9/11, 9/11 fifteen years on, latest

Discussion thread for 9/11 issues

The comments on our John Gross article are becoming massively unwieldy so we are opening this thread for continuation of the discussion on this or any other 9/11 issues. Please feel free to contribute any thoughts but try to source your claims of fact


172 Comments

  1. pavlovscat7 says

    THE DISSOCIATION CONSTANT..you witnessed it on the material on the day…THE DISSOCIATION CONSTANT..you dwell in it today because you have never seen it before that day. Dr Judy Wood is showing you..Read it! Comprehend it. The technology to distort and disrupt molecular valency exists. It was used by the ” good guys”, right in front of your eyes. Read her. She is correct. Architects and Engineers (sic) is a stalking horse. ‘Where Did The Towers Go?’… THE DISSOCIATION CONSTANT! read it. Comprehend it…Be the first on your street. Woods is correct…. Thermite is a distraction for dilettantes. WOODS IS CORRECT. You will be just as dead if you let her educate and give you understanding, as you would be if you continue to dwell in denial and distractions.

    Like

  2. Bumblebee Batteries says

    Bumblebee Batteries are Hybrid Battery Specialists based in Portland, Oregon. If you are looking for Honda civic hybrid battery or Toyota hybrid battery support, contact Bumblebee Batteries.

    Bumblebee also offer Hybrid Battery Replacements and Hybrid Battery Repairs.

    Like

    • We’ve been over this. You have been given ample opportunity to explain your case. No one denies nanoparticles can be derived from different sources but you need to prove the WTC particles were from the sources you claim, and explain why FEMA considered the presence of these specific particles to be a unique indicator of WTC dust. Failing this, you need to stop asserting it as fact and merely suggest it as a theory.

      You refuse to do either of these thing. In addition you keep evading straight questions, changing your story without acknowledging you are doing so, contradicting yourself to the point of incoherence, accusing others of lying, and generally behaving like a troll.

      This is why any repetition of these tactic will be deleted immediately.

      Your opinion, like any opinion is welcome. Your behaviour is not.

      If you want to contribute thoughtful, well-sourced, non-confrontational theories or facts that is fine.

      Like

      • Carroll Sanders says

        The particles are Iron Fe 304, FeO, Fe. Spacificly manufactured for Xerography, copiers, they perfectly match all the Spectra of RJ Lee, Dr. Jones and Dr Greening, Greening’s spectra is from fly ash, the particles are manufactured from fly ash.

        I do not Claim all the particles at world trade center are from copiers as there was a huge variety of particles, found. I believe RJLee is right, some were created by Gasious flows reducing rust.
        In the fires, point is Jones not disclosing the fact that significant Microspheres were in the buildings after being told the fact of such constituted an act of intellectually dishonest behavior, because he misrepresented the fires in the RJ Lee report to infer that all Microspheres were from thermite.

        That was a false claim, an intellectually dishonest claim, if you defend and support that claim you are merely hiding Jones’s dishonest behavior and you know it!

        You should be asking Jones why a Scientist can not do proper quantification of known materials natural to the site?

        Note the spheres were formed at 1200C in a gasious flow and some reduction of Fe 2O3 was involved.
        The patents and the process make this perfectly obvious, to any knowledgable observer.

        Like

        • Carroll Sanders says

          Admin I expect you to erase and hide the obviously dishonest behavior of Jones once again, that is why I saved the page for off line reading.

          And also had others screen capture it to verify the proof.

          Ask Jones the honest questions you should be asking see if he replies!

          Like

        • jaques says

          I have a very simple question for you Carrol:

          what is the average size of an ink toner microsphere?

          That’s it- as you are a self professed expert on all matters pertaining to microspheres (greater than Dr R J Lee) it shouldn’t give you any difficulty to give me an answer?

          Like

          • Carroll Sanders says

            That depends on method of manufacture milled Toner Microspheres are limited to 7um, Chemically prepared toners Microspheres can me significantly smaller down too a few nano meters.

            The average depends on the manufacturer and method used to manufacture, the developer Microspheres.

            Like

            • Carroll Sanders says

              Sorry I can not link PDFs.

              Effect of Micro- and Nanomagnetite on Printing Toner Properties – Hindawi Publishing Corporation
              Hindawi Publishing › journals › tswj
              by M Ataeefard – ‎2014 – ‎Cited by 4 – ‎Related articles

              Like

      • MFitz says

        Ummm,… no. The only thing(s) that need to be proven are in regard to the claim that said nano particles are relevant. So the people claiming they are relevant to TT collapse have the burden of proof.

        Like

      • Carroll Sanders says

        It was the large number of Iron rich particles not the Type that made the particles significant.

        There was an amount of iron rich particles never seen before.

        That could be because of significant use of magnetic toner in the buildings, banks, government offices, and shippers use magnetic toners for automatically reading documents by computers.

        We knew there were no banks, government offices, or shipping companies at world trade center on 9/11 right? (Sarcasm intended.)

        There are numerous sources of Microspheres that is exactly the point yet Jones infers in his supposed scientific work that they are from Thermite!

        He offers no other known examples!

        Like

        • Right – thank you for posting a rational observation that can be responded to rationally.

          “That could be because of significant use of magnetic toner in the buildings, banks, government offices, and shippers use magnetic toners for automatically reading documents by computers. “

          Just to clarify. The presence of very large amounts of toner could, in your view, account for the iron-rich spheres.

          Question: Is there any way in which this potential origin for the spheres can be proved or eliminated?

          Like

          • Carroll Sanders says

            No. [edited for content-free ad hom – Admin]

            The Cement kilns produce moly spheres because they burn car tires with coal to heat lime stone to make concrete.

            There is a good paper on the process, some of the dust samples Jones collected were from the apartment of a welder sculptor, and some on a bridge where vehicular traffic would have created Microspheres.

            Microspheres are meaningless. [edited for content-free ad hom – Admin]

            Like

            • We’re removing the repeat ad hom which only dilute and confuse.

              You are saying there is no way to prove the iron-rich spheres originate from toner.

              Then you can’t be sure they do. This is – to repeat – a theory, not a proven fact.

              Question: how much toner would be required to produce the number of spheres observed by FEMA and others?

              Like

              • Carroll Sanders says

                A few tons, not unexpected given the amount of toner in the buildings, and the residual toner from years of usage in the buildings.

                [edited for OT -Admin]

                Like

              • jaques says

                Admin: I think it’s time to give up on Carraol: he is disengenous and moves the posts. He addresses some questions, ignores others. His theories do not stand up to scrutiny. He has been shown to make baseless claims as fact. He has said the microsphers come from:

                a) ink toner
                b) light switches
                c) a welders apartment
                d) fly ash
                e) elevator grease
                f) are meaningless

                there are probably more sources he claims- I havn’t bothered to look them.

                Problem is: none of his theories can explain the presence of iron microsperes that measure up to 1.5mm- and in concentrations up to 6% of the dust. In other words thousands and thousands of tonnes of them.

                The same fgoes for other claims he made- like

                ‘the beam was bent by the plane- the location of the beam was known’

                when pressed he said the engineer who ‘roved’ this was dead, his research ‘irretrievably lost’ the forum he posted on ‘deleted’.

                This is garbage- from a man who claims greater expertise than Dr R J Lee of the RJ Lee group- but who- of course- cannot show that he has any qualifications whatsoever- let alone access to the dust- or laboratories to test it in.

                he is full of it. And I think his job here is to waste your time.

                Like

                • jaques says

                  Admin: a better use of you time would be to correct all my spelling errors above 😉

                  and I just remembered two more sources he claimed:

                  g) from the highway
                  h) car tyres

                  just above he said it was a ‘few tonnes’

                  then he says, “about 200 kg’s per floor” which would equal 60 tonnes between the two buildings…

                  If the spheres represented %5 of the dust by weight- that would mean the total dust production for the WTC collapses would equal 1,200 tonnes.

                  Given that the dust blanketed most of lower Manhattan- in places up to 6 inches deep- this figure is patently absurd.

                  Like

                • Brian Harry, Australia says

                  Don’t waste your time arguing with someone who is clearly trying to throw confusion into the argument(and thereby refocus the discussion AWAY from the “controlled demolition” of the Towers on 9/11).
                  He or she? has sent ‘rabbits running’ in all directions and you simply can’t(and shouldn’t) try to chase them all…….

                  Like

                • pavlovscat7 says

                  R J LEE wouldn’t be complicit or compromised would they jaques? The presence of iron in its many manifestations after the dissociation of most of the material elements of building containing mega amounts of steel is not a tool for you to steer people to the stalking-horse of A@E….through the confused proxy of Carraol. Go to Judy Wood for edification on iron presentation states in WTC detritus dear students….. Shills and dilettantes excluded of course.

                  Like

  3. Norman Pilon says

    [moved from another thread]

    “There is no film evidence of a plane hitting the North Tower.”

    Yup, no film evidence whatsoever, not even one single take from one single angle of one of the planes:

    Like

    • Janey says

      It could be manipulated though. There is some reasonable evidence to discuss about the planes.

      The weird phone calls, were they possible or not?

      The plane-shaped hole in WTC1, would that happen?

      The fact the bits of alleged wreckage found do not seem to belong to a 767.

      The TV footage that seems to show the second plane emerging from the other side of the building with its nose intact. Is that possible?

      Where were the four huge 767 engines?

      Like

      • One can certainly debate whether any hijacking occurred, or whether the planes that were flown into the Towers were in fact civilian airliners, or whether they were such airliners but were hijacked by remote control . . . At this point, it is all conjecture and speculation . . . And who knows what really hit the Pentagon, if anything, or what crashed in rural Pennsylvania . . .

        “The plane-shaped hole in WTC1, would that happen?” Yes. Of course, that would happen. That’s a lot of kinetic energy going through one relatively thin layer of steel girders . . . I don’t find that at all anomalous . . .

        I don’t think that anyone can seriously doubt, however, that the Towers were hit by planes, whether actual civilian airliners or special purpose jets. The video evidence is to my mind conclusive, given the many different takes and sources . . .

        But I agree: a lot of unanswered questions and a flat out refusal to investigate this crime beyond mere blanket assertions of hijackings, improbable piloting feats, and fire induced gravitational collapses, not to mention anything about the Pentagon or Flight 93. So what does that tell you? A cover-up is afoot . . . There is more to 9/11 than what officialdom would want us to believe . . .

