WTC7 Demolition on mainstream news site

[wendy]

911 hero William Rodriguez was on in hour 2. Just amazing stuff.

Great show today........911 truth movement gaining great ground. NWO is going down. This will be the biggest story of our lifetime.

Sheen Movie To Portray Rodriguez 9/11 Heroism

The next 9/11 tale to hit the silver screen could be that of a World Trade Center janitor whose heroism helped save hundreds of lives.

William Rodriguez says he is in talks with actors Charlie Sheen and Esai Morales to turn his riveting story into a feature film - and a top writer-director, David Marconi, is already involved in the project.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/Augus...b_Rodriguez.htm

[stignasty]

911 hero William Rodriguez was on in hour 2. Just amazing stuff.

Do you people have jobs?

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind Can you provide a proof or not?

Yes. If I do will you stop clogging this group with your "scientific expertise" such as that demonstrated below?

You are the one who claims to believe in science based arguments. I am giving you science based arguments and you refuse to answer. I suspect it is because you are not really interested in the science based arguments.

I asked you what kind of engineer you were and if you were related to Bill O'Reilly. You have answered neither question.

[PolyNewbie]

911 hero William Rodriguez was on in hour 2. Just amazing stuff.

Its hard to believe there are people around like that in the sycophantic culture we live in.

None of these guys that post here have had anything to say about the kiddie brothels or the trillions of dollars that have gone missing. They are too busy clogging up 911 threads with nonsense. Nonsense is the only defense they have when argueing 911.

[wendy]

Very good show on Alex Jones yesterday with Professor Jones and William Rodriguez 911 hero. Available till noon est today I believe.

Professor Jones and a few other scientists have been asked by one of the hosts of the VIEW to come on the show. Rodriguez exposes ABC and how they are altered the tapes about bombs going off in the trade centre changing the words from he heard the bombs go off to the planes.

Alex reveals how many stars about about to come public in mass about 911 and NWO.

go to http://prisonplanet.com/

click on "listen live" on left

rebroadcast 24 hrs day.

[cybercoma]

Poly, your ignorance is exhausting. If you would take 3 seconds to look at evidence that didn't contradicts your suspicions you would realize that debris from ground zero was removed by some of the most experience demolition experts in the United States. Look into Protec Documentation Services and what Brent Blanchard has to say about the idea that the WTC towers were controlled demolitions. To sum it up, there were hundreds of men and women working at those sites who have had tons of experience dealing with demolitions and not a single one of them has come forward to confirm these stories you're touting.

The evidence that the US government pulled this off just isn't as convincing as the fact that it was done by radical Islamic terrorists. They've targeted US buildings in the past and the WTC deal is just another in a long list of terrorism against the United States:

- Hezbollah's attack on Marine arracks in Lebanon in '83

- the hijacking of the Achill Lauro in '85

- truck bomb attack on the WTC in '93; killing 6 people and injuring 1000

- an attempt to blow up 12 planes heading from the Philippines to the US in Jan. '95

- attack on Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia in '96, killing 19 US military personnel and injuring hundreds more

- bombing of US embassy buildings in Kenya and Tanzania in '95, killing 12 Ameicans and 200 Kenyans and Tanzanians

- a thwarted attempt by Ahmed Ressam to attack Los Angeles International Airport in '99

- suicide boat bombing against the USS Cole in 2000, killing 17 sailors and injuring 39 others

Not to mention that Osama Bin Laden issued a fatwa in '96 as well as '98 declarig that killing Americans was a duty for Muslims.

We really don't need to go looking for government conspiracies, because they're simply false. Osama and al-Qaeda have claimed responsibility for the attacks and the evidence points to them. There's really not much else to be said.

Oh and since you wanted a link proving that Bin Laden claimed responsibility, here you go: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...1/11/wbin11.xml

full stop.

[Argus]

You cannot produce a single shred of evidence that supports the official conspiracy theory.

