why we're covering 9/11 fifteen years on

A reader called “Paul” recently emailed us this message:
I for one, do not care for your ‘9/11 was a inside job’ articles.
The insane re-addressing of a american terrorist incident that happened 15 years ago is actually very, very boring.
If your website wants to survive, then I would frankly do away with the 9/11 crap and get on with what is happening now.
[…]
Get some proper articles together because your website is getting like a very sad and f_cked up ‘Infowars’ based conspiracy channel.
Regards,
Paul”

Paul is probably not as plugged in to recent geopolitical history as he should be, but leaving that aside, we do realise some of our readers will be questioning our decision to cover the 9/11 fifteenth anniversary, so we thought we’d take this opportunity to talk about that.
Firstly, we think there’s no point in expending the effort involved in running OffGuardian, if we are going to be selective in our scepticism. Fifteen years ago the idea of large scale false flags or government deceptions seemed absurd to all of us. But the unraveling of so many official narratives in recent years; the lies over WMDs, the lies over Ghouta, the lies over Libya and Ukraine, the repeat evidence for wholesale manipulation, if not fabrication, of events to promote war, means we don’t feel able to simply take the events of 9/11 on trust any more. It was the catalyst for the perpetual war currently being waged, the ultimate fail-safe irrefutable argument to silence criticism of the Patriot Act, Guantanamo and the creeping emergence of fascism in the Western world.
How can any of us continue to question everything 9/11 has brought us, but not question 9/11 itself?
We aren’t interested in simply erecting new certitudes to replace the used ones. We aren’t claiming “Bush did it” or “Israel did it” or “the Saudis did it”, or indeed “Bin Laden did it.” We want to take a long and dispassionate look at the evidence for what actually happened that day, and give space, as our remit dictates, to those opinions and facts that tend to be silenced in the mainstream.
On 9/11 three steel-framed high-rise buildings collapsed completely at near free-fall speed allegedly due to fires – which, if true, makes them the only steel-framed high-rises in construction history to have ever done this. Rationally and objectively, this is something worth examining, as unique events always are. Did the government-appointed enquiry by the National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST) do a thorough job in explaining why this unique event occurred? Or did it do what government-appointed enquiries usually do and fudge? Do we have answers or evasions?
For some reason these questions are routinely avoided, even by those who are willing to ask similar questions about WMDs or Syrian chemical weapons or Chilcot. The fear of the label “conspiracy theorist” deters too many of us – which of course is just what it was intended to do.
But if even the “non-Truther” alt news community allow itself to be controlled and corralled by Orwellian language-manipulation, we have already conceded the ultimate power to those we are supposed to be challenging. The same social forces that invented the phrase “conspiracy theory” only need to invent other no-go labels in future to effectively force us into further self-censorship. Unless at some point we refuse to allow the voodoo word-magic to work on us.
So, we’re using the fifteenth anniversary of 9/11 to pose a couple of very basic questions:

  • Has the government sufficiently explained its version of events?
  • Does this version fit the observed facts better than any other?

The fact this is considered by so many intelligent people to be an “out there” thing to do speaks volumes about how much even the most savvy of us are currently brainwashed.
The phrase “conspiracy theorist” is an empty meme invented to deter enquiry. We don’t think this is a good thing and we don’t intend to be controlled by it. We believe facts really should be sacred – however unpopular they may be and whatever label someone may have attached to them.
We all hope our readers will find this series interesting, thought-provoking and maybe even enlightening.

CATTE    SYSTEMTATIC    VASKA    KIT


newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Admin
Reader

This thread has 209 comments on it and is becoming unwieldy due to the shortcomings of the software. So, we’re closing it. Feel free to transfer ongoing discussions to other 9/11 threads.

Michael Scott
Reader
Michael Scott

I agree with the premises of the article. I do not agree, however, that the derogatory use of the term “conspiracy theorist” was “intended” to do anything. It is simply another case of the putrification of language. There is still some semantic value left in the word, although its usage has been largely corrupted by having been seized upon, to stifle debate. What is really sad is that so many people consider all debate to be disquieting. They are those for whom the state, majority opinion etc should always have the last word.
As an evidence-based conspiracy theorist myself the misuse of the term “conspiracy” which simply means the clandestine grouping of a number of people opposed to the common good, is fairly outrageous.