        Like

        • pavlovscat7 says

          Norman Pilon deposition…. “I don’t think anyone can seriously doubt, however, that the towers were hit by planes.”
          My deposition…I don’t think that anyone (save for dills or shills) can seriously doubt that an alloy airframe can penetrate in its entirety into a steel and concrete building like a hot knife through butter. Decades of Hollywood and media output have made the suspension of disbelief endemic in the audience on this side of the media event horizon. The script called for the buildings to appear to be burning from the inside to initiate the “collapse”..this required the computer generated imagery of a plane actually entering the interior of the buildings. This is what you saw on your tv screens…and this is what Norman Pilon is sarcastically suggesting you did not see.. Norman Pilon with respect, is a dilettante in this matter..or has other agendas:

          Like

      • The weird phone calls, were they possible or not?
        This has been extensively researched be David Ray Griffin – its a complex subject – but the short answer is no.
        Of the two most famous calls – the Barbara Olson call is the easiest to deal with and requires no technical insight – it simply didn’t connect (lasted 0 secs according to the FBI.) That this was used to found the ‘hijackers with boxcutters’ meme – and seed the story that the pilot (‘a really tough guy’) his crew and passengers were herded down the back of the plane as it was flown into the Pentagon – is a demonstrable fantasy should really undermine the whole false narrative.
        Perhaps the most famous call – the Todd Beamer “Ok lets roll” call – similarily makes a complete mockery of the ‘official version’. Made from UA 93 – this call lasted 3,295 seconds (65 minutes) – twenty minutes before they attempted to take back control of the flight – and a full forty five minutes (without losing contact) after the plane flipped over and buried itself nose first in the dirt at Shanksville. That should really be enough to bury the whole al Qaeda bullshit in the dirt with it.
        If you need more – national hero Todd Beamer never even said “lets roll” (according to FBI transripts) and he went on to make a further 19 calls that morning. Any questions?
        http://www.consensus911.org/point-pc-1/ – from this page you can click on the subsequent points to see more of the lies exposed.

        Liked by 1 person

    • paulcarline says

      There are of course plenty of ‘images’ of a plane apparently hitting the South Tower – indeed from different angles. But the simple fact remains that, as with the Pentagon and Shanksville, there is no physical evidence to support the claim of planes crashing into the towers. The images are NOT physical evidence – but what is most interesting is that they themselves disprove the theory that what they show is a real plane.

      Large commercial jets like the 757 and 767 Boeings allegedly hijacked on 9/11 have high-altitude cruising speeds of over 500 mph. This is because the air is thinner, there is less drag, and the engines can handle the large volumes of air. Below 1000 feet the maximum speed at which such planes can fly safely is less than 350 mph. The height of the alleged plane impact on the South Tower is around 700 feet above ground.

      Examination of the videos reveals that the apparent plane (supposedly UA175) was travelling at 580 mph. This is physically impossible. Therefore the images cannot be of a real plane.

      “Joseph Keith, who is an aerospace engineer and the lead designer for the shaker system for Boeing aircraft, stated that the maximum speed for the Boeing 767 at 700 feet is 330 mph. He stated that it would be impossible for a Boeing 767 to fly at 500 mph at sea level, since at that altitude the air is so thick that the turbine blades on the engine would actually act as brakes and prevent the plane from going faster than 330 mph. He stated that the plane at an altitude of 700 feet would begin the process of shaking itself apart at about 220 mph.
      On September 17, 2007, Jeffrey Hill contacted Leslie Hazard, a spokesperson for Boeing, a asked her if a Boeing 767 could travel at 500 mph at an altitude of 700 feet. Her immediate response was to laugh and say: “not a chance!”.” (From “9/11 – Enemies Foreign and Domestic”, by Edward Hendrie, 2011).

      The NTSB claimed that the plane which allegedly hit the North Tower was travelling at 494 mph – a physical impossibility.

      UA175, the plane that allegedly crashed into the South Tower, was still listed on the “active” flight list until 28 September 2005 – the same date at which the other United plane, UA93, was also removed from the ‘active’ list, a short time after two researchers had contacted the FAA to ask why these two planes, which had allegedly both been destroyed on 9/11, were apparently still flying.

      Neither AA11, which allegedly hit the North Tower, nor AA77, which allegedly crashed into the Pentagon, actually took off on 9/11.

      So we can say categorically, based on hard scientific fact, that no commercial jets crashed into the Twin Towers.

      Like

        • paulcarline says

          I don’t believe that anything crashed into the towers – nor into the Pentagon. I’m convinced by Barbara Honegger’s research to the effect that all the damage attributed by the official story to Flight 77 (which was not in the air on 9/11) was caused by pre-planted explosives (which also created the ‘plane-shaped’ hole in the South Tower. However, I also accept her very persuasive evidence that a smaller plane – perhaps a drone – did crash at the Pentagon, but further along the side of the building than the alleged impact zone of the impossible AA77 and minutes before the alleged Boeing crash. Her 3-hour presentation in Seattle “Behind the Smoke Curtain” is well worth watching (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fvJ8nFa5Qk). Interestingly, she claims that there was a plane at the WTC! – but doesn’t elaborate.
          There is also video of something – a round blob rather than anything resembling a plane – approaching the Twin Towers. Richard E. Hall examines this phenomenon, as well as putting forward what to my mind is the most plausible explanation as to how the plane images were created.
          I find it very interesting that the former MI5 agent David Shayler (who resigned from the service together with his then partner Annie Machon – both of whom I knew personally and trusted) stated years ago his belief that the ‘planes’ were some kind of holographic image. Of course, at the time, he was dismissed as a nutcase, but the “holographic image generator” is technological fact, not fantasy.

          Like

          • Brian Harry, Australia says

            A B25 Bomber hit the Empire State Building in NY in 1945 killing 14 people including all on board. It lodged in the building and had to be removed later. The hole was repaired and today you can’t tell it was hit by anything.
            I think the planes everyone saw hitting the Tower on 9/11 was done by a computer geek. What Paulcarline has written is right. It is so obvious that the plane would have been demolished on the outside of the building, had it actually hit the building.

            Like

          • @ paulcarline

            “the “holographic image generator” is technological fact, not fantasy.”

            Can you cite one instance of such a generator projecting an image of the quality witnessed and recorded by the various cameras that comprise the montage I posted above?

            Like

            • paulcarline says

              I merely stated that the projector was a reality, thereby leaving open the possibility that something of that kind was used. It is generally recognised that military technology is often far more advanced than we think. Likewise, Judy Wood’s suggestion that DEWs (Directed Energy Weapons) were used on 9/11 cannot be dismissed as fantasy. If such advanced technology exists, we the public would be the last to know about it. However, technology which makes us ‘see’ something that is not there is in regular use – in the weather forecasts, for example, or in ‘green screen’ technology. I’m not saying that the plane images were holograms. I simply don’t know. What I can say with certainty is that they were not photographs or films of physical planes – for the two main reasons I have stated: they were travelling at impossible speeds, and there was no wreckage. I don’t understand how you can still insist that real planes hit the towers.

              Like

              • johnschoneboom says

                If you’re willing to entertain the possibility of totally unknown technologies, such as extremely advanced holograms and directed energy weapons — and good for you for having an open mind — what is so utterly off-the-table about advanced planes that go faster than normal 767s at low altitude?

                Like

            • pavlovscat7 says

              All the image constructs were created in the editing house before they were publicly broadcast and subsequently put into the http://www…. I think you know it.

              Like

              • Yoo–hoo. Over here.

                What? You couldn’t find your way back?

                And just a reminder: evidence, please.

                Otherwise, it’s just trolling, eh.

                And do try to express yourself in a manner accessible to ordinary readers of English. Otherwise you leave no impression at all.

                Like

              • By the way, since I think you mention something about Judy Wood, a link to post by Craig McKee written as an invitation to calmly and rationally discuss her views as pertains to what she believes are overlooked anomalies about the collapse of the Towers.

                I haven’t yet had time to work my way through the comments, but do have a look, and tell me what you think.

                Do make an effort to make your comments less cryptic than usual and try to remain focused on the ‘issues’ and less on yourself and how you imagine you “feel” about the shadow you imagine is the substance of ‘me.’

                And might I suggest that after you reply to this comment with your usual courtesy, we begin a new thread of comments at the top of this thread.

                Let me know what you make of McKee’s article and the conversation there.

                Like

              • Lets talk about Judy Wood, shall we, since this a more appropriate thread in which to do it, so as to help you out, Mr. Cat, set everyone straight about “what really went down on 9/11.”

                But wait, I have an even better idea. Why don’t we have a brief listen to Judy Wood herself set us all straight instead of perhaps inadvertently or even maliciously putting our own words into her mouth:

                You Tube summary:

                Published on Jan 31, 2013
                Judy Wood is one of the first and foremost supporters of the hypothesis that so-called (imaginary) “Directed Energy Weapons” were used to destroy the World Trade Center Twin Towers on 9/11.

                This topic is discussed and analyzed in this interview between Wood and Dr. Greg Jenkins (of DC 9/11 Truth) on January 10th, 2007. The relevant features of Judy Wood’s “hypothesis” are discussed and shown to be wholly inadequate and unscientific (ridiculous in fact!).

                Many of Wood’s weakly supported arguments rely on misinterpretations about “what happened” that are subsequently used to advance misleading explanations for “how it happened”.

                The topic covered in this interview is also dealt with extensively in Dr. Jenkins’ paper: The Overwhelming Implausibility of Using Directed Energy Beams to Demolish the World Trade Center (PDF), available at the following link:

                http://www.journalof911studies.com/vo

                Also see: http://911blogger.com/node/8110

                And: http://www.ae911truth.org/news-sectio
                Category
                Science & Technology
                License
                Standard YouTube License

                Like

        • paulcarline says

          Hi Norman, you might find this interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rs5RQ_5nu4k
          It’s a video produced by Pilots for 9/11 Truth and mainly covers flight simulator attempts to duplicate the speeds and descents claimed by the government and NTSB. In all cases (WTC1&2, Pentagon) the simulator shows unequivocally that real aircraft would have broken up before they hit the target – even assuming that the alleged hijackers were capable of flying a large jet (for which there is no evidence).
          However, I question the authors’ apparent belief that the videos depict real aircraft – though they are clear that these could not have been the standard commercial jets alleged. They suggest that the ‘planes’ could have been specially strengthened to exceed the standard Va and Vmo – meaning that they could not have been hijacked. But this still leaves the problem of the complete lack of verifiable plane wreckage at any of the four alleged crash sites. We would have to believe that the planes ‘dematerialised’ on impact, or even before impact. But the clear evidence of CGI fakery seems to me to rule that out, especially when, as already noted, some videos show wings disappearing and then reappearing.
          I remain convinced, as before, that no planes crashed at the WTC. To repeat, AA11, alleged to have hit the North Tower, did not take off on 9/11, and UA175, alleged to have crashed into the South Tower, was still in active service until at least September 2005.

          Like

      • jaques says

        “Examination of the videos reveals that the apparent plane (supposedly UA175) was travelling at 580 mph. This is physically impossible. Therefore the images cannot be of a real plane.:”

        this is wrong statement. It is true that +500 Mph was way above the 9/11 planes max VMO’s (maximum operating speed) at 1000 feet – but it is not beyond ALL planes- and not strictly impossible for commercial jets.

        The high speeds at low altitudes, and the subtle last second adjustments made to the plane paths in NYC- all indicate that the planes were remotely controlled- and possibly upgraded/ modified/switched from regular commercial jets.

        It is not impossible for a jet airliner to fly at 580 miles an hour at 700 feet- but it is certainly extremely uncommon- every alarm in the cockpit would have been going off at once- and maneuvering the planes through the cross winds in Manhattan at those speeds would have made hitting the targets extremely difficult even for highly experienced pilots- let alone novices who had never flown jets. At 500 mph you have little time to make a correction… and no second chances.

