Jump to content
The Education Forum

Is anyone interested in Apollo missions...


Jack White
 Share

Recommended Posts

Members of the Forum might be interested in the article: The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True by David Ray Griffin.

http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html

I also highly recommend Scholars for 911 Truth at

http://www.st911.org/

which was organized by forum member Dr. James Fetzer.

My own 911 sites are:

http://www.911studies.com/911photostudies109.htm

http://www.911studies.com/911photostudies1.htm

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Physicist Steven Jones believes that thermite mixed with sulphur was used:

Physicist says heat substance felled WTC

Extremely hot fires caused structures to fail, BYU expert says

By Suzanne Dean

For the Deseret Morning News

EPHRAIM — A Brigham Young University physicist said he now believes an incendiary substance called thermite, bolstered by sulfur, was used to generate exceptionally hot fires at the World Trade Center on 9/11, causing the structural steel to fail and the buildings to collapse.

"It looks like thermite with sulfur added, which really is a very clever idea," Steven Jones, professor of physics at BYU, told a meeting of the Utah Academy of Science, Arts and Letters at Snow College Friday.

The government requires standard explosives to contain tag elements enabling them to be traced back to their manufacturers. But no tags are required in aluminum and iron oxide, the materials used to make thermite, he said. Nor, he said, are tags required in sulfur.

Jones is co-chairman, with James H. Fetzer, a distinguished professor of philosophy at the University of Minnesota of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, a group of college faculty members who believe conspirators other than pilots of the planes were directly involved in bringing down New York's Trade Towers.

The group, which Jones said has 200 members, maintains a Web site at www.st911.org. A 40-page paper by Jones, along with other peer-reviewed and non-reviewed academic papers, are posted on the site.

Last year, Jones presented various arguments for his theory that explosives or incendiary devices were planted in the Trade Towers, and in WTC 7, a smaller building in the Trade Center complex, and that those materials, not planes crashing into the buildings, caused the buildings to collapse.

At that time, he mentioned thermite as the possible explosive or incendiary agent. But Friday, he said he is increasingly convinced that thermite and sulfur were the root causes of the 9/11 disaster.

He told college professors and graduate students from throughout Utah gathered for the academy meeting that while almost no fire, even one ignited by jet fuel, can cause structural steel to fail, the combination of thermite and sulfur "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."

He ticked off several pieces of evidence for his thermite fire theory:

First, he said, video showed a yellow, molten substance splashing off the side of the south Trade Tower about 50 minutes after an airplane hit it and a few minutes before it collapsed. Government investigators ruled out the possibility of melting steel being the source of the material because of the unlikelihood of steel melting. The investigators said the molten material must have been aluminum from the plane.

But, said Jones, molten aluminum is silvery. It never turns yellow. The substance observed in the videos "just isn't aluminum," he said. But, he said, thermite can cause steel to melt and become yellowish.

Second, he cited video pictures showing white ash rising from the south tower near the dripping, liquefied metal. When thermite burns, Jones said, it releases aluminum-oxide ash. The presence of both yellow-white molten iron and aluminum oxide ash "are signature characteristics of a thermite reaction," he said.

Another item of evidence, Jones said, is the fact that sulfur traces were found in structural steel recovered from the Trade Towers. Jones quoted the New York Times as saying sulfidization in the recovered steel was "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the (official) investigation." But, he said, sulfidization fits the theory that sulfur was combined with thermite to make the thermite burn even hotter than it ordinarily would.

Jones said a piece of building wreckage had a gray substance on the outside that at one point had obviously been a dripping molten metal or liquid. He said that after thermite turns steel or iron into a molten form, and the metal hardens, it is gray.

He added that pools of molten metal were found beneath both trade towers and the 47-story WTC 7. That fact, he said, was never discussed in official investigation reports.

And even though WTC 7 was not connected to the Trade Towers — in fact, there was another building between it and the towers —and even though it was never hit by a plane, it collapsed. That suggests, he said, that it came down because a thermite fire caused its structural steel to fail.

Jones said his studies are confined to physical causes of the collapses, and he doesn't like to speculate about who might have entered the buildings and placed thermite and sulfur. But he said 10 to 20 people "in the know," plus other people who didn't know what they were doing but did what they were told, could have placed incendiary packages over several weeks.

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635198488,00.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It appears to be much of the same 911 errors that are going about. In contrast, have a read here:

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc__demolition_.html

and here

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc__other_.html

and here

http://www.911myths.com/html/what_s_new_.html

Another site worth visiting for explanations different to what Mr Griffin contends is:

http://www.houstonwade.com/0001to0100/issue0016.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I only got to Mr. Griffin's 1st point when I realized it was pointless to go on because it contains all the same drivel that CT's have put forward for years. For example, based on his logic I can prove that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not destroyed by atomic weapons!

From Mr Griffin's article:

A bad theory is one that is contradicted by some of the relevant facts. An outrageous theory would be one that is contradicted by virtually all the relevant facts.

With this definition in mind, let us look at the official theory about the Twin Towers, which says that they collapsed because of the combined effect of the impact of the airplanes and the resulting fires. The report put out by FEMA said: “The structural damage sustained by each tower from the impact, combined with the ensuing fires, resulted in the total collapse of each building” (FEMA, 2002).[3] This theory clearly belongs in the category of outrageous theories, because is it is contradicted by virtually all the relevant facts. Although this statement may seem extreme, I will explain why it is not.