This is the heart and soul of all these nutty conspiracy theories, be they the "Holocaust was made up by Jews" crowd or the "George Bush destroyed the WTC" bunch: the ability to ignore evidence, to pretend it doesn't exist, to unthinkingly dismiss it as forged, faked, the reports as lies. And, of course, the ability to utterly ignore both logic, and reality. PolyNewbie is the unquestioned champion at all of these here, but he unfortunately has company in his delusions.

[Argus]

Thank you Wendy, for posting all this excellent material.

If your own posts had given evidence that you were smarter I'd say you were baiting her.

No doubt you have noticed how certain posters

The sane ones.

tend to angrily deny and froth at the mouth and yet fail to say anything substantive in response.

There's little point in arguing with a conspiracy nut. No matter how many mountains of evidence and testimony you produce they'll blithely dismiss it all as the creation of the International Jewish Conspiracy, or the Masons, or Evil Corporatist Cabal, or whatever.

[Argus]

Thank you Wendy, for posting all this excellent material.

No doubt you have noticed how certain posters tend to angrily deny and froth at the mouth and yet fail to say anything substantive in response. You should regard this behaviour as proof of your success in puncturing a construct of vapid and mistaken beliefs.

Thankyou Figleaf and the others that responded in kind!

Please email some of these links to others you know and ask them what they think.

Sorry, Wendy, I make it my policy not to associate with stupid people. Thus the people I do know would mock and ridicule me, not to mention questioning my sanity, if i sent such garbage to them as anything but a commentary on the poor state of education in Canada.

[Argus]

Award winning 911 truther Steven E. Jones, Physicist PhD was on Alex Jones today.

http://prisonplanet.com/

Click on the "Listen Live" link on the left. 24 hr/day refeed.

Great news about 911 truth movement and Steven Jones being asked about coming on the VIEW with other scientists.

So one scientist says it was a controlled demolition, without giving any explanation about how you could possibly wire two massive, fully occupied buildings for that without anyone noticing - and ten thousand others say it's ridiculous. And you believe the one guy. Yeah, sure.

The whole scenario misses under any attempt to analyze the logic of it. There is no motivation that stands up to reason, and no way you could keep a secret of something this big which would require so many co-conspirators.

[Riverwind]

Yes. If I do will you stop clogging this group with your "scientific expertise" such as that demonstrated below?

This is a discussion forum. If you are not willing to debate the issues then you should find somewhere else to peddle your nonsense.

Let's recap:

You claim that the hotspots 'prove' that material other than office furniture and jet fuel was burning in the rubble. I argue that such data proves nothing because:

1) You don't state how 'hot' these spots were nor do you provide any information regarding the accuracy of the measurements.

2) You ignore the massive amount of kinetic energy that was absorbed by the rubble when the towers collapsed.

3) You cannot provide any argument that demonstrates why the temperature of the burning material is a theoretical maximum.

What you have is a hypothesis - not a proof. If you don't understand the difference then you should go back to school.

[PolyNewbie]

Argus There's little point in arguing with a conspiracy nut. No matter how many mountains of evidence and testimony you produce they'll blithely dismiss it all as the creation of the International Jewish Conspiracy, or the Masons, or Evil Corporatist Cabal, or whatever.

I haven't seen any evidence that supports the official version. I haven't seen any posts on this group anywhere that blame 911 on the masons, jews or evil corporatist cabal. This is just opne of those things that gets made up to discredit good arguement. Popular Mechanics does this in their 911 debunking. Its called using "straw men".

We have scientists on our side that explain that the way the collapses occured would be impossible if the official story was true the idea that fires and structural damage caused the collapses is impossible - its a violation of both 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. People that argue against that point of view have nothing.

Even the FEMA report cannot explain the collapse of wtc7 and only hypothesise the collapse of wtc1 & wtc2. The reasons for the collapse of wtc1 & wtc2 keep changing as previous explanations are proven to be impossible. The FEMA report even stated that the official hypothesis of events wrt wtc 7 collapse had only a "low probability of occurance".

The reality of 911 is that the official story is nothing but smoke and mirrors. People who have a problem with that are using their own expertise to "debunk" scientific and evidential fact that supports the MIHOP point of view. Arguements against our view of 911 consist of making conspiracies up and then proceeding to debunk them.