        If you believe that 9/11 was an inside job- you immediately have to wonder what kind of suicide pilot would sign up for that? No CIA guy is going to put his hand up. Regardless of thedifficulty in finding volunteers is far likely the event was too important anyhow to be left in human hands. Personally I believe it is a near certainty the planes in NYC were remotely controlled- and had been extensively modified for their task.

        Like

        • paulcarline says

          Sorry, but you seem not to have read my comment properly. The aeronautic engineer stated that a large jet would begin to shake and break up at speeds a low as 220 mph. The official story obviously needed the impossible high speeds in order to convince a non-expert general public to believe that the towers collapsed due to plane impact and jet fuel fires.
          Norman Pilon’s suggestion that a commercial jet could penetrate such a building is quite unrealistic. Planes have been forced to land after a collision with a single large bird – which can rip a large hole in a wing.
          Any kind of plane crashing into a high building would leave large pieces of debris on the outside – yet some videos show the apparent plane disappearing completely into the building with nothing breaking off and no explosion at the entry side – and no sign of damage to the tower’s exterior! We even have videos in which first the right wing of the ‘plane’ and then its left wing completely disappear – before it reaches the tower. Another impossibility for any real plane – but not for a CGI image when the computer was unable to distinguish a light-coloured right wing from the light grey sky background and so deletes it, only for the left wing to disappear in similar fashion when the now darker left wing has a dark grey sky background. These are unmistakeable proofs of the use of CGI.
          I am merely maintaining that no real plane struck either tower. I do not dismiss the idea that there were decoy planes. There is very good evidence for a decoy plane at the Pentagon.
          If there were real planes at the WTC, why was it necessary for the perpetrators to plant false evidence – such as the alleged landing wheels, which are of a different type to those on the alleged Boeings?
          I also recall reading that an eye-witness said: “that wasn’t a commercial jet, it didn’t have any windows”, leaving open the possibility that some kind of military jet was in the air – but only as a decoy.

          Like

          • jaques says

            that is so silly! this is the type of flaw in your thinking:

            “If there were real planes at the WTC, why was it necessary for the perpetrators to plant false evidence – such as the alleged landing wheels, which are of a different type to those on the alleged Boeings?”

            you are saying- there was evidence of the plane wreckage- and somehow -that proves their were no planes? ??? You say it was ‘planted’ evidence- what’s your evidence for that assertion? The fact that some people have claimed the parts do not match the commercial airliners they supposedly came from is arguably evidence that there were planes in NYC: just not the planes claimed in the official story.

            the very idea that there were no planes- actually flies in the face of reason. Have you ever been in Lower Manhattan? Any idea of the number of eyewitnesses to the second strike? Do you really think the entire thing could be staged and the tens of thousands of people in lower manhattan all be fooled into thinking there were planes when there were none? Not to mention the audio, video, radar and other evidence that proves there were planes- which I assume you say is all ‘faked’.

            If you say there were no planes it follows there were holograms- which is absolute sci-fi nonsense.

            actually why am I wasting time with all this no plane, ink toner, mini-nuke, particle beam, office fire induced implosion clap trap? I don’t really even believe you are a real actual legitimate person arguing the point you are apparently arguing.

            Liked by 1 person

            • Carroll Sanders says

              Some one should discover how parts in engines or on planes can be updated with newer better parts, and the old parts discontinued but still in use on planes not yet updated.

              Like

            • moriarty's Left Sock says

              The flight speeds being impossible for a Boeing 767 is a valid point. Though the conclusion ought to be “it wasn’t a 767”, not “there was no plane.”

              Liked by 1 person

              • Carroll Sanders says

                Why would the flight speed be impossible, do you have evidence of this I see no reason flutter would be induced.

                The speeds are outside the safe operations envelope, but not impossible for someone commuting suicide and mass murder.

                Like

                • Moriarty's Left Sock says

                  I’m not an aerospace engineer or a pilot so I don’t claim anything as fact, but very strong cases have been made for the aircraft breaking up under the stresses imposed by being so far outside it’s upper limits.

                  The only way to verify it would be through computer and real-world testing.

                  Do you have data to support your claims?

                  Liked by 1 person

                • jaques says

                  ‘I see no reason flutter would be induced…’

                  that’s an audacious call…

                  You are an expert in splitting hairs with a chainsaw Carrol: not an expert in aerodynamics. I am not an expert either but I see several possible reasons to worry about flutter: the aircraft were flying WAY over their max operational VMO’s at those altitudes: up to 150 knots! They were flying at well over double the speed commercial airliners usually fly at those altitudes. The air resistance at those speeds would have made the planes challenging to maneuver and control- even for experienced pilots. Many automatic alarms would have been going off simultaneously.

                  But these planes were supposedly being piloted by absolute amateurs who had never flown jet aircraft before that very day- let alone gigantic commercial airliners. Not only that- those pilots were about to commit suicide and had just engaged in bloody murder: one imagines their hands were possibly somewhat shaky. One would be very surprised if they were not.

                  Furthermore- one assumes the cockpits were awash with blood- if one accepts the government story.

                  Yet despite all these impediments- the approaches to the towers were amazingly smooth despite the planes dropping thousands of feet in just a few minutes hurtling at tremendous speed: they made minute (yet observable) alterations in their courses to adjust for cross winds in the final seconds of their approaches. If you believe Flight 11 was actually piloted by Mr Atta (the cocaine snorting, lap dance loving, alcohol drinking, loser and kitten killer)- you have been duped.

                  Liked by 1 person

            • paulcarline says

              What tens of thousands of people? Two researchers checked all the recorded eye-witness statements and found only a handful who claimed to have both seen and heard a plane. The FBI has admitted that not one single piece of positively identified wreckage from the alleged planes was ever found. Experts have clearly stated that the alleged parts found do not match the equipment on the alleged planes. Are you such an expert? The two alleged ‘landing wheels’ were both hidden behind tarpaulin-covered scaffolding. It is entirely impossible for such a heavy piece of equipment as a landing wheel to crash onto a street without causing enormous damage – of which there is no evidence.
              Perhaps you might like to look at this site and maybe convince yourself that hologram generators are real:
              http://holhocollection.com

              Like

          • @ paulcarline

            You write:

            “Norman Pilon’s suggestion that a commercial jet could penetrate such a building is quite unrealistic . . . Any kind of plane crashing into a high building would leave large pieces of debris on the outside. . .”

            For a thorough rebuttal of this nonsense, see A Critical Review of Morgan Reynolds’ “Why Did the Trade Center Skyscrapers Collapse?”> by Jim Hoffman

            To be brief and to quote Jim Hoffman:

            The idea that the wings should have bounced off reflects a failure to appreciate the effects of inertia in such a high-speed collision. Yes, we might see large pieces of wing survive a collision at 100 mph but not at 400 mph, which involves 16 times as much kinetic energy.

            You can go read Hoffman for more context and detail . . .

            For a rebuttal of the hologram and other “no-planes” nonsense that you apparently accept – because I myself am not going to waste too much of my time formulating one – see this document: A Critical Review of WTC “No Plane” Theories” by Eric Salter

            About the hologram thesis and again to be brief, Salter writes:

            Unlike the first hit, the multiple videos and photographs of the second hit clearly show a 767. So the no-planers are forced to claim that either all of these videos were faked or that what was actually seen was a hologram created with classified, unacknowledged technology. Why the perps would resort to this when there was no technical obstacle to flying a plane into a building is not credibly explained.

            The hologram theory is more plausible than the media overlay theory. That’s not saying much, but at least it doesn’t depend on tens of thousands of eyewitnesses looking the other way at the crucial moment to avoid seeing a missile or small plane. But it’s still a non-starter. What a genius idea for a theory of 9/11: It is based on a technology that is not acknowledged and not even accepted as possible by a majority of the world’s scientists. One could spend years just trying to hash through the conflicting opinions of “experts” about the nature of the technology and the lay audience-nearly everyone else-will never have the technical knowledge to decide who to believe. That would be a really great way to spend the next decade.

            Again, for more context and detail, go and read Salter . . .

            Liked by 1 person

            • paulcarline says

              Hoffman has no credibility in the serious 9/11 truth community. He is not an expert. I would point you again to the John Lear video. The impossible speeds and the multiple videos of planes either ‘melting’ into a tower without an explosion, or losing a wing and then regaining it, and the total absence of wreckage is already sufficient to dismiss the idea of real planes. I genuinely fail to understand why some people still cling to the idea of planes at the WTC, when the official documents clearly say that AA11 did not take off that day. Is it the difficulty of having to abandon the idea of Muslim hijackers? Perhaps you could explain why, when all the evidence points to the official story being a total lie, you wish to believe just this part of it?

              Like

              • For a man without the leas bit of credibility, Hoffman seems to have earned the respect of at least one very prominent researcher and one very serious scientist in the 9/11 truth movement:

                Dr. Steven E. Jones, a physicist formerly with Brigham Young University, has credited Hoffman’s WTC7.net website and described his work as an inspiration for conducting his own analysis of the WTC building collapses. Hoffman’s book and websites are cited in Jones’ essay “Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?”.[12] Hoffman has also been cited by author David Ray Griffin.[13]

                Source: here

                Reijo Yli-Karjanmaa also acknowledged a debt to Jim Hoffman in his paper, “Energetic Examination the Collapse of the North Tower of the WTC,” and since Niels Harrit gives an approving nod to Yli-Karjanmaa, by implication he also acknowledges Hoffman.

                I’m almost also certain that Niels Harrit et al. have endorsed Hoffman’s three essays further explaining of the layman the implications and results of their more esoteric study, but I’d actually have to look into that. At the very least, no one has ever accused Hoffman of misreading and mischaracterizing the Harrit et al. study.

                Therefore to claim as you do that “Hoffman has no credibility in the serious 9/11 truth community” is to stretch it a tad, to say the least. I guess it all depends on one’s interpretation of what is and isn’t “serious.”

                You tout Judy “DEW” Woods and holograms, and yet neither proven technology nor scientific principles can be adduced in either of their favor other than to claim that if no direct proof can be adduced, it simply must be because it’s all so secret and ‘hush hush’ as imposed and compelled by the military establishment.

                So what, to your mind, is more likely as an explanation: a) scientific principles and technologies that everyone knows about and can actually rationally discuss; or b) that which might conceivably exist only in the realm of science fiction and that thus remains actually and completely unknown because it’s all so very secret as decreed by a scientifically omniscient military?

                That’s a rhetorical kind of question. No need to answer.

                Like

              • jaques says

                Unadulterated garbage. There WAS wreckage, there IS footage, there ARE innumerable eyewitnesses. You have made many assertions above that are demonstrably wrong. When confronted with this you have either repeated the lie- or replaced it with a fresh one. Forgive me for assuming you are probably a disinformation agent sent here to try and steer us off into the realm of sci-fi fantasy? If you are not an agent- but genuinely believe what you write: go do some fact checking. You are wrong.