Jerome Fryer
Reader
Jerome Fryer

You should just be more exact in the use of ‘conspiracy’.
There are real conspiracies — mostly within the business world, where honesty is a liability — and then there are real policies intended to subvert the greater good of the societies they affect. Policy, even when cloaked / misreported or simply unreported, is not conspiracy but it is indeed ‘the gummint’ out to get you’ (if you’re not in the elite that are backing the policy). Propaganda and demonisation in pursuit of securing narrow interests (e.g. the latest ‘Russia scare’) is also a form of broad conspiracy, where mainstream media are pressed into service of the official narrative.
It is always a complex structure, with different groups typically at cross-purposes pursuing different short-term goals, and requires effort to get at the likely underlying truth. The prevalence of “conspiracy theorists” / “hoaxers” / “tinfoil hat wearers” are part of the problem, and are encouraged by those wishing to cloak actual conspiracy, as their gullibility obstructs reaching the genuine conspiracies / policies that are doing the actual damage.
Similarly with scepticism, which does not mean denying demonstrable facts.

PainedScientist
Reader
PainedScientist

Remember that Jerome – “skepticism does not mean denying demonstrable facts.”
Not demonstrable opinions. It’s fine to deny those and we all should if we can show them to be invalid.
Not demonstrable theories – such as NIST’s ideas about how the towers might have come down – it’s fine to deny those too if they contravene physical laws.
But as you say it’s not fine to deny demonstrable facts. Such as the law of Conservation of Momentum, for example. And the thermal conductivity of steel.
NIST denies the second of those and hand-waves around the first, and so do you when you repeat their unproven collapse theories as if they were some sort of established fact.

Jerome Fryer
Reader
Jerome Fryer

What kind of scientist are you?

PainedScientist
Reader
PainedScientist

The pained – and patient – kind Jerome.

Jerome Fryer
Reader
Jerome Fryer

Upon what do you base your claim to be a scientist? What field of research?

PainedScientist
Reader
PainedScientist

I have a science degree and taught science. I know about the law of Conservation of Momentum and I know steel does not have a thermal conductivity of zero. But so what? Why ask? Who cares?
Are you planning to take my word for something? Don’t take my word for anything. Don’t take NIST’s word for anything. Do your own fact-checking, and if they check out, don’t deny them

Loop Garou
Reader
Loop Garou

I do agree with you in part, however, this article and related book traces how the phrase “conspiracy theory” was created by the CIA to divert people from speculating JFK’s assassination was an “inside job”.

Arrby
Reader

My two cents worth: I agree with Off Guardian on it’s decision to look at 9/11 in the spirit which they do.

Dirk Janssen
Reader

“On 9/11 three steel-framed high-rise buildings collapsed completely at near free-fall speed allegedly due to fires – which, if true, makes them the only steel-framed high-rises in construction history to have ever done this.”
I could be wrong, but I remember something about two airplanes as well. Allegedly, they flew into the building before the fire, wrecking the internal scaffolding. And probably the part of the building above the points of impact had some weight, which put enormous pressure on the remains of the construction. To omit this as if it were some minor detail hurts your credibility.
It is always a good thing to question the narrative of the mainstream media, but I never read any serious news outlet claiming that the two towers collapses because of a fire. And I believe here lies the point you are missing. Yes, you should question each and every statement in the news. But if there is no solid basis for doubt, then there is no story worth publishing.

JanJoukedeHaan
Reader
JanJoukedeHaan

I don’t know what you mean by “wrecking the internal scaffolding” Both towers had extremely strong internal steel columns, continuous all the way from basement to top, which were fully intact below the point of impact, and load bearing steel columns along the whole perimeter of the towers, which were also fully intact below the point of impact. In both the “pancaking” and the “piledriver” scenarios, the inner columns would still have stood, as well as the whole structure below the 20th floor or so.
I you haven’t read “a serious news outlet” claiming that the three buildings collapsed due to fire, I’d advise you to read the reports from FEMA and NIST. They made that statement.

Husq
Reader
Husq

Israel and 911, The Empire Unmasked (excerpts) Ryan Dawson:

physicsandmathsrevision
Reader

Quite recently re-released FOX NEWS report

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qynya88mRZI
This was broadcast on Fox News Carl Cameron’s expose THIS IS A MUST LISTEN. It is hard to believe Fox News ever got this published. Much of the most damning info is in the second half of the broadcast.
Key points:
After 911, Israeli companies tipped off perpetrators of 911 to when the FBI, CIA an other American intelligence was onto them, so they could immediately change their identities and prevent the investigations from proceeding. Additionally, once the investigations started, the perpetrators were given the ability to wire tap all of the investigator’s phones and other communications via Israeli owned companies and spy infrastructure, to totally circumvent capture. If this does not by itself prove Israel did 911, I do not know what possibly could.
Israeli companies tip off Israeli drug dealers to when American investigation efforts have pinned them down, and like the perpetrators of 911, the Israelis then provide even drug dealers with wire taps on the investigators in pursuit of them, to help them completely evade capture.
This Fox News report is SO DAMNING one wonders if wonder if Carl Cameron is even alive. This series was shut down 8 out of 12 segments early. Much can be extrapolated from even these 4 segments, The implication is that Israel is America’s primary enemy.
[edited to combine two video links]

CloudSlicer
Reader
CloudSlicer

What is ‘racist’ about saying that the 9/11 operation may have involved some Israelis?

