I don't know if his estimates are accurate for the quantity of material needed. I do know that a group of artists were permitted to actually live on the 91st and 92nd floor of the North Tower, in 2000. They were given WTC construction credentials, which meant they could bring tools and other supplies into the building without inspection. They conducted a bunch of odd 'art projects' that included flying helicopters up to the upper levels of the towers to film and take pictures.

I'm also aware of people who were employed at the WTC that reported a power down in the upper 50 floors of the South Tower on the weekend prior to 9/11. They said that maintenance workers moved freely throughout the upper floors of the South Tower for 2 days. Scott Forbes is the name of one WTC employee who stated that he was assigned to work on the Saturday and Sunday prior to 9/11, and witnessed men going about the upper floors of the South Tower with tools and equipment.

After the attack, he states that he tried to contact the FBI and 9/11 Commission regarding what he saw, and that no one ever returned his calls or cared to do much investigation into his claims.

Did any fireman report seeing bombs before the towers came down?

Not that I know of, but many firemen reported hearing explosions and stated that the collapses looked like controlled demolition. Several firemen reported seeing a lava-like substance at ground zero. Some of these men stated that they personally saw steel burning in front of them. Firemen haven't been listened to much on these issues, so why would you expect it to matter much if some of them reported seeing bombs?

 

[gamolon]

Yes. Orio reported using Staircase B and later Staircase A.

B should have been damaged beyond use, as it resided on the eastern portion of the south tower. I think Orio said he took B up to around the 78th floor, which is part of the impact zone.

Funny that governmentphiles believe that the plane's impact significantly damaged the core of the south tower, yet the staircase in direct contact with the plane's impact wasn't damaged beyond use.

You really need to learn the orientation of the towers and the stairwells if your going to reference them. Go back and read his location descriptions. He uses "center" of the building for stairwell "boy" and southern stairwell for stairwell "alpha".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construction_of_the_World_Trade_Center

The core of each tower was a rectangular area 87 by 135 feet (27 by 41 m), and contained 47 steel columns running from the bedrock to the top of the tower.[50] The columns tapered after the 66th floor, and consisted of welded box-sections at lower floors and rolled wide-flange sections at upper floors. The structural core in 1 WTC was oriented with the long axis east to west, while that of 2 WTC was oriented north to south. All elevators were located in the core. Each building had three stairwells, also in the core, except on the mechanical floors where the two outside stairwells temporarily left the core in order to avoid the express elevator machine rooms, and then rejoined the core by means of a transfer corridor.[56] It was this arrangement that allowed Stairwell A of 2 WTC to remain passable after the aircraft impact on September 11, 2001

Orio started in the center stairwell and then moved to the south stairwell up to the 78th (start of the impact zone) floor where he encountered fire. The south stairwell was the one closest to the impact zone hence the fires he encountered and why he stopped there.

Get your facts straight.

Remember that your claim lines up with the government story, that fires weakened the steel, causing collapse.

Correct.

Why did tower 2 collapse 30 minutes before tower 1, when A) tower 2 was struck by a plane 17 minutes after tower 1, & B) the fires present in tower 1 were much more severe than the fires in tower 2?

You mean to tell me that you can't figure out that WTC2 had more load above the impact zone than WTC1?! WTC1's impact zone was floors 93 to 99 with 11 floors above. WTC2's impact zone was 78 to 85 with 25 floors above.

:roll:

 

[mike2810]

The steel should have been sent for storage until it could be properly examined. Who the hell sells evidence from a crime scene, especially before an official report has been prepared for that crime? You have a massive procedural problem here.



I don't know if his estimates are accurate for the quantity of material needed. I do know that a group of artists were permitted to actually live on the 91st and 92nd floor of the North Tower, in 2000. They were given WTC construction credentials, which meant they could bring tools and other supplies into the building without inspection. They conducted a bunch of odd 'art projects' that included flying helicopters up to the upper levels of the towers to film and take pictures.