                Liked by 1 person

        • pavlovscat7 says

          With respect…your belief is wrong. The construct was initial, internal fireball explosions at the appropiate places, and broadcast of CG Images of plane impacts and disingenuous news commentary.. initiation of the dissociation technology within the artificially created static field..the “smoke” ensuing to be interpreted as fire smoke. At the eventful time..the material and matter of the buildings, effervescing up and cascading out in the very manner that we all witnessed. Add a little bit of moms apple pie and waving the flag over mr. with us or a’gin us and we reported for duty and went in search of the enemy. And within this forum of failed ideas, we might hopefully, be starting to really see the enemy ….the enemy is WE:

          Like

  4. Admin says

    NOTE – we’ve removed a long section of this thread as it was adding nothing to the debate and simply consisted of one commenter making self-contradictory claims regarding his own previous statements about his own actions.

    Let’s keep this discussion fact-based and ad hom- free

    Like

  5. Rhisiart Gwilym says

    Don’t you guys see how time-. space- and PATIENCE-consuming these long troll-generated stichomythia passages are.

    They cause the real discussion of what happened to run into the sands and get lost.

    And that’s exactly their troll purpose. The thing to do with such wreckers is contained in my acronym invented to deal with wrecker-trolls generally, in whatever discussion:

    DR.DADE: Don’t Read. Don’t Answer, Don’t Engage.

    Apply this rule as soon as you’ve given the troll enough rope to hang itself, and you’ve been able to decide, on the evidence, that this is real trolling. After that, Admin. should delete their further posts (under that particular identified troll-name; chances are they’ll be back with new names) and readers encountering the troll inputs should simply skip over them unread, unanswered, unengaged. It saves a lot of time-wasting and deliberate obfuscation – which is what the trolls, especially the paid professionals, are here to do: to slow the truth from getting out at all costs.

    As Chris Bollyn points out (Bollyn.com), this water-muddying rearguard action was always part of the original plot, as it had to be. Naturally, the real perpetrators of the 11/9/01 atrocities, those who are still alive, are doing trail-covering as best they can. What would you do, in their shoes? And don’t forget that the siamese-twin states of USrael are well endowed with means to take these rearguard actions. So naturally, the real perps. – who sit high up in the ruling establishments of these states – make full use of the means to hand.

    Like

  6. jaques says

    I think you meant ‘rescind’.

    Steven Jones, Niels Harrit and Richard J Lee all were not afraid to publish their work. You are a self professed expert in all matters related to the science of 9/11: why don’t you want you ‘findings’ published online?

    Like

  7. nobunaga says

    There are 5 kinds of 9/11 deniers out there:
    1. The DTKs: Dedicated Truth Killers. They just try to kill any story or evidence without even looking at it.

    The MDBs: Misinformed Duped Believers. They Believe the lies that the government has told them without
    questioning anything.
    The CGNs: Clueless Gullible Ninnies. They are just stupid airheads.
    The SEDs: Steadfast Evidence Deniers. These wonders will acutually look at undeniable proof and still deny it.
    The GELs: Government Employed liars. These are real scum who troll the net and deny everything they find that
    doesn’t go along with the official government spin on what it wants people to believe. They even put up videos
    on the internet trying to debink the actual proof that shows they are liars. Amazing!

    When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth? (Sherlock Holmes)

    Firefighter witness and whistle blower bld. 7 ground zero

    Susan Lindauer CIA Whistle Blower tells
    of President, Vice President, and Secretary of State know
    about 9/11 before it happens.

    9/11 Proof of Demolitions

    Pentagon employee eye witness wistle blower

    NYC EMT whistle blower at ground Zero

    Susan Lindauer CIA Whistle Blower tells about strange
    vans coming to WTC before 9/11

    Proof no airplane at WTC

    What happened to the passengers of flight 93?

    Like

    • Brian Harry, Australia says

      Well done.. putting all those together……..We’re drowning in Bullshit. But, thanks to the American government…..the farce goes on, distracted by ‘The War On Terror’…………’Keeping you safe’……….”Putin’s hackers”……….”Trump vs Clinton”……..Kim Kardashian’s ARSE………etc…..etc……etc……

      Like

    • jaques says

      I don’t subscribe to the ‘no planes’ in NYC theory. I just watched some of that video you linked… and I am still not a subscriber…

      There is simply way too much evidence of planes crashing into the twin towers- and the very idea that some kind of elaborate (possibly non-existent) hi tech system involving real time editing of multiple video feeds- and the holographic projection of planes over NYC- is frankly absurd- in the realm of ‘dustification’, ‘particle beams’, ‘Mini-nukes and variants therof’, ‘hollow towers’, ‘no jumpers’, etc. To me it smells of disinfo.

      as to what if anything crashed in that field- and exactly what hit the Pentagon- that’s two separate matters. Those events are shrouded in deep mystery. But planes did crash into the Twin Towers. And both Towers withstood those crashes as they were designed to do. They swayed- regained balance- redistributed their loads- the fire suppression systems kicked into force. The buildings sat in sound structural condition. And they sat and they sat- and fire fighters reached the impact levels and reported “low level fires” that could be knocked down “with a few hoses” – more firefighter were sent in- they had no inkling of what was coming and felt the building was safe to enter- and then suddenly: KABOOM, KABOOM, KABOOM! Three enormous explosions, followed by a 10 second cascade of innumerable smaller explosions that blended into a giant roar: Someone Had Initiated Controlled Demolitions! For some unknown reason those someones didn’t initiate the controlled demolition of Building 7 until much much later- in the afternoon- and they left out the plane that was supposed to explain the collapse/demoltions?

      That was clearly some kind of MAJOR 9/11 screw up on the day…. but they worked around it and made up some stories. ‘Lucky’ Larry Silverstein didn’t quite get the memo when he blabbed- but anyhow- they managed to deceive the unthinking masses for now…

      Perhaps flight 193 was the intended magic ‘building destroying’ plane for WTC 7? No wonder WTC7 was hardly ever mentioned in the media after 9//11 and never in the 9/11 Commission- except in a footnote.

      Like

      • jaques says

        go on Carrol: are you now going to tell us that when they built the Twin Towers they forgot to put in sprinklers, forgot to add fire doors, forgot to have fire extinguishers throughout the building?

        Did you ‘prove’ that ‘some time ago’- on some forum- somewhere?

        Like

        • pavlovscat7 says

          Shills are like those arsehole chickens that that seek out the infirm in the coup and incite the other chickens to help them peck the weakened to death. …………..Gallio Proconsul

          Like

      • Rhisiart Gwilym says

        Jacques tells it accurately, in brief. This is a good summary. The delay in demolishing 7 was probably because – as J says – the real conspirators didn’t get a plane to hit it as was – perhaps – intended. Also, remember the hardened Emergency Control Centre that the NYC Mayor – Giuliani, another prime suspect – had previously installed in 7. Strong suspicion that this was the line-of-sight control centre from which the demolitions of the Towers was initiated.

        Remember too the concentrations of documentary evidence of major crimes committed by members of the US ruling establishment, which were held in 7; all destroyed – so handily! – when 7 was demolished.

        Like

        • jaques says

          when Barry Jenning’s reached the OEM bunker in Bld7 not long after the first plane strike on 9/11 he found it abandoned: but – he saw cups of steaming coffee sitting on desks… What the hell was that all about?

          The OEM bunker in Building 7 was fully evacuated- whilst people in the South Tower of the WTC were being told to go ‘back to their offices- it is safe to do so’. Some of those who did go back-nwere trapped and killed when flight 175 struck.

          Who gave the order to evacuate Building 7?

          Who gave the order NOT to evacuate the South Tower?

          ‘Luckily’ Mayor Guiliani is able to use the TRIPOD II FEMA ‘chemical terror drill’ staging camp nearby- the one that FEMA set up on the evening before: the 10th September! When and how did Guiliani decide not to use his multi million dollar brand new ‘anti- terror bunker’?

          Meanwhile in Washington: The White House is evacuated- but the Pentagon is not. After flight 77 strikes- supposedly no one has any idea if there are any more imminent attacks- yet Rumsfeld decides to go AWOL for 45 minutes and is photographed ‘helping’ victims on the lawn of the Pentagon…

          About the same time as Barry Jennings wandered into the OEM- Little georgi Bush was wandering into that classroom- where he sat for over an hour- doing nothing except reading to children. On his way in he said ‘I saw the plane crash into the tower on the television’- although there WAS NO FOOTAGE OF THE FIRST PLANE IMPACT BROADCAST!

          Suspicious indeed.

          Like

  8. Mr Bagelstein says

    There is so much hot air here. It was an inside job for the reasons stated by others, namely wars for Israel etc etc. Destroy all secular Arab states. The method of destruction of the twin towers was thermonuclear bombs. This explains the total destruction of towers, molten steel and steel beam flying over hundreds of metres.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Brian Harry, Australia says

      I really thought that the discussion got “bogged down” by a few Trolls overwhelming the contributions of fair minded theories with ridiculous pedantic tripe, and people fell for it. It just went on and on. “Freyer” and Sanders, ‘milked it mercilessly. I think it’s a good idea to not respond to provocation. Vote FOR what you like and vote DOWN what is irrelevant…

      Like

  9. CloudSlicer says

    Admin,

    I hope you will not be offended if I suggest that it would be useful if you could provide a time-stamp, in addition to the current date-stamp, for comments.

    As these comment threads on 9/11 grow they do become unwieldy, as you say, and I think a time+date stamp would be useful for readers to navigate the chronology and time-line of the conversation. It would also make it possible to reply to a specific comment by reference to the commentators name plus the time+date of the comment.

    Like

    • Admin says

      Would that we could do as you ask. ATM, being hosted by WordPress, we are incredibly limited in how we can handle comments. But fret not, we are planning to move to our own webspace in the next few months when comments, and much else, will have an overhaul.

      Like

      • CloudSlicer says

        Thanks Admin. Keep up the good work – you’re all doing a great and important job at Off-Guardian. We need alternative voices like yours.

        Liked by 1 person

  10. Greg Bacon says

    If there were any doubt that the 9/11 attack was a False Flag, set off by American traitors in the WH, the Pentagon, the CIA, FBI and CIA, along with help from at least one of our ‘allies,’ the fact that the USA is giving political backing, weapons and air support in Syria to Fatah al Sham, which was al Nusra, which had been al Qaeda in Syria, those doubts should be put to rest.

    Add in these phony ‘al CIA Duh’ propaganda videos, designed to get Americans enraged about some US/Israel/Saudi Arabia backed terrorist group, the War of Terror is just an excuse to wipe Israel’s ‘existential’ enemies off the map, steal resources and turn the USA into a jack-booted run police state.

    https://www.corbettreport.com/al-qaeda-videos-arent-the-only-media-the-us-has-faked/

    Liked by 2 people

  11. CloudSlicer says

    Before announcing his departure from these pages, a certain Jerome Fryer said (over on the ‘Thermite or no Thermite’ thread) that he understood Newtonian physics well and that the behaviour of material during the collapses of the towers was “exactly as you would predict” in a gravity driven collapse.

    I asked him to explain how, during such a collapse, heavy beams and girders could experience high velocity lateral expulsions, along upward and outward trajectories, travelling hundreds of feet away from the building. I also requested that he state the physical mechanisms involved, which would be capable of producing these effects. He obfuscated and evaded these questions and eventually declined to answer at all.

    I apologise to other readers for bringing up Fryer’s name again, but for me this question of the lateral ejection of heavy material is, like the free-fall of WTC7, another smoking gun which points directly to the controlled demolition of the twin towers.