Eric_B
Reader
Eric_B

What do you think might be racist about blaming Jews for a terrorist attack on America?

CloudSlicer
Reader
CloudSlicer

By that reasoning, it is racist to blame some Saudis who came from Saudi Arabia to hijack the planes.
‘Jewishness’ is not a ‘race’ by the way – it is a religion.

Eric_B
Reader
Eric_B

Why is it racist to state the fact that most of the terrorists who hijacked the planes were from Saudi Arabia?

Moriarty's Left Sock
Reader
Moriarty's Left Sock

Not Jews, the state of Israel. Are you saying the state of Israel should be beyond criticism – just like the Guardian thinks?

Eric_B
Reader
Eric_B

I posted a big response but it’s gone.

Eric_B
Reader
Eric_B

Sure, but as we all know the ‘state of israel’ is often used as a proxy for people who just hate Jews.
And if anyone actually thinks or claims to think that the state of Israel or Jews were involved in 9/11…
I say to such people, you are anti Semites, fuck you.

physicsandmathsrevision
Reader

Says the man who has zero awareness of the facts of 9/11.
Or maybe the troll who doesn’t want to know or pretends not to know.

Admin
Reader

Please let this go. The issue is done.

physicsandmathsrevision
Reader

OK

Admin
Reader

We get anti-semitic remarks very often. Most we let stand, some we don’t if they are inciting genuine race-hate. Blaming Israel for 9/11 is not anti-Semitism. Our policy is that Israel is a state and can be critiqued like any other state.

Eric_B
Reader
Eric_B

Seems blatantly anti Semitic to me.

CloudSlicer
Reader
CloudSlicer

@Eric_B So is that your considered response is it, after having read the paper? – (If you have, which I doubt) – To immediately try to discredit the paper by saying it was published in an open access journal, with the clear implication that it is therefore not ‘proper’ science?
The main point of publishing in an open access journal, which does not require subscriptions, was to allow as many interested people as possible to read the paper. I take it you have not taken advantage of this yet?
Your clear purpose here is to obfuscate and attempt to side-track the discussion by a process of endless and repeated splitting of hairs, and forcing the focus to be on one small area of the overall topic, with the presumed intent being to confuse and mislead readers. You seem to have no serious intention of engaging with the real discussion and I conclude you are a troll.

Eric_B
Reader
Eric_B

it’s not a proper scientific journal so forget it.
wake me up when real universities start publishing it.

CloudSlicer
Reader
CloudSlicer

Since you claim to know so much about the science of thermite and thermitic reactions, as well as what constitutes ‘proper science’. Perhaps you could first read and digest the Harrit paper and then come back to us with your analysis and criticisms of the science therein. Until you do that your words are wind.

Eric_B
Reader
Eric_B

Look, anybody can understand the thermite reaction. Basically what happens is that the more reactive aluminium takes the oxygen atom from the less reactive iron.

CloudSlicer
Reader
CloudSlicer

I repeat, read the Harritt paper on these specialised, energetic nanocomposites, which they term nano-thermite and tell us all why their work is unscientific and irrelevant to the topic of 9/11 WTC building demolition. Until you do that you’re just engaging in repetitive disruption.

Eric_B
Reader
Eric_B

I couldnt give a fuck about this Harrit twat, whoever he is.
Don’t you understand I don’t care. I have chemists right here, e.g. my dad, who know their shit.

Catte
Reader

If you don’t care then shut up. Eric. You’ve lost your cool and your sense of proportion. Close your comp down, go away and take some deep breaths. Watch TV, take a walk. Come back another day. This is getting silly and nasty and needs to stop.

Eric_B
Reader
Eric_B

I won’t kowtow to 9/11 whackoes. Let that be understood. This is not to say that I might not take a walk or some fresh air at this point should I wish to.

CloudSlicer
Reader
CloudSlicer

What a wonderful contribution to science you make. I bet your dad is really proud of you.
Niels H. Harrit is a Professor in the Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, Denmark. Why does that make him a ‘twat’?

Admin
Reader

You need to read the paper in order to understand what the paper claims. You have the link. Read the paper. Then if you disagree with the paper you can post a rebuttal. In fact we will even host it if you want us to. But you can’t keep critiquing a theory you haven’t read.

Eric_B
Reader
Eric_B

I don’t need to read a paper to understand the thermite reaction which i have personally conducted and witnessed before.
i couldnt give a fuck if some droooling anti semites or other whackoes have produced some kind of soiled toilet roll that I’m expected to look at.

Moriarty's Left Sock
Reader
Moriarty's Left Sock

@Eric_B whoa – so you’re accusing these respected scientists of being “drooling anti-semites and wackoes” now?
You are losing it my friend.