I'm also aware of people who were employed at the WTC that reported a power down in the upper 50 floors of the South Tower on the weekend prior to 9/11. They said that maintenance workers moved freely throughout the upper floors of the South Tower for 2 days. Scott Forbes is the name of one WTC employee who stated that he was assigned to work on the Saturday and Sunday prior to 9/11, and witnessed men going about the upper floors of the South Tower with tools and equipment.

After the attack, he states that he tried to contact the FBI and 9/11 Commission regarding what he saw, and that no one ever returned his calls or cared to do much investigation into his claims.



Not that I know of, but many firemen reported hearing explosions and stated that the collapses looked like controlled demolition. Several firemen reported seeing a lava-like substance at ground zero. Some of these men stated that they personally saw steel burning in front of them. Firemen haven't been listened to much on these issues, so why would you expect it to matter much if some of them reported seeing bombs?

Are you aware of the steel investigators determined to be critical to the investigation was stored at a JFK Hanger? It is your contention that all the debris from WTC1,2 and 7 have been stored somewhere?

Wait. You accept Gage/Jones/Harrit finding of thermite, but you don't know if Harrit's estimate was correct of the amount needed to produce the results captured on video. Seems like you are cherry picking to support your conclusion. It also seems you are playing the "what if" game by hinting the tenants on floor91/92 may have brought in the explosives and planted them.

So how did they protect the explosives from the airline crash or falling debris and resulting fires from not messing up the planned CD?

You are also playing a what if game on the maintenance issue on the 50th floor. What evidence do you have that they planned bombs.? Seems you could be sued for libel by saying the workers may have been involved without any proof.

Are you saying that all explosion sound during a fire come from explosives ? I have no doubt the fireman heard some explosions. That is not all that uncommon in a large building fire.

Why do you ignore post 207?

Try laying out in detail your thermite explanation you believe. It should stand on its own merits.

 

[Thoreau72]

As though the OCT stands on its own merits......:doh

 

[mike2810]

As though the OCT stands on its own merits......:doh

It does. Nice try in redirect.
That said, T72, look at post 01. Let me refresh your memory"
"After all these years, there is no one clear concise explanation regarding what some believe was the controlled demolition of WTC1,2,7.

Here you can lay out the concise explanation of what happened to those buildings. Post your supporting evidence and sources. It is not a thread about the government reports on WTC1,2,7. It is about the controlled demolition that some claim happened. ''

I see no evidence of mini neutron bombs were used in the collapse of WTC 1,2,7.
Even in Prager's book talks through footnote links of such a weapon being only theoretical on paper and not beyond lab experimental work. The book talks a great deal of the bomb development used in WWII. No where does it state a model or even if the military has such a weapon back in 2001. It played the what if game.

Would be happy to discuss your evidence in detail regarding nukes. Or maybe you would like to discuss why AE911T is wrong and you are right regarding what was used in the CD.

 

[Thoreau72]

It does. Nice try in redirect.
That said, T72, look at post 01. Let me refresh your memory"
"After all these years, there is no one clear concise explanation regarding what some believe was the controlled demolition of WTC1,2,7.

Here you can lay out the concise explanation of what happened to those buildings. Post your supporting evidence and sources. It is not a thread about the government reports on WTC1,2,7. It is about the controlled demolition that some claim happened. ''

I see no evidence of mini neutron bombs were used in the collapse of WTC 1,2,7.
Even in Prager's book talks through footnote links of such a weapon being only theoretical on paper and not beyond lab experimental work. The book talks a great deal of the bomb development used in WWII. No where does it state a model or even if the military has such a weapon back in 2001. It played the what if game.

Would be happy to discuss your evidence in detail regarding nukes. Or maybe you would like to discuss why AE911T is wrong and you are right regarding what was used in the CD.

Sure it does Mike. Sure the OCT stands on its own. That's why there are so many groups "for 911 truth" in their title. Pilots, Architects & Engineers, Lawyers, Nurses, Firemen. Cripes, just about every group but milkmen have some group recognizing the many failures of the OCT.