    I cannot think of a natural explanation for this behaviour of heavy building materials, and so far it looks as though the guardians of the official collapse narrative visiting these pages cannot either. Something provided sufficient energy to these beams to cause them to fly out of the buildings as they did, so I’d be interested to know what possible explanations others can provide which: a) do not contravene the laws of physics; and b) account for the observed evidence.

    Direct Evidence of Explosions – Experts Speak Out

    Like

    • Greg Bacon says

      That 20 ton steel beam that was ejected from one of the Twins, and flew over 350 feet and impaled itself into the Deutsche Bank Building, violating the laws of gravity, to ask questions about that is called a ‘conspiracy?’

      Horizontal ejection of materials – but force of gravity is vertical

      http://www.scientistsfor911truth.org/introduction.html

      Dang scientists, always stirring up trouble!

      Liked by 2 people

      • David says

        The planes were full of high-octane Jet fuel,maybe the collision and the ensuing explosion caused the towers to collapse.

        Like

        • Neither NIST nor FEMA claimed the jet fuel or anything else “exploded,” in fact they deny there was any explosion. Just a gravitational collapse. Since gravitational collapses don’t expel steel beams hundreds of feet and since NIST didn’t even manage to explain how this alleged collapse actually happened in terms of physics, there are obvious unanswered questions.

          Like

          • Admin says

            Can you try to be more clear? It’s hard to understand what you mean sometimes.

            Like

            • Carroll Sanders says

              The buildings were over a thousand feet tall as ROOSD Connection failures cause floor overloading and collapse the perimeter pealed over like the skin on a banana that cause a whipping action throwing beams out away from the Over 1000ft. Tall buildings easily going several hundred feet.

              Rapid, Open, Office, Space, Destruction. Basicly a type of rapid connection failure that occurs because mass quickly accumulated, inside the tube frame, and connections could only resist with the limited amount of energy- strength stored in them, that was insufficient to arrest collapse.

              I have a drawing that explained it to a five year old, however it might be too complex for some here to understand.

              Like

              • But this – like the controlled demolition idea – is just another hypothesis is it not? What evidence is there for these banana peel/whiplash events? Have they been recorded as happening to other similar structures?

                Like

              • jaques says

                what nonsense. On the Gross thread you claimed to have greater expertise than Dr Richard J Lee of the R J Lee group. I did some googling of your name and I found some ‘evidence’ of your ‘expertise’ on youtube: some years ago you managed to cut a human hair with a chainsaw into perhaps 20 pieces… beyond that I can find not one scrap of information about your ‘expertise’ in any matters at all.

                I will say it again: I believe you are an apologist and defender of mass murderers. You make up lies to cover up a crime against humanity. For that I have nothing but contempt for you.

                You say ‘the microsphers were ‘ink toner’. Boloney!

                You say ‘the beam was bent by impact with the plane’.
                Baloney!

                Now you come up with the ‘ROOSD garbage’- just more baloney. You really do make it up as you go along- you are shameless, hyprocritical and merely stating garbage in a matter of fact know it all manner- does not make it true. It is still farcical, non-nonsensical garbage!

                For anyone who has ever wondered what Carrol Sanders ‘expertise’ is- feast you eyes:

                Like

          • jaques says

            funnily enough- it may be ‘proved’ in some FEMR document- yet if you watch the videos of the actual event: you don’t see ‘peal out’. You see items ‘thrown out’ violently ejected in upward and outward trajectories. This is no banana ‘unpealing’. You also see narrow directed horizontal blasts issuing from the tower many stories below the collapse zone- at high speeds- explosions that look just exactly 100% like demolition squibs- they are indistinguishable- given all the other evidence of explosive demolition I feel quite happy to conclude that those blasts were indeed demolition squibs.

            Go ahead: tell me they were ‘puffs’ of air- induced through the ‘syringe affect’.

            I was in the WTC 4 months before they were demolished. I saw the floor plan- open office spaces with rows of narrow floor to ceiling windows between the external columns. There is no way blasts of air could be directed narrowly through just a part of a single window- when the entire floor was open space. If there was a lot of air pressure it would have blasted out multiple windows in a row simultaneously. Yet there is zero evidence of that at all.

            Like

        • Brian Harry, Australia says

          “The planes were full of high-octane Jet fuel, maybe the collision and the ensuing explosion caused the towers to collapse”

          Auto gasoline is octane rated ’98’……..Kerosene is Octane rated ’15-20’….
          “maybe” is not scientific , it’s a wild guess………

          Like

          • Most of the kerosene ignited immediately, and outside of the buildings. That’s why there were big fireballs, followed by oxygen-starved black smoke. The impact zone in the North Tower wasn’t that hot, that’s why there’s video and photos of people standing in the hole trying to get fresh air.

            Like

        • Theres no “maybe” about it. The destructions of the WTC towers are problems in thermodynamics. There either is sufficient potential and kinetic energy available in known sources to result in the observed effects, or there isn’t; and one must therefore infer the presence of some additional, unknown source.

          Examine some of the computations prepared by physicists for this system. The lateral ejection of steel beams and the almost total pulverization of concrete, other building materials, fixtures and fittings, and human bodies, (not to mention the vaporization of steel, the extent of which was covered up by the rapid removal of the residue to prevent quantification of the steel “losses”), required far more energy than the system ostensibly possessed. Kerosene and gravity alone cannot account for the effects.

          Only scientific illiteracy within the general public can account for the presence of an undisclosed and highly destructive energy source, of some form, not being patently obvious to all.

          Like

          • Rhisiart Gwilym says

            Exactly so Shoobridge. Oh, and beware of MFitz. Another identifiable time-wasting troll.

            Like

      • MFitz says

        You aren’t asking questions, you are making assumptions. If you were asking questions you would look at your assumption and say ‘well if this violates the laws of gravity then it couldn’t possibly have happened like that.’ If you did that you would be spot on. The various bits hanging out of the DB were at the top of a section of perimeter wall dozens of stories tall that peeled away and toppled over. If you look at an overhead shot of the sight this becomes painfully obvious.

        Like

        • jaques says

          actually he did pretty much what you suggest- only he didn’t question his own assumption but the official narrative:

          ” If you were asking questions you would look at your assumption and say ‘well if this violates the laws of gravity then it couldn’t possibly have happened like that.”

          he looked at the Governments claims about the collapse- and said “this violates the laws of gravity” so “it couldn’t possibly have happened like that”

          and he is 100% correct!

          and your banana story is frankly bananas. The clear video evidence of the collapses does not support it.

          Like

          • MFitz says

            This photo amply demonstrates the peeling Banana theory.

            As the TT’s collapsed the perimeter columns lost their connection to the core as the floor trusses failed one after another. This left sections of perimeter column dozens of stories high in some cases teetering perilously until they heeled over. That is how steel beams ended up hundreds of feet away from the TT’s – they were at the top of these large unsupported column sections that tipped over.

            But of course if you would like to ignore the photo and cling to the idea that column sections weighing between 1 and 10 tons each were “projected” that far then by all means describe the mechanism and show us the video imagery of this occurring. Also explain how sheets of perimeter column dozens of stories high ended up like they did in the above photo.

            And remember, the columns could have toppled over to end up where they are and 9/11 could still be an inside job. You don’t have to cling to the unsupportable – in fact it would behoove you to not.

            Like

            • johnschoneboom says

              Two immediate problems sort of leap out at me here from your diagnosis, which is at odds with the NIST version by the way. The first is that, if the collapse was caused by columns (and presumably beams and girders) losing their connection to the core structure, then the core should still be there. The core, as you may know, was a massive structure not likely to faint from shock.

              This is why they abandoned the pancake theory by the way (in favor of a bland assertion of inevitability). You can’t have floors that lose their grip from columns without needing to come up with a separate mechanism for the columns themselves collapsing (into nice neat little sections). The pancake theory should have left hundreds of core and perimeter columns standing, or maybe then “tipping over”, as in your theory.

              Which brings us to the second problem. I’ve seen a lot of videos of those collapses, and I’ve never seen a long unsupported column “tipping over.” I’ve seen a lot of lateral ejections though.

              I do agree with your general advice about the folly of clinging to the unsupportable.

              Like

              • MFitz says

                “Pancake” collapse IIRC included all components of the building failing more-or-less together – floor trusses, perimeter and core columns all failing simultaneously.

                That didn’t happen.

                The collapse PROGRESSION stage was floor led with the failing floor trusses leaving the core and perimeter disconnected from and unsupported by each other. Neither the core nor the perimeter were designed to be able to stand on their own – they were part of an integrated support system which included the floor trusses – so I am not sure where you get “the core should still be there” from. Or the perimeter columns for that matter.

                None of that has anything to do of course with collapse INITIATION – what got the whole mess moving in the first place. So perimeter column sections ending up where they did is a product of collapse progression, not collapse initiation and therefore essentially irrelevant to what caused the buildings to collapse in the first place, making it nothing more than an interesting distraction.

                While much of what we are describing was obscured by dust clouds, if you like images of long unsupported columns – with bits toppling – this one should do:

                http://s250.photobucket.com/user/sap-guy/media/wtc1peelingcore.jpg.html

                The overhead shot I posted above between the Wintergarden and 1 WTC shows the long and fairly continuous lines of perimeter columns running pretty much the full length of the distance between the two structures – clear evidence a very tall section pivoted at its base and toppled over somewhat tree-like. Here it is again a little closer up:

                https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/wtc1-debris-layout-jpg.3162/

                Here is a close up of where the top of that particular section of perimeter columns ended up (after some clearing work had already been done), labelled with the floors they came from.

                And from above

                The inevitable problem when addressing this subject is the people who believe in “multi-ton steel beams laterally projected at high velocity by some magical force they can’t/won’t explain” is they aren’t looking at the right stuff. They look at close-ups of individual pieces (ie: removed from proper context) – often with leading tag lines attached – then lacking any other easy explanation assume some sinister cause.

                All one really needs to do though is pull back a bit, take a big picture view and it becomes glaringly obvious that beam was not an isolated piece hurled through space but rather was just the tip of a large sheet of perimeter columns from 70-80 floors up that toppled over.

                The rest landed below, falling next to the building.

                Like

                • johnschoneboom says

                  There is much nonsense in what you say, particularly with regard to the building structure and what it was designed to do and not do. However, with regard to the specific point about embedded beams having more or less fallen into nearby buildings rather than explosively ejected: OK. Seems reasonable.

                  The larger point being that you are out on an isolated limb with your theory of how the collapse progressed, because as you must know, NIST punted on that one. It’s tough to explain why a 75% (or so) undamaged building representing the path of greatest not-the-least-bit-weakened resistance offered approximately zero resistance to the very same weight it had been holding happily for 40 years or so after an hour’s worth of moderate fire.

                  You like photos, don’t we all, so here are some good ones of the core during construction. Meditate on how this was supposedly so flimsy as to be designed to faint dead away without the floors and perimeter (in itself an implausible assumption from a fire-based POV). In your world apparently heavily cross-braced steel structures are so untrustworthy that the only miracle is that they don’t drop like prom dresses all over multiple cities on a daily basis. Especially with global warming. These things get a bit hot and watch out! It’s a national disgrace we haven’t rewritten building codes and pulled these things down before they drop on top of us.
                  http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc12consenr.html

                  Like

                • moriarty's Left Sock says

                  The mere fact it was thought necessary to invent a “new” collapse mechanism for the buildings on 9/11 is enough to indicate we need more investigation.