People assume that 1000's of people would have to be in on the conspiracy - this is a hypothesis based on absolutely no knowledge or experience of the intelligence community yet is held up as undeniable fact. Intelligence experts have said that only a government could pull something like this off (ex defence minister of Germany)

As for Riverwinds comment above, my response to him has been made clear in previous posts.

[PolyNewbie]

cybercoma Oh and since you wanted a link proving that Bin Laden claimed responsibility, here you go: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...1/11/wbin11.xml

That confession was faked. It wasn't Usama that said that - it was a black guy with a pug nose that was 50 lb overweight, not a tall skinny middle eastern guy with a long nose. The supposed confessor that made that tape doesn't even look like Usama.

Fake Usama Confession Tape

[stignasty]

PROOF that the Moon is made of Green Cheese!!!

The TRUTH Revealed!!

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind Let's recap:

You claim that the hotspots 'prove' that material other than office furniture and jet fuel was burning in the rubble. I argue that such data proves nothing because:

1) You don't state how 'hot' these spots were nor do you provide any information regarding the accuracy of the measurements.

Hot Spot Details, Various links

2) You ignore the massive amount of kinetic energy that was absorbed by the rubble when the towers collapsed.

I use that to show that the towers could not collapse that quickly while the kinetic energy of the towers was being used to convert the concrete to dust. The towers were gradually blown apart from top to bottom successively. The conversion to 100 micron dust during the collapse would slow the collapse down significantly. Deny it all you want but its right there on video - the dust is created during the collapse process.

3) You cannot provide any argument that demonstrates why the temperature of the burning material is a theoretical maximum.

I can explain why the temperature of a material can never exceed that of the temperature of the source of heat applied. I have asked that you stop polluting my threads if I prove this and not post on 911 threads any more. You have claimed to be an engineer, you will not say what kind of engineer you are.

[Riverwind]

Hot Spot Details, Various links

Did you actually follow the links to the original source of the data? You can find it here. Did you notice that the maximum temperature of the hotspots is 1000 degrees Kelvin? That is only 727 degrees C or 1300 degrees F. The link you provided claims the temperature was 2000F. This is a perfect example of how truthies simply fabricate data to support the conclusions that they desperately want to believe.

Incidently, 727 degC is well within the normal temperature range for hydrocarbon fires. This means that your entire argument is BS. There were no unexplained 'hotspots' in the rubble.

I use that to show that the towers could not collapse that quickly while the kinetic energy of the towers was being used to convert the concrete to dust.

You are assuming that you know what percentage of the concrete was pulversized during the collaspe. There is no data available (rules of thumb regarding the size of the rubble pile is NOT data). Any calculations based on data that you fabricated are worthless.

I can explain why the temperature of a material can never exceed that of the temperature of the source of heat applied.

Then prove it. Although it appears to be irrelevant now that you have demonstrated that the original data directly contradicts your claim.

I am thinking of starting a betting pool: how many days will it pass before Polly reposts his 'unexplained hotspots' claim as if it still had merit? I bet 5 days.

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind The link you provided claims the temperature was 2000F. This is a perfect example of how truthies simply fabricate data to support the conclusions that they desperately want to believe.

Evidence is shown for temperatures many thousands of degrees on that page.

You are assuming that you know what percentage of the concrete was pulverized during the collapse. There is no data available (rules of thumb regarding the size of the rubble pile is NOT data). Any calculations based on data your fabricated are worthless.

Half of the concrete being converted to dust is a generous assumtion. There is also the energy required to project the dust and building particles upward and outward during the process of the collapse.

As I have explained , I can prove that the temperature of a material being heated can never exceed the temperature of the heat source quite easily, but I need you to agree to stop posting on 911 threads in response to my posts. The fact that you do not understand this shows that you are a liar for claiming to be an engineer. You scientific analysis cosistently shows idiocy.

[Riverwind]

Riverwind The link you provided claims the temperature was 2000F. This is a perfect example of how truthies simply fabricate data to support the conclusions that they desperately want to believe.