Admin
Reader

You DO need to read the paper to understand the paper. Don’t read it if you don’t want to, but don’t disrupt conversations between people who have read it by demanding explanations that are available IN THE PAPER.

Jerome Fryer
Reader
Jerome Fryer

You need to understand a paper for it to be of any use. Unless you are the intended audience, you won’t understand it and thus are not in any position to analyse it.
Most people have difficulty understanding non-technical, non-specialist articles covering science or technology.

CloudSlicer
Reader
CloudSlicer

Oops! – My post above was written in reply to a post by Eric B, which was further down the thread, in which he criticised the ‘nano-thermite’ paper being published in an open access journal, thereby implying that it was therefore not done as part of a proper ‘scientific’ process. This is a common criticism of adherents of the official narrative about this paper.
This comment by Eric B must have been deleted before I posted my reply, and so my reply appeared out of position in this thread.

Admin
Reader

No comments have been intentionally deleted. If they had I think your reply would be gone too. Something odd may be going on. We are getting a huge volume of comments compared to our usual amount. I’ll look into it

Eric_B
Reader
Eric_B

Well, this 9/11 stuff has been an eye opener.
I now see that this site is populated by nutjob conspiracy theorists, both the main posters, and the commenters.
Then there is the anti Semitic angle. There’s been a lot of hateful comments against Jews here, which have been tolerated. Unacceptable.
My recent comments against 9/11 conspiracy theorists who insulted me here were heavily censored, and I was threatened with being banned, just for disputing the site’s 9/11 nonsense.
Screenshot taken by the way, just in case you delete me. We learned that one from the Guardian, didn’t we.

CloudSlicer
Reader
CloudSlicer

Again with the ad hominems! – ” nutjob conspiracy theorists “.
Are you a professional gatekeeper, or do you only do this on 9/11 anniversaries?

Eric_B
Reader
Eric_B

Actually I agree with Off Guardian on nearly all topics, but not this one. So I will certainly continue to read and post.

Admin
Reader
Admin

Be courteous and constructive, and you’re welcome to post as much as you want. You don’t have to agree, but disagreement isn’t calling people “nutters” or refusing to read opposing POVs. That is disruptive and can be easily mistaken for trolling. Many sites would have banned you. We haven’t and we won’t. Please reward that openness.

Eric_B
Reader
Eric_B

I like the site so I assent to the rules. Sometimes one gets a bit heated in debates.

Admin
Reader

Stop lying. You’ve been given more than ample space, and no one has threatened you with banning. You’re still here aren’t you. . But repeat posts are always removed, so since you make a lot of repeat posts sometimes in rapid succession I suppose you may think you’ve been censored. You haven’t.
Currently you are offering nothing but disruption. We don’t ban disrupters, trolls or shills, but we do encourage them to move on.
Please consider moving on.

Mick McNulty
Reader
Mick McNulty

The two columns of light at Ground Zero remind me of the Cathedral of Light which Albert Speer created for Nazi rallies. His beams were produced by anti-aircraft searchlights in a spectacular display all around a square or an arena. This isn’t the only idea the Americans have had which the Nazis had first.

Jerome Fryer
Reader
Jerome Fryer

The Nazis were aping the Italian fascists, who were aping Imperial Rome.
The USA is a republic with a senate and lower house, and effectively elects an Emporer every four years. Similarities shouldn’t be surprising, as it is largely by design.
(History didn’t start nor end with the Nazis.)

Eric_B
Reader
Eric_B

But whatever we might say about America, it doesn’t bear much resemblance to the Third Reich does it really?
I am not saying America is not bad, but it’s bad in a different way.

Moriarty's Left Sock
Reader
Moriarty's Left Sock

Look at national parades, the NFL, all sports events, flags and military everywhere. Does it look so different from newsreel of Nazi rallies? Nazified countries never realise they’re nazified.

Eric_B
Reader
Eric_B

Sure it’s regimented in that sense, and faux ceremonial, but it’s not Nazi as such.
Maybe a Trump rally could be, if there was enough enthusiasm, but I haven’t seen it yet.

Admin
Reader

Don’t be ridiculous, you’re right here.

Eric_B
Reader
Eric_B

BigB wrote:
You can post as many videos as you like; but they only serve to illustrate your growing ignorance – thermite and nano-thermite are not the same. Read Harrit – nano-thermite is a micro-engineered military grade state of the art explosive.
Thermite is not an explosive. It’s an exothermic reaction which results in molten iron.
This is basic science.
[edited for ad hom]

BigB
Reader
BigB

No, you are right, thermite is not an explosive – but nano or super thermite is or can be; it can be engineered to produce different reaction rates. But your dodging again – it matters less what caused it – a government report contains evidence that some of the steel was reduced to “swiss cheese”. If not nano-thermite; ask your dad what could cause that?