                  This “banana theory” (you at least admit it is a theory) needs to be established as possible in the real world. There is no really substantial photographic evidence for it in those images and nothing supports that theory in any of the videos. Where can we see the perimeter columns peeling back?

                  But at least that part of your claim is remotely plausible – the rest is not.

                  Your suggestion that “collapse progression” is irrelevant” and just some sort of hobbyists distraction is some of the most absurd pseudo-authoritative nonsense ever seen.

                  The reason NIST declined to discuss collapse progression is because it is well aware that even tortured physics CAN’T explain it. They did not want to commit the dreadful crimes against reason required to explain how a massively redundant structure can collapse at near free fall through the path of greatest resistance.

                  It didn’t want to have to find pseudo-plausible reason why a gravitational collapse would violently disassemble human bodies into fragments and hurl those fragments hundreds of feet onto the roofs of buildings up to 300 feet away.

                  So it declined to say anything at all and left that to unscrupulous or credulous bloggers and commentators to venture where it refused to go.

                  Whether you believe the sophistic bullshit or are simply hoping we do, you are talking baloney.

                  Like

              • Carroll Sanders says

                The columns will be so vibrated it cracks the welds holding them together.
                The spire one column and part of the core did survive for a little while after the collapses.

                Like

                • johnschoneboom says

                  I refer mainly to the vibrating-the-connections-off theory. I am sorry to be amused, but you must be aware of how novel and speculative that is, and how it flies in the face of easily look-up-able building specs (designed to withstand airliner impact, robust lateral load resistance, etc.).

                  Like

              • Carroll Sanders says

                You mean like Maxwell’s equation for a pinned beam?

                Which is actually used to describe the phenomenon?

                Like

                • moriarty's Left Sock says

                  You’re doing it again, citing random irrelevant pieces of physics or chemistry to try and one-up people or to sow confusion or both.

                  What the hell has Maxwell’s Reciprocal Theorem (if that’s what you’re rambling on about) to do with anything?

                  And just try to bear in mind you have to explain why these three buildings collapsed in a new and unique way – so citing common substances in the buildings or the universal mathematics of of stress and compensation do not cut it.

                  Like

    • MFitz says

      CloudSlicer – I can explain how [em]heavy beams and girders could experience high velocity lateral expulsions, along upward and outward trajectories, travelling hundreds of feet away from the building.[/em]

      Quite simple really – none of that ever happened.

      Well yes, column sections did end up some distance away from the Tower footprints but they didn’t get there via [em]high velocity lateral and upward expulsions[/em]. The how is quite simple and obvious when you take a big-picture view and I mean literally big picture. Usually where these claims come from is someone looking at say a close-up shot of a bit of TT column sticking out the Bankers Trust building. The person looks at this close-up shot, decides {em}I don’t know how that got there so it must have been laterally projected.[/em] The reality is somewhat less fantastic but very easy to discern if you stop focusing the individual pieces and zoom out – there are some nice hi-def wide field-of-view overhead shots of ground zero out there. Then the true cause becomes ridiculously obvious.

      Think Banana.

      Of course if you want to claim that column sections weighing between 1 and 10 tons were subjected to [em]high velocity lateral and upward expulsions to hundreds of feet away[/em] that’s fine, but I would request you state the physical mechanisms involved that would be capable of producing these effects. Personally I can’t.

      Thermite certainly can’t do it.
      Cutter charges definitely can’t do it.
      The airplane impacts chucked a few beams a fair distance – the perimeter column with the landing gear in it photographed on the street in front of St Nicholas Church for example – but certainly not in an up-and-over high-velocity trajectory.

      Short of a multi-kiloton nuclear blast or strapping a huge rocket to each piece I can’t think of anything that could produce such an effect. Keep in mind too that any blast that can laterally project a multi-ton object hundreds of feet can and WILL project thousands of little objects at even higher velocities even farther. So where are the thousands of casualties on the ground from these lethal high-velocity fragments? Why isn’t every window for hundreds of yards blown out? Most of all, how loud would such a blast be? Where is that noise? Last but not least we still have those pesky overhead shots which show large multi-floor height sections – sheets if you will – of perimeter columns peeling off and toppling from high up on the towers, the tops of those sheets predictably ending up hundreds of feet away.

      None of this of course still has anything to do with what[em] initiated[/em] collapse of any structure. Its just another pointless diversion.

      Like

      • The airplane impacts chucked a few beams a fair distance – the perimeter column with the landing gear in it photographed on the street in front of St Nicholas Church for example – but certainly not in an up-and-over high-velocity trajectory.

        You’re suggesting the beams that ended up hundreds of feet away, in one case embedded in the Deutsche Bank building, got there before the towers fell down, and were propelled out of the buildings by the plane impacts?

        Liked by 1 person

        • MFitz says

          I suggested nothing of the sort.

          [you suggested exactly that – see your own post above. OffG ed]

          Like

          • jaques says

            that is exactly 100% what you indelibly suggested? It’s right there in plain English- do you take us for morons- or are you a moron? Perhaps you have Alzheimers in which case it’s forgivable.

            I will have your own words back to you again:

            “The airplane impacts chucked a few beams a fair distance – the perimeter column with the landing gear in it photographed on the street in front of St Nicholas Church for example – but certainly not in an up-and-over high-velocity trajectory.”

            Like

            • MFitz says

              Wow, you people sure do love your quote-mining out of context.

              Any particular reason you CHOSE to ignore not just the context of that statement (which was actually one of a list of things that WOULD NOT have caused the high velocity lateral and upward expulsion of heavy steel members) but also the entire paragraph before that where I describe the ACTUAL real-world mechanism that resulted in steel memebers falling as far as Bankers Trust (and the Wintergarden and 7 WTC for that matter)?

              Like

      • You are correct. Except for this, eh:

        Quote begins:

        During the destructions of the twin Towers, massive steel beams, weighing 4 – 20 tons or more, were ejected horizontally as much as 520 feet. Their motion can be examined as for projectiles.

        Projectile motion consist of a vertical and a horizontal component of velocity.

        If a beam were ejected from the 95th floor of WTC1, the height at ejection is 95/110 x 1365 = 1179 feet.

        The time to hit the ground is given by distance = ½ x g x (time)² where g= 32.2 ft/sec² is the acceleration due to gravity.

        1179 = ½ x 32.2 x (time)²

        (time)² = 1179 x 2/32.2 = 73.23

        time = 8.56 seconds.

        The horizontal distance traveled is given by distance = velocity x time.

        520 = velocity x 8.56

        velocity = 60.75 feet/sec = velocity of ejection = 41 miles per hour minimum.

        This is a minimum velocity – air resistance will cause the horizontal velocity to decrease. Beams ejected at lower floors from WTC1, or beams that hit other buildings higher up than ground level, have less time to fall, and must therefore travel faster to reach a horizontal distance of 520 feet.

        Quote ends.

        Source: Ejection of Steel Beams and Aluminum Cladding

        And you are also correct. Except for this:

        First see this diagram:

        Then read this interpretation of the diagram:

        Figure 8: WTC Debris Fields

        Schematic depiction of areas of collapse debris impact, based on aerial photographs and documented damage (FEMA, 2002). Striped areas indicate predominant locations of exterior steel columns. Inner circles indicate approximate radius of exterior steel columns and other heavy debris. Outer circles indicate approximate radius of aluminum cladding and other lighter debris. Heavy Xs show where exterior steel columns were found outside the predominant debris areas.

        The Towers were 208 ft x 208 ft (floor area). Small debris circle diameter = 735 ft. Large debris circle diameter = 1080 ft….

        Source: HERE

        So to say as you do, “Well yes, column sections did end up some distance away from the Tower footprints but they didn’t get there via high velocity lateral and upward expulsions,” is just a bit of an understatement, and a bit of quill to paper calculations do in “fact” demonstrate “high speed horizontal ejections.” Gravity alone, since it’s vector is roughly vertical, eh, doesn’t explain a debris field of roughly 1080 feet in diameter when the building footprints are 208 feet by 208 feet.

        Like

      • jaques says

        “Of course if you want to claim that column sections weighing between 1 and 10 tons were subjected to [em]high velocity lateral and upward expulsions to hundreds of feet away[/em] that’s fine, but I would request you state the physical mechanisms involved that would be capable of producing these effects. Personally I can’t.

        Thermite certainly can’t do it.
        Cutter charges definitely can’t do it.”

        there’s on thing you left of that list? One obvious thing:

        High Explosives

        they can explain it- and they can also explain the witness testimony to large secondary explosions, the damage in the basement prior to plane impact, the damage in the lobbies prior to building implosion- and the explosive nature of the collapses themselves.

        And you don’t need to see the beams embedded into buildings hundreds of feet away to conclude there were lateral ejections- you only need to watch the innumerable videos of the building exploding upwards and outwards when they supposedly ‘collapsed’ via gravity:

        What happened to that upper block that was supposed to crush the 80 stories below it? It’s not there to do the crushing?

        Like

        • Carroll Sanders says

          Banzantian bull isn’t real it was labeled a hypothetical from the start, only Truthers think the Banzant papers are real.
          The columns could never have perfectly aligned.

          Like

          • jaques says

            OK- chalk it up- expert ‘hair splitter’ Carrol has now claimed intellectual and professional superiority over the following people:

            Bazant
            Richard J Lee
            David Chandler
            Niels Harrit
            Steven Jones.

            yet the only expertise he has claimed is ‘hard work’.

            I guess shameless bulshitting is hard work Carrol?

            However even a stopped clock is correct twice a day and for once you have split a decent hair Carrol: yes indeed ‘Bazantian Bull’ as you put it is garbage- albeit far more sophisticated rubbish than your patently absurd ‘ink toner= microspheres’ and ‘beam bending plane’ theories. However you couldn’t get the time right for long: it is not ‘truthers’ who believe the bazant rubbish but the mainstream believers in the official 9/11 fairytale- the very fairy-tale you spend (waste) so much time defending indefensibly.

            Actually though- it isn’t a fairtale at all- it’s a true Orwellian horror story. When you defend it you defend mass murderers and high treason. For shame.

            Liked by 1 person

            • Carroll Sanders says

              They didn’t personally debate Jones I did, and did experiments into this.

              Like

              • 1) the email you sent us contains very little evidence of you debating anyone. Jones barely addresses you directly and you are merely a CC recipient of most of the conversation.

                2) even if true – what bearing does this have ?

                None of the replies to Jaques’ post of Chandler’s video (here: https://off-guardian.org/2016/10/08/discussion-thread-for-911-issues/comment-page-1/#comment-44837) have any factual content and are simply clogging up and confusing the thread. We’ll be deleting them soon.

                Like

                • Carroll Sanders says

                  Check the first part of the debates, before it went private.

                  There are were also other emails between myself and Jones and a personal phone call to Jones in 2005.

                  The Emails were only the part of the on going debate, in fact I was working on preparing a list of sources of micro spheres that could have been created Without CD, when talks broke down because Jones was not interested in quantifying natural sources.