Evidence is shown for temperatures many thousands of degrees on that page.

There are no measurements of temperature on that page that do not lead back to the same source from the USGS. The USGS data clearly indicates that the hot spots did not exceed 730 degree C which directly contradicts the claims made on the truthies site. The fact that they post such obvious factual errors demostrates that they are not a reliable source of information.

The claims regarding molten steel are unproven - molten metal was observed, however, the was no evidence that the metal was actually steel.

[PolyNewbie]

The claims regarding molten steel are unproven - molten metal was observed, however, the was no evidence that the metal was actually steel.

It was glowing red. It would be silver in sunlight if it was aluminum. Stephen Jones has pointed this out.

[Riverwind]

It was glowing red. It would be silver in sunlight if it was aluminum. Stephen Jones has pointed this out.

NIST disagrees:

Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

As I said: you have no evidence that the molten/semi-solid material was steel. You are assuming it is steel because it is convenient.

So let's recap:

1) The measured temperatures for hotspots in the rubble had temperatures well within the normal range for hydrocarbon fires (<730 degC).

2) The temperature data for hotspots posted on truthie websites is wrong (which makes you wonder how many other errors exist).

3) The evidence of 'molten steel' is an unproven assumption based on the colour of the material in photographs.

[PolyNewbie]

As I said: you have no evidence that the molten/semi-solid material was steel. You are assuming it is steel because it is convenient.

Jones had a video where he talked about the colour of melted steel vs melted aluminum and showed that aluminum in sunlight when melted is silver. Melted aluminum looks very different from melted steel.

NIST Orange Glow Hypothesis / Stephen Jones

You are asumming that the molten metal must be aluminum with no evidence. Unless you can provide some..

1) The measured temperatures for hotspots in the rubble had temperatures well within the normal range for hydrocarbon fires (<730 degC).

That was days and sometimes weeks after. Temeratures that high on the surface prove higher temperatures underneath. Molten steel was found underneath the piles. Lots of evidence of very high temperatures. FEMA mentions high temperature sulfidization. The bend beam (U shaped with no cracks and the meteor show very high temperatures)

The lack of oxygen underground where these molten pools were found shows high temperatures. The "meteorite" (melted steel and concrete in a ball) shows high temperatures. Pictures of red hot steel are in this link.

High Temps / Hot Spots

2) The temperature data for hotspots posted on truthie websites is wrong (which makes you wonder how many other errors exist).

Where ? The truthie sites I know use USGS data.

3) The evidence of 'molten steel' is an unproven assumption based on the colour of the material in photographs.

The colour gives it away. Color is dependent on temperature and type of metal.

[stignasty]

Jones had a video where he talked about the colour of melted steel vs melted aluminum and showed that aluminum in sunlight when melted is silver. Melted aluminum looks very different from melted steel.

The colour gives it away. Color is dependent on temperature and type of metal.

Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

[PolyNewbie]

FAQs 8 talks about sprinklers. Its irrelevant to this topic.

[Riverwind]

You are asumming that the molten metal must be aluminum with no evidence. Unless you can provide some..

You are the one trying to claim that the metal must be steel so the onus of proof is on you. Jones's lab experiments do not mean much - dropping cold bits of plastic and wood into a container of liquid aluminium is not the same as melting large pieces of aluminium with a large hydrocarbon fire.

You Temeratures that high on the surface prove higher temperatures underneath. Molten steel was found underneath the piles.

Any proof that is was actually steel? Any proof that it was actually molten? Steel glows red at 800 degC. It also can be deformed at that temperature. It is quite possible that this 'molten' steel was actually solid but was deformed by the weight of the rubble above it.

I should remind you here: I don't need to prove that I am right. I only need to demonstrate that your claim is not proven.

The colour gives it away. Color is dependent on temperature and type of metal.

Measuring temperature by colour is extremely imprecise - especially if you have no way to determine the effect of impurities. This link indicates that 'red glowing steel' could be anywhere from 600 to 1000 degC.

[stignasty]

FAQs 8 talks about sprinklers. Its irrelevant to this topic.

Scroll down to #11.