Eric_B
Reader
Eric_B

if it was going to be an explosive it would need to contain explosives. otherwise it will just be thermite.

Moriarty's Left Sock
Reader
Moriarty's Left Sock

Thermite is an incendiary, but nanothermite can act as an explosive, or at least it has a highly increased energy, because of the nature of the mixing. It’s all there and sourced in the paper.

Eric_B
Reader
Eric_B

Says who? There is no chemical mechanism for thermite to do anything other than melt down like it always does.
What paper is this? Who reviewed it?

Moriarty's Left Sock
Reader
Moriarty's Left Sock
Eric_B
Reader
Eric_B

benthamopen is open access and free to view, right?
what about real academic jourrnals and universities?
what about MIT, Cambridge, Berkeley etc?

Husq
Reader
Husq

what about real academic jourrnals and universities?<

Like authorised historians? Don’t hear about this much eh?

Admin
Reader

@Eric_B If you refuse to read any but one side of the debate there’s no point in your commenting here. Either offer facts , read the links provided and involve yourself in a discussion or stop posting.

Eric_B
Reader
Eric_B

I am involved in a discussion.
I have offered facts, including a video demonstration of the thermite reaction.
I am not going to read links from sites like ‘911research’.

Admin
Reader

No, you are simply repeating claims that have been rebutted. You’ve been told NIST pretended steel was non-conductive in order to make their models work. Your response is to repeat the basic claim that fire and planes brought down the towers. This is not a reply. You’ve been told nanothermite has different properties than thermite. Your response is to say “thermite doesn’t explode”. This is not a reply. If you don’t want to engage with these points then leave the debate. At the moment you are simply being disruptive.

Eric_B
Reader
Eric_B

just to deal with one of your claims, thermite doesnt explode as i showed in my video made by actual chemists.
it gets very hot and you end up with molten iron. that’s it.
so tell me all about nano thermite, its chemical composition, how it explodes. and how it differs from normal thermite.
is it unreasonable for me to ask for the details of something which for all i know is entirely fictional?

Norman Pilon
Reader

Actually, it is unreasonable especially if even before you engage any of the literature, you dismiss it out of hand, eh.
So either you are a troll who fancies himself clever by dropping into a forum where some people are genuinely looking for answers and others are sincerely trying to point them in potentially fruitful directions, and you are gauchely trying to masquerade as the former, or you don’t understand the most elementary thing about the institutional foundation of modern science, and until you begin to twig to this if only dimly, having a conversation with you is about as pointless as talking to a brick.
Am I being condescending? If you’re a troll, yes. Dullness that mistakes itself for cleverness remains dull. If you’re not a troll, then absolutely not because sadly, a certain minimum of assumptions are absolutely required to be able to rise to even an elementary understanding of the evidence being documented and cataloged by people like Jones and Harrit and many thousands of others.
So to put it as simply as I can, fuck off or go and read the “damn literature,” as someone has already advised you, and make an honest effort to try to understand what it is you are reading.

Admin
Reader

You have asked and been answered, MANY times. You have been given links to papers and websites but you refuse to read them. There is no point in posting here continuing to make claims while refusing to look at the evidence against those claims.

BigB
Reader
BigB

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/official/fema.html
Contains a pemanent mirror of the report.
A nutter who was a professor of Chemistry and author of 300 peer reviewed papers?

Eric_B
Reader
Eric_B

[edited for ad hom]. My father is a chemist and i have some some (not much to be fair) chemistry understanding.
But there is nothing fucking complicated about thermite. It’s an exciting reaction but it’s very very basic.

BigB
Reader
BigB

OMG Eric – you’re a persistent one, I’ll give you that.
About six hours ago I posted a link to a limited ‘Forensic Metallurgy’ of some of the beams of the twin towers. Six hours later you are still ignoring everyones points and coming up with your own. Why am I still banging on, well this is important.
The link pertains to the FEMA report, which predates NIST by several years. The significance, their Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT); gained limited access to the steel structure at the aptly named Fresh Kills (sic). (They weren’t allowed access to Ground Zero). Hence, they were the only ones who had the chance to perform any forensic analysis of the steel before it was spirited away to China.
What they found was unique and crucial to the investigation – “they reveal a phenomenon never before observed in building fires: eutectic reactions, which caused “intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese.” This is in a Government report; not on the Alex Jones channel! Something turned those beams into molten alloy – it wasn’t paint; it wasn’t kerosene, it wasn’t office fires and it wasn’t thermite.
Please read what people are saying here. You can post as many videos as you like; but they only serve to illustrate your growing ignorance – thermite and nano-thermite are not the same. Read Harrit – nano-thermite is a micro-engineered military grade state of the art explosive. Harrit had (he’s retired) 40yrs experience in the field – as he has said “you can’t fudge this kind of science”.
Thankyou and goodnight.