                  If you read the Emails you would see Dr. Greening revered to me as having more knowledge of natural sources than he did.
                  He knew I was working on a list to help in the quantification work.
                  That is in the Emails Admin you have it and you know it.
                  Please tell the truth.

                  Like

        • Carroll Sanders says

          You do understand that banzant titled his paper, a (Limited Case)?

          Limited case means it is a not real hypothetical paper not ment to represent the real event.

          Like

      • CloudSlicer says

        “Quite simple really – none of that ever happened”

        As a serious explanation for the lateral ejection of heavy building components, that takes some beating. It never really happened!

        So people are just seeing things when videos of the explosive collapse of both towers clearly show beams and the like being hurled out of the collapse wave, amidst massive clouds of pulverised concrete and other office contents being likewise expelled.

        The people who documented the distribution of the rubble within a wide radius around each tower were all just seeing things or lying.

        And, “Short of a multi-kiloton nuclear blast or strapping a huge rocket to each piece [you] can’t think of anything that could produce such an effect” – so, once more, people were seeing or hearing things or just plain lying when they reported large explosions before and during the collapses. And anyway, you can’t think how conventional (non-nuclear) explosive forces, perhaps used in conjunction with cutter charges, could account for any of the observed phenomena, so they just can’t be relevant.

        Yeah, right – “none of that ever happened”.

        “Think Banana” you say – and I do, except in the plural, along with other descriptive delicacies: ‘bananas + nuts + fruitcake’.

        Like

    • Rhisiart Gwilym says

      Cloud Slicer’s point about the trajectories of the steel pieces ejected upwards (sic!) and outwards is a key question. Clearly visible on all the online videos of the actual Twin Tower demolitions, the plain fact is that there is no – repeat no – explanation of those trajectories that can come from a ‘natural’ collapse. They were created by explosives.

      Notice the great plumes of debris surrounding the destruction zones as the Towers fall. The bulk of it is made up of material driven outwards and frequently upwards as well. Explain that denialists! In a way that actually sits within the established principles of physics…

      Like

      • MFitz says

        OK then,… out of curiosity. how much of and what type of explosive does it take to laterally project a steel column weighing in excess of 1.5 tons 450-600ft in an arcing trajectory at high velocity?

        How loud that have to be?

        How far would the supersonic shock wave such an explosion creates reach?

        How much damage would the shock wave do?

        If such a force can project an object that large, unwieldy and un-aerodynamic that far, what would it do with smaller objects? Wouldn’t it create a shower of thousands of pieces of high-velocity fragments which would be potentially lethal to anyone within a few thousand feet of the towers? Where are the thousands of casualties from this? Why are any windows within a quarter mile radius still intact?

        The billowing dust clouds and flying debris such as the thin sheets of aluminum cladding which made up the exterior facade are a consequence of collapse PROGRESSION, not collapse INITIATION. They occur as a result of building movement. Thus while easily explained it doesn’t tell us anything about why either tower fell.

        Just sayin’

        Like

      • Carroll Sanders says

        Steel transmits impact energy at 5900meters per second, as the energy of the impacts builds the core columns vibrate from the reflected energy
        Of the impacts that movement that vibration causes the core columns to eject material from the upper mass that impacts them.

        Like

  12. Update on the email correspondence Carroll Sanders provided. If we recall Steve Jones agreed to the publication of this correspondence, provided it was complete, included every email he wrote and received and – particularly – included the emails from David Chandler. The email Sanders has provided is quite obviously NOT complete and contains no contributions from Chandler. Jones has asked us to pass this on:

    From Steven Jones:

    “It appears to me that this assembly is far from complete, and thus represents cherry-picking (avoiding THAT was a pre-condition for approval of publication).

    For example, I recall specifically delineating the emails of David Chandler to Frank Greening — but these are missing from the set of emails selected by Mr. Sanders. Why are these not included?

    …Clearly a complete set of emails would include his giving “my word I would not publish them without Jones permission” – yet, no such wording appears in the collection he has so far assembled (as far I can find out).

    Thus, it appears clear that he has not collected all the emails – right?

    Let him meet the completeness condition prior to publication – and specifically, let him show us exactly where the emails demonstrate his claim “I gave my word I would not publish them without Jones permission.”

    Can we add it might be useful if Sanders can highlight where Jones allegedly makes the other statements and admissions he has claimed.

    Like

    • Admin says

      You said you gave your word to Jones, not Greening. You keep changing your story.

      Like

      • Carroll Sanders says

        Jones though Greening as part of a group discussion arranged by Jones and Greening, not by me.
        I was simply included because of the value of my knowledge.

        Jones and Greening also had private conversations I was not party too.

        You now know that Jones knew Microspheres would be in toner, he should have checked them before going and publishing a stupid article, claiming they were thermite residues.

        I am not responsible for lack of communication and I was not part of the missing jolt debate.

        All Jones’s had to do was call a toner manufacture and get the EDX spectra they had like I did, and match it to the Jones and Greening Spectra.

        To rush to publication with junk science was totally irresponsible.

        Like

        • So you are asserting as fact the microspheres were produced by toner? Yet you have never produced any coherent data or written a paper, and no other authority seem to agree with you – is that correct?

          Like

          • Carroll Sanders says

            No the US. Patent office, the makers of toner, and Dr. Jones’s and Dr. Greenings work both agree with me.
            The toner is manufactured from Fly Ash magnetite. The developer used for years was fly Ash magnetite.

            There would have been several types of iron spheres in the dust from the fires, construction and natural pollution, but the ones searched for by Dr. Jones because they matched the paint chip evidence were definitely from xerography, used in the xerographic process.
            They are what make the process work.
            If a natural source can be found an unnatural source can be excluded.

            Dr.Jones and Harrit fraudulently used the six percent claim to include all types of iron microspheres, and that is directly a lie.

            You should ask Dr. Jones why he never addressed the issue of toner microspheres, or the claim- implication, with out proper quantification, that all the microspheres were from thermite?

            A thermite that would have been worthless in building demolition except for electric matches requiring millions of charges to have been placed before any noticeable residue should have been observable in the dust?

            These are questions you yourself should be asking.

            Like

            • Since you, Carroll, claim that the iron spheres Jones and everybody else found in the WTC dust are the magnetite from Xerox toner, what is the chemical formula for a) the magnetite of the Xerox toner and b) the iron spheres deemed to be a signature characteristic of the WTC dust?

              Don’t bother replying unless you have citations to sources other than the authority of your grandiose utterances.

              Like

              • Carroll Sanders says

                The same as the fly ash ore it is made from at 1200C.

                The same Fe 304 spheres Jones found the same spectra Dr. Greening showed Jones.

                They are manufactured by xerox and other copy machine manufactures.

                The chemical composition doesn’t change during sphere formations.

                Like

                • “Magnetite”: Fe3O4

                  here

                  “Iron” from thermitic reaction: Fe (i.e., 2Al + Fe2O3 = Al2O3 + 2Fe)

                  here

                  Question: is elemental iron the same as magnetite? Is it iron oxide? Do you think the phrase “iron rich spheres” means the same as “magnetite rich spheres” or “iron oxide rich spheres?” Is there a difference, in your opinion? Could there be a difference?

                  Like

              • Carroll Sanders says

                Jones’s spheres were iron oxide magnetite oxidized iron by his own spectra.

                He found Fe 3O4, Because microspheres from thermite tend to Oxidize from the contact of air and heat of the reaction.

                I have Jones emails and Spectra.

                Like

                • Wait. What are you saying? Let me quote you: “He found Fe3O4 because miscrospheres from thermite tend to Oxidize . . .” Did I hear you correctly?

                  Like

                • Does this sound like magnetite production to you from a thermitic reaction:

                  A conventional quantitative analysis routine was used to estimate the elemental contents. In the case of this iron-rich spheroid, the iron content exceeds the oxygen content by approximately a factor of two, so substantial elemental iron must be present. This result was repeated in other iron-rich spheroids in the post-DSC sample as well as in spots in the residue which did not form into spheres. Spheroids were observed with Fe:O ratios up to approximately 4:1. Other iron-rich spheres were found in the post-DSC residue which contained iron along with aluminum and oxygen (see Discussion section).

                  Source: here p.15.

                  Like

              • Carroll Sanders says

                Admin do you honestly believe Copy machines with Microspheres from fly ash, that have been produced since 1975, would not have been inside a 110 story office building?

                You even have Dr.Greenings estimates in the Emails.

                Point is Jones agreed fly ash matched his spectrum, It was agreed Copy machines would be in the building and copy machines contain fly ash produced Microspheres.

                Do you want to continue pretending Copy machines do not exist, or that Jones and Greening spectra did not match?

                Like

                • Look, Sanders, you just told us that thermitic reactions produce magnetite and that that is what the “iron rich spherules” are, magnetite. Can you quote a source that will attest to your claim, namely that thermitic reactions produce magnetite rich spheres?

                  Like

              • Carroll Sanders says

                Yes magnetite can also contain Fe O as well as Fe 3O4.

                Both further oxidize to Fe 2O3.

                Like

                • So,

                  a) if thermitic reactions produce ‘magnetite rich spheres,’ then you don’t know that what you have are spheres from Xerox toner, do you?

                  &

                  b) how do you explain “elemental iron” in a ratio of 4 to 1?

                  Like

              • Carroll Sanders says

                Directly from Jones’s own mouth. He is questioning the low Oxygen in Greening iron sphere spectrum.

                “2. Where is the oxygen in the spectrum? The oxygen content is
                significant, yet the spectrum appears to be skewed, cut off at low X-ray
                energies… please explain — how much Oxygen was present? Oxygen must be
                present in a spectrum to provide a match with spectra I have shown — not
                the case in the one example you provided!”

                Like

                • Are you daft? If the “iron to oxygen” ratio means anything, there is oxygen present. If there is more oxygen than iron, then it isn’t likely you have “elemental” iron. On the other hand, if you have 4 times more iron than oxygen, then you do have “ELEMANTAL” iron. . . you know, Fe and not just Fe3O4 or Fe2O3.

                  When Jones here writes, ” Where is the oxygen in the spectrum? The oxygen content is significant . . .,” he doesn’t mean the “amount” of oxygen he found was “significantly more than” whatever you might want to imagine, Carroll, but “significant” in the sense that it is important to know “how much” is present, as when he asks and writes, “. . .how much Oxygen was present? Oxygen must be present in a spectrum to provide a match with spectra I have shown — not the case in the one example you provided!”

                  Carroll, I want to take you seriously, but I can’t. You can’t even fucking read what is plain to someone who doesn’t even have the entire context of what it is you yourself quote.

                  Anyway, your argument is ludicrous on the basis of its own internally spurious logic. To paraphrase you:

                  the spherules are magnetite from Xerox toner because a) magnetite spherules occur in Xerox toner and that toner was used in the WTC offices; and b) thermitic reactions produce magnetite spherules identical to that in Xerox toner.

                  If a) and b) are the case, then how do you determine what you have in the WTC dust? On the basis of these two premises, the spherules could be either toner or thermitic residue, so that even if we grant you your premises, your conclusion that the spherules are “therefore” Xerox toner residue simply does not follow.