No Prior Collapse Induced by Fire

The official theory is rendered implausible by two major problems. The first is the simple fact that fire has never---prior to or after 9/11---caused steel-frame high-rise buildings to collapse.Defenders of the official story seldom if ever mention this simple fact. Indeed, the supposedly definitive report put out by NIST---the National Institute for Standards and Technology (2005)---even implies that fire-induced collapses of large steel-frame buildings are normal events (Hoffman, 2005).[4] Far from being normal, however, such collapses have never occurred, except for the alleged cases of 9/11.

I'll change a few words:

[

A bad theory is one that is contradicted by some of the relevant facts. An outrageous theory would be one that is contradicted by virtually all the relevant facts.

With this definition in mind, let us look at the official theory about the Twin Towers destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which says that they collapsed were destroyed because of the combined effect of the impact of the airplanes atomic explosion and the resulting fires. The report put out by FEMA official government sources said: “The structural damage sustained by each tower city from the impact explosions, combined with the ensuing fires, resulted in the total collapse destruction of each building city(FEMA, 2002) (History books and scholars 1945 - 2006).[3] This theory clearly belongs in the category of outrageous theories, because is it is contradicted by virtually all the relevant facts. Although this statement may seem extreme, I will explain why it is not.

No Prior Collapse City wide destruction Induced by Fire a single bomb.

The official theory is rendered implausible by two major problems. The first is the simple fact that fire a single bomb has never---prior to or after 9/11 August 1945---caused steel-frame high-rise buildings to collapse a whole city to be destroyed.Defenders of the official story seldom if ever mention this simple fact. Indeed, the supposedly definitive report put out by NIST---the National Institute for Standards and Technology (2005) many news sources---even implies that fire-induced collapses single bomb destruction of large steel-frame buildings large cities are normal events (Hoffman, 2005) are to be routinely expected in war.[4] Far from being normal, however, such collapses have destruction has never occurred, except for the alleged cases of 9/11 Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The logic is just as absurd whether applied to 9/11 or WWII.

Edited by Steve Ulman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I only got to Mr. Griffin's 1st point when I realized it was pointless to go on because it contains all the same drivel that CT's have put forward for years. For example, based on his logic I can prove that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not destroyed by atomic weapons!

From Mr Griffin's article:

A bad theory is one that is contradicted by some of the relevant facts. An outrageous theory would be one that is contradicted by virtually all the relevant facts.

With this definition in mind, let us look at the official theory about the Twin Towers, which says that they collapsed because of the combined effect of the impact of the airplanes and the resulting fires. The report put out by FEMA said: “The structural damage sustained by each tower from the impact, combined with the ensuing fires, resulted in the total collapse of each building” (FEMA, 2002).[3] This theory clearly belongs in the category of outrageous theories, because is it is contradicted by virtually all the relevant facts. Although this statement may seem extreme, I will explain why it is not.

No Prior Collapse Induced by Fire

The official theory is rendered implausible by two major problems. The first is the simple fact that fire has never---prior to or after 9/11---caused steel-frame high-rise buildings to collapse.Defenders of the official story seldom if ever mention this simple fact. Indeed, the supposedly definitive report put out by NIST---the National Institute for Standards and Technology (2005)---even implies that fire-induced collapses of large steel-frame buildings are normal events (Hoffman, 2005).[4] Far from being normal, however, such collapses have never occurred, except for the alleged cases of 9/11.

I'll change a few words:

[

A bad theory is one that is contradicted by some of the relevant facts. An outrageous theory would be one that is contradicted by virtually all the relevant facts.

With this definition in mind, let us look at the official theory about the Twin Towers destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which says that they collapsed were destroyed because of the combined effect of the impact of the airplanes atomic explosion and the resulting fires. The report put out by FEMA official government sources said: “The structural damage sustained by each tower city from the impact explosions, combined with the ensuing fires, resulted in the total collapse destruction of each building city(FEMA, 2002) (History books and scholars 1945 - 2006).[3] This theory clearly belongs in the category of outrageous theories, because is it is contradicted by virtually all the relevant facts. Although this statement may seem extreme, I will explain why it is not.

No Prior Collapse City wide destruction Induced by Fire a single bomb.

The official theory is rendered implausible by two major problems. The first is the simple fact that fire a single bomb has never---prior to or after 9/11 August 1945---caused steel-frame high-rise buildings to collapse a whole city to be destroyed.Defenders of the official story seldom if ever mention this simple fact. Indeed, the supposedly definitive report put out by NIST---the National Institute for Standards and Technology (2005) many news sources---even implies that fire-induced collapses single bomb destruction of large steel-frame buildings large cities are normal events (Hoffman, 2005) are to be routinely expected in war.[4] Far from being normal, however, such collapses have destruction has never occurred, except for the alleged cases of 9/11 Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The logic is just as absurd whether applied to 9/11 or WWII.

Let's develop your analogy a tad further. I apologize in advance if this causes offence or upset to anyone personally affected by those War Crimes (dropping atom bombs on Japanese cities without warning).

I regret I haven't maintained your attractive editing colours, Steve - but check out my BLOCK CAPITALS:

A bad theory is one that is contradicted by some of the relevant facts. An outrageous theory would be one that is contradicted by virtually all the relevant facts.

With this definition in mind, let us look at the official theory about the Twin Towers destruction of Hiroshima, Nagasaki AND TOYKO, which says that they collapsed were destroyed because of the combined effect of the impact of the airplanes atomic explosion and the resulting fires (EXCEPT THAT ALL AGREE THAT NO ATOMIC BOMB STRUCK TOKYO) . The report put out by FEMA official government sources said: “The structural damage sustained by each tower city from the impact explosions, combined with the ensuing fires, resulted in the total collapse destruction of each building city” (FEMA, 2002) (History books and scholars 1945 - 2006).[3] This theory clearly