CloudSlicer
Reader
CloudSlicer

Please keep up this refreshing attempt to allow examination of the events of 9/11. It was the catalysing event of our time but we are not allowed to examine it or discuss it outside the narative of the ‘official’ conspiracy theory. Any attempt to do so within the MSM is immediately blocked or swamped by ad hominem attacks, using pejorative terms like ‘conspiracy theorist’, ‘conspira-loon’, ‘tin-hat wearer’, ‘trufer’, etc., or other attempts to misdirect or misinform the argument.
There are massive problems with the official story, which simply do not match the known and observable facts. We have not been told the truth about what happened, and the official so-called ‘investigative’ reports turned out to be a whitewash, so we need to ask questions and probe in order to get to the truth – whatever it turns out to be. There is no doubt that there was some kind of conspiracy behind what happened, and to try to find out the details surrounding that conspiracy and its related events does not make one a ‘conspiracy theorist’, but a ‘conspiracy analyst’.

Eric_B
Reader
Eric_B

Admin September 11, 2016
The heat was not hot enough to melt steel, NIST say this in their report. No more than 800-1000deg, possibly substantially less.
Jesus Christ, how many times has this been gone through already in the last 15 years?
It doesn’t need to melt the steel, just weaken it. and 800 to 1,000 degrees centigrade is more than enough.

painedScientist
Reader
painedScientist

No, it doesn’t “only need to”, it’s just that this was all NIST could squeeze out of the physics. It knew it could NOT claim the fires melted the steel so it tried to create a way that “softening” alone would produce a collapse that was indistinguishable from controlled demolition.
You know how they managed to get a computer model to show sufficient “softening” of the steel?
a) by assuming on the grounds of no data that ALL the fire-retardant foam had been “knocked off” by the impact of the jets and
b) (this is the good bit) assuming the steel in question totally lost its thermo-conductivity for the duration of the fire/collapse.
In other words – you know how steel conducts heat? You know how it always conducts heat because this is a basic property of what steel is? Well, NIST assumed the steel in the WTC stopped being able to do that for a short while, because if it didn’t it could not make a model that allowed the steel to get hot enough to initiate a collapse.
It’s like trying to explain how your neighbor’s TV ended up in your truck by saying it walked there, because TVs could just walk for a while that day.
So, even if you don’t have a problem with the only three high rises to ever be brought down by fire all collapsing on one day in one place, and even if you don’t have a problem with asymmetrical damage causing symmetrical collapses in free-fall (another world first), surely you have a problem with the official explanation being based on the idea the laws of physics just stopped for a few hours one day in September 2001?

physicsandmathsrevision
Reader

This article was just posted on the website of Paul Craig Roberts, ex-Reagan Assistant Treasury Secretary:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-911-reader-the-september-11-2001-terror-attacks/5303012
Plenty about molten steel in here:

Eric_B
Reader
Eric_B

But again youre trying to claim the only problem the towers had was fire, when we saw planes slicing through the structures.

painedScientist
Reader
painedScientist

This is the official government explanation for how the towers fell. Not mine. NIST’s.
NIST says the planes damaged the structure, but FIRE brought the towers down. And the only way they can make a model that demonstrates this claim is by pretending steel is non-conductive.
How the hell can anyone say this is the last word? How the hell can anyone call someone who wants more investigation a “nutter”?

Jerome Fryer
Reader
Jerome Fryer

Are you claiming that NIST state that steel doesn’t conduct heat?

Loop Garou
Reader
Loop Garou

NIST do say that. Or at least to make their computer model produce enough heat in certain locations they admit they assigned the steel zero conductivity. Which means they were saying they assumed the steel in the WTC could not conduct heat.
Yes, it’s crazy. And yes that’s what NIST says.

Jerome Fryer
Reader
Jerome Fryer

Citation?

Loop Garou
Reader
Loop Garou

FROM THE NIST REPORT:
“The steel was assumed in the FDS model to be thermally-thin, thus, no thermal conductivity was used.” NCSTAR 1-5F, p 20
“The interior walls [including insulated steel columns] were assumed to have the properties of gypsum board [0.5 W/m/K].” NCSTAR 1-5F, p 52
“Although the floor slab actually consisted of a metal deck topped with a concrete slab…the thermal properties of the entire floor slab were assumed to be that of concrete [1.0 W/m/K].” NCSTAR 1-5F, p 52

Eric_B
Reader
Eric_B

painedScientist September 11, 2016
The iron was molten before it solidified into spheres. They are spheres because they melted at droplet size, due to the ultra-fine mixing of iron and aluminum.
But you would not have iron and aluminum. You would have iron and aluminium oxide as a result of a thermite reaction.

painedScientist
Reader
painedScientist

Yes, which is what Harrit et al found. Solidified iron spheres and aluminum oxide.
Read the paper.