                  And anyway, it is “known” that thermitic reactions produce spherules containing “significantly” more iron than oxygen, which confirms the production of elemental iron over and above any kind of iron oxide, which is the intriguing part setting it apart from Xerox toner, eh.

                  Bye, bye, Carroll.

                  Like

              • Carroll Sanders says

                Make Thermite out of Sand: http://youtu.be/73YmP_JSrlU

                Fe 3O4 can also be used in thermite and it does create sparks of magnetite, Jones actually tested cheap black sand thermite.

                Iron Microspheres also can oxidize in air, forming magnetite, if the spheres are small enough in size.

                Like

                • See, everything is magnetite, and you can’t tell it apart from Xerox toner, according to you. So if I show you a magnetite rich spherule, how are you going to decide whether it came from a Xerox toner cartridge or from a thermitic reaction, Carroll?

                  Like

            • The US Patent office, the makers of toner, Dr. Jones’s and Dr. Greenings work all agree the microspheres in the WTC dust were produced by toner?

              Citation needed.

              Like

              • Carroll Sanders says

                Admin You have the Emails the patent has been posted and you can contact any supplier and get a chemical composition, for toner microspheres again this is 40 year old technology.

                Or do you want me to post it off the emails myself?

                Like

                • We are asking for a citation showing anyone of the above mentioned or anyone at all beside yourself has claimed the WTC microspheres were produced by toner. Do you have such a citation?

                  Like

              • Carroll Sanders says

                When thermite launches a microsphere into the air it oxidizes,

                That’s what made Jones think the Fe 304 Microspheres were thermite. He was fooled into believing toner spheres were thermite residue.

                Admin you have all I have, I have an old damaged hard disc drive from my old computer don’t know if anything didn’t make it onto the DVD, or the spots on the DVD that were unreadable, years have past, that is all I could recover.

                I believe though you have all I received, if not you can contact the other parties to the conversation and see if they have anything to add.
                Time destroys information, nothing can be done about that.

                Like

            • Carroll Sanders says

              There was the exact ratio of 3O4 in Jones’s Microspheres spectra the exact same spectra as fly ash.

              He was complaining Greening’s spectra was too low.

              Like

            • jaques says

              what is a direct lie is your oft-repeated claim that Jones and Harrit came up with the 6% figure. the actual figure was 5.87% and came from the RJ Lee group study into the environmental affects of 9/11- which I posted a link to in the Gross thread. You can wilfully ignore that fact- and be seen for what you are- a liar- or you can take this opportunity to retract your slander.

              You claim without any evidence that you ‘know more than Lee’ because you ‘put in the hard work’. That really is going too far by a country mile. R J Lee has published over 200 scientific articles, holds multiple degrees in engineering and pyhsics and 6 patents. Your expertise?

              You managed to split hairs with a chainsaw:

              perhaps it was this very skill that saw Cass Sunnstein offer you a job? That’s a joke BTW.

              Get real- Get a grip- and then Get Lost!

              Withdraw your slanderous lies you incorrigible scoundrel!

              Like

              • Carroll Sanders says

                Liar, Jones and Harrit misrepresented R J Lee’s figure for all microspheres.
                Jacues you can ignore the truth all you want but Jones was told Microspheres would be in those building in the toner even before they collapsed and said nothing about them.

                Like

          • jaques says

            don’t try and hold Carrol to his word- he is an expert in splitting hairs (and nothing else as far as I can tell- or as far as he has shown):

            Liked by 1 person

              • Carroll – you informed us that you had promised Jones not to publish these emails and would need his permission. He gave his permission but under the proviso the entire conversation as published.

                You have now published a part of the conversation here, which is expressly what Jones asked you NOT to do.

                So, either you are admitting you never made such a promise, or or have broken your word.

                Please explain which of these it is. if the former you need also to explain why you lied initially. If the latter we’ll have to remove this comment of yours.

                Like

              • Carroll Sanders says

                Admin, Jones informed you that he didn’t make me promise to keep them secret, now one of us must be lying I am not going to continue being attack for telling the truth.
                Either we can have a rational discussion or not.

                Ziggi on the other thread said he knew what was in the Emails,
                I did not give Jones permission to publish my knowledge or inform Ziggi of the Email contents so Jones has obviously violated my trust!

                Jones has already violated the agreement.

                Like

                • Jones did NOT so inform us. Jones informed us that he could not remember asking for such a promise. If you know he did that does not justify you breaking the promise.

                  Jones also said he released you from any promise you may have made – provided you published ALL the correspondence, particularly those involving David Chandler.

                  What you have done is the very opposite of what was asked.

                  Your claim Jones already “published” these emails because some man says he heard about their contents is simply more of your trademark obfuscation. You have either lied about the promise you claim Jones asked of you, or you have broken that promise. Which is it?

                  Like

              • Carroll Sanders says

                The comments in capitals are Steven E. Jones’s the others are Dr. Frank Greenings.

                Jones knew that there were Microspheres in the buildings before the collapses that matched his spectra.

                He ignored them in the energetic chips paper.
                That is scientific misconduct, and intellectually dishonest behavior.

                Do you also want me to post where Jones requested a private conversation?

                Let Jones for the record make an excuse for it, and for sharing the emails with Ziggi who knew the contents of the Emails!

                Like

              • Carroll Sanders says

                Will you now confirm that it was Jones who asked for privacy as I stated or since by Jones’s own actions and correspondence to you In am free of my promise, I will post it myself.

                Like

                • We can’t confirm anything and don’t need to. YOU are the one who claimed to have promised Jones not to publish, and YOU are the one who has now published.

                  You need to explain – were you lying when you claimed to have made this promise or have you broken the promise?

                  Like

              • Carroll Sanders says

                I am not lying Jones is and he broke the promise by sharing the emails with Ziggi.

                Ziggi was not part of the group and should not have known the contents.

                Jones had to have mace the contents available to ziggi.

                Like

                • YOU claim to have made the promise not Jones. He can’t break a promise YOU made. And sharing an email with one person is not “publishing” them.

                  Stop trying to evade. It’s ridiculous. Either you lied about promising Jones not to publish the emails or you have now broken you promise – which is it?

                  Like

              • Carroll Sanders says

                Admin it was agreed that this information would be kept in the group and not shared it Jones has been sharing it he broke the groups trust in him.

                He need to state whether or not he gave the Emails to Ziggi, if he didn’t then I apologize, but this goes to his credibility.

                Ziggi states he knows what these emails contain.

                Ps. Chandler was never part of the Microspheres debate, it broke off where the emails ended.

                The Microspheres debate is the only part that there was expected privacy, at Dr. Jones’s request.

                Like

                • You said you promised Jones not to publish. Now you say “it was promised in the group.”

                  Please answer this simple question –

                  Did you promise Jones not to publish?

                  An honest witness does not keep changing his story.

                  Like

              • Carroll Sanders says

                In Jones own words which he broke!
                “*I propose we either take the discussion, with data, to a private, closed
                forum (a friend of mine knows how to get this started quickly, a couple of
                days), or continue by email with the proviso that the emails are not to be
                quoted without permission from an author. The little group on this mailing
                list seems like a good one — I think we all seek understanding of these
                microspheres and red/gray chips. I have SEM/EDS data, others have other
                data, and we all have expertise to bring to the table. I would like to
                continue if we agree to seek for understanding in this important area.

                Unless we publish together — which is a good thought IMO — we should
                keep our work sufficiently distinct so that we can publish separately.
                *
                Steve”

                Jones shared mine with Ziggi, and Ziggi posted evidence on the Red Gray chip thread that he knew the contents of the emails.

                I asked Jones’s permission and kept my word for years only to find out he didn’t keep his.

                Like

                • So, you admit you made the promise and broke it. Ok.

                  The emails you posted will now be deleted.

                  Stop lying. Stop switching your stories. Stop evading. Any more examples will be deleted as spam.

                  Like

              • According to you, Jones writes:

                “I propose we either take the discussion, with data, to a private, closed forum (a friend of mine knows how to get this started quickly, a couple of
                days), or continue by email with the proviso that the emails are not to be quoted without permission from an author.”

                This is not, as I read it, an injunction not to share or publish the content of what had until then been exchanged, but a condition being stipulated for continuing the discussion.

                Furthermore, it is not an unreasonable request because ‘quote mining’ can easily lead to distorting a person’s meaning, just as you did, inadvertently or not, in this thread earlier, Carroll, when I accused you of not being able to read.

                That’s why Jones insists that “everything” get aired in its entirety rather than piecemeal, to minimize the use of possibly distorting snippets or quotes.

                So, for example, it’s not uncommon to come across the following wording in a copyright notice: “Quotes and snippets are permissible insofar as they do not alter the meaning of the original work, as determined by the work’s original author.” In other words, you are being asked to be careful not to misrepresent what the author is saying, “or else,” eh.

                So the question is: after Jones wrote that, did the email exchange continue or did it stop? Because what you quote, here, is quite clearly a condition being stipulated for ‘continuing’ the exchange.

                Like

              • Carroll Sanders says

                Norman when you accused me of quote mining did you understand that I emailed RJ Lee, and looked myself at Jones data
                and understood that Jones was presenting the data for Fe 3O4, or did you just assume I didn’t understand the data?

                Jones was comparing his commercial thermite spheres to the sphere spectra in the dust, many commercial thermite use cheap
                Black iron oxide sand, Fe 3O4, not Fe 203, they do produce Microspheres of Fe 3O4 from left over oxide.

                I have also recovered Fe 3O4, FeO Microspheres from Fe 203, thermite reactions. The theory is the hot finely divided iron oxidizes as it passes though the air with oxygen in it.

                Like

            • Carroll Sanders says

              Attacks on me will not work the truth is the truth, Jaques your attacks even if allowed By Admin are worthless, because the truth is the truth!

              Like

              • jaques says

                sure sure- your an expert (better than Richard J Lee, Steven Jones and Niels Harrit- all accredited sconetists) and know for a fact that ‘the beam was bent by impact with the plane, and ‘the location of the bean is known’ – only problem is the engineer you claim as your source ‘died’ and all his evidence ‘irretrievably lost’ and what was published on some forum ‘now deleted’. Sure I believe that story. Not.

                And then the ink toner… garbage wrapped up in pseudo scientific gibberish. Show me an image of a single ink toner spherule with a diameter of 0.7mm or shut up.

                Like

              • Carroll Sanders says

                It is in the emails it was to be kept within the group, Ziggi is the web master at 9/11 blogger if he shared it with Ziggi I consider that publication since ziggi has been leaking details. Of that and other conversations.

                Jones also promised not to publish.

                Ziggi knew the date, and what the discussion related too.

                Like

                • You have never before said anything about Jones promising not to publish. Your original claim was that you had promised Jones not to publish. Period.

                  You keep changing your story about every aspect of everything you claim,

                  I’m afraid you are being revealed as a serial, persistent, if incompetent, liar.

                  Unless you can explain your repeat contradictions and apparent lies we will have to start treating your posts like spam.

                  Like

    • Carroll Sanders says

      Chandler was not part of the Microspheres debate as far as I know I saved the entire debate,that I received.

      Like

Comments are closed.