Eric_B
Reader
Eric_B

It wouldnt be spheres. molten iron doesn’t form spheres. It just makes a puddle.

CloudSlicer
Reader
CloudSlicer

Molten iron, when blasted into the air from an explosion will form tiny spheres which then rapidly cool and solidify as they travel through the air. This is what has been found in the WTC dust in abundance – about 5% by mass.
Yes, molten iron also forms puddles, and these too were found and observed in the remains of the buildings. Molten iron was also observed pouring from parts of the towers before they collapsed.
How do we get molten iron, when even NIST admit that the fire temperatures were not hot enough to actually melt steel?

Eric_B
Reader
Eric_B

It could form spheres if you had a mixture of thermite and high explosive I guess, yes. I don’t know though. You’d probably just end up dispersing the thermite so it couldnt burn properly.
The supposed molten iron in the ruins of the world trade centre i regard as utter unconfirmed bollocks.

physicsandmathsrevision
Reader

You would. The molten iron was reported by no end of rescue workers and firemen who were on the site between September and November 2001. There are numerous YouTube films containing their evidence and pictures of the molten metal and smoke rising from the site.
But, hey, believe what you like. What has evidence got to do with anything.

Eric_B
Reader
Eric_B

oh yes m sure. no end of un named so called eye witnesses.

physicsandmathsrevision
Reader

If you could be bothered to look, troll, you’d see large numbers of New York firemen in their gear look you in the eye and tell you exactly what they saw in the bowels of the WTC.
You’d also discover that 9/11 was an Israeli operation. Hasbara activitists defend these genocidal criminals. Maybe they buy into the Orthodox teaching that gentiles are “not human” so this kind of treatment of cattle like us doesn’t really matter?
Maybe, like the facts about 9/11, I’m telling you something you already know?

painedScientist
Reader
painedScientist

For heaven’s sake man, don’t you know basic physics? ANY liquid is capable of forming droplets. The iron was released from the nano compound at high energy. Hence droplets.
Read the paper.

Eric_B
Reader
Eric_B

Bollocks was it. Thermite doesnt do that.

painedScientist
Reader
painedScientist

Thermite doesn’t do what?
All liquids form droplets. Liquid iron will form droplets.

Admin
Reader

You are not refuting science you are just saying “no it isn’t”. Make a point, back it up with data or we’ll assume you’re trolling.

Norman Pilon
Reader

That is an assumption that I think you can safely make at this point.

sojourner
Reader
sojourner

Reblogged this on An Outsider's Sojourn II.

Eric_B
Reader
Eric_B

physicsandmathsrevision
September 11, 2016
Finding nanothermite specifically is nothing like finding a piece of plane and a lump of iron, you absolute knob-head.
What do you even mean by ‘finding nano thermite’? Do you mean finding thermite (iron oxide and aluminium) or the product of the thermite reaction (Aluminium oxide and iron)? [ad hom deleted by admin]

BigB
Reader
BigB

OMG Eric – you’re a persistent one, I’ll give you that.
About six hours ago I posted a link to a limited ‘Forensic Metallurgy’ of some of the beams of the twin towers. Six hours later you are still ignoring everyones points and coming up with your own. Why am I still banging on, well this is important.
The link pertains to the FEMA report, which predates NIST by several years. The significance, their Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT); gained limited access to the steel structure at the aptly named Fresh Kills (sic). (They weren’t allowed access to Ground Zero). Hence, they were the only ones who had the chance to perform any forensic analysis of the steel before it was spirited away to China.
What they found was unique and crucial to the investigation – “they reveal a phenomenon never before observed in building fires: eutectic reactions, which caused “intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese.” This is in a Government report; not on the Alex Jones channel! Something turned those beams into molten alloy – it wasn’t paint; it wasn’t kerosene, it wasn’t office fires and it wasn’t thermite.
Please read what people are saying here. You can post as many videos as you like; but they only serve to illustrate your growing ignorance – thermite and nano-thermite are not the same. Read Harrit – nano-thermite is a micro-engineered military grade state of the art explosive. Harrit had (he’s retired) 40yrs experience in the field – as he has said “you can’t fudge this kind of science”.
Thankyou and goodnight.

Eric_B
Reader
Eric_B

Show me the link to a US government site and i will be happy to read the official report.
If your link is only to a conspiraloon site which makes claims about this and that, then don’t bother.

CloudSlicer
Reader
CloudSlicer

So, anyone outside of the US government who questions the validity of the official narrative is, according to you, a “conspiraloon” – nice, rational analysis there!
You are a troll. End of discussion.

BigB
Reader
BigB

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/official/fema.html
Contains a permanent mirror of the report.

Eric_B
Reader
Eric_B

Yeah i notice your link says ‘911research’ in it.
That’s a conspiracy site not a government site, right? [the link and quote pertain to FEMA’s report, and the description of unique eutectic reactions is FEMA’s – OffG ed]

Eric_B
Reader
Eric_B

These guys are great if you haven’t seen their chemistry videos before.
Here’s the thermite reaction.

Eric_B
Reader
Eric_B

Norman Pilon
September 11, 2016
Actually, Eric, it does not go without saying. The elemental iron that we are talking about is on the scale of nano-particles in the shape of beautiful little spheres. These little iron spheres have never…ever… ever…. ever… been observed in the absence of a thermitic reaction, nor is there a chemical recipe anywhere that has ever been concocted or conceived to produce these spherules that isn’t a thermitic reaction.
Absolute rubbish. Thermite reactions do not result in little spheres of iron, they result in a mass of molten iron which then solidifies. Try a thermite reaction yourself and you’ll see.

Norman Pilon
Reader

Oh, I can “see,” Eric. Do enjoy your time, here.

physicsandmathsrevision
Reader

Ex head of US War College Alan Sabrosky declared that Isreal did 9/11 back in about 2010. He ain’t wrong.

Jerome Fryer
Reader
Jerome Fryer
Moriarty's Left Sock
Reader
Moriarty's Left Sock

Jones found tiny iron-rich spheres throughout the WTC dust, and wondered what they were. Later, after they found the red-gray chip and heated them he discovered these produced identical iron-rich spheres. Yes, thermite produces molten iron, that’s not in dispute (and is actually another point Jones makes regarding 9/11). The point is this stuff Jones found is a different sort of thermite with the elements mixed at a finer level – nanothermite, which produces a much more intense reaction and also produces tiny iron globules of the kind observed. Nanothermite is a military grade substance available in paint-on and gel forms. It’s all in Jones’s paper.

Eric_B
Reader
Eric_B

so called nano thermite, if it even exists, would also produce molten iron. that’s unavoidable, that’s the nature of the iron oxide/aluminium reaction.

painedScientist
Reader
painedScientist

the iron sphere were molten when they turned into spheres. Picture solidified water-spray. The thermitic reaction melted the iron into tiny droplets that then solidified into spheres.

physicsandmathsrevision
Reader

No one needs to engage with this stuff. The collapse times prove demolition. Inside job. Nuff said.
50+% of the US public know this. The train is coming for the criminal elite. Know it.

Eric_B
Reader
Eric_B

what are you even talking about?
the iron oxide turns into a gooey mass of molten iron.
we can clearly see that in any video of the thermite reaction.

PainedScientist
Reader
PainedScientist

Read the Harrit, Jones et al paper and quit spamming.

Eric_B
Reader
Eric_B

Who the hell are Harrit and Jones and why do i need their opinion when I have seen the thermite reaction with my own eyes more than once?

painedScientist
Reader
painedScientist

Harrit and Jones (et al) are the lead scientist who did the nanothermite experiments. If you wanna know what they found you gotta read their paper Eric.

Eric_B
Reader
Eric_B

There is not even any such special thing as nano thermite. There is just thermite.
Thermite performs as demonstrated in the video. A puddle of molten iron is the result.
Really it’s not complicated. Works the same every time.

Admin
Reader

Nanothermite, or similar material was reported in scientific publications in late 2000. The detail is in Harrit et al.

Eric_B
Reader
Eric_B

But all it would mean is having finely powdered aluminum and iron oxide. Which might speed the reaction up somewhat. But so what. The reaction goes hellish fast anyway even with very course powders.
And the end result would be the same. Molten iron. Not iron spheres.

painedScientist
Reader
painedScientist

The iron was molten before it solidified into spheres. They are spheres because they melted at droplet size, due to the ultra-fine mixing of iron and aluminum.
Read the paper.

physicsandmathsrevision
Reader

He won’t. Eric ain’t here to engage in anything other than pushing establishment propaganda. This stuff scares some people, you know.

Eric_B
Reader
Eric_B

Not so much scared as saddened by having 9/11 nutters infect an otherwise enjoyable site.

physicsandmathsrevision
Reader

You can’t engage in intelligent discourse so you name-call. The usual Hasbara technique.
It should be interesting if OffGuardian ever posts an article on other taboos topics regarding which heresies and even debate are forbidden. Start writing your 4- letter lists now. We all understand why abuse and palpable nonsense is all you got.

painedScientist
Reader
painedScientist

Define “nutters”. People who have read papers you refuse to read? People who know more physics than you? People who have read the NIST report and know half the stuff you are claiming as fact isn’t even in there?

john
Reader
john

Because they are real scientists who see thru the deception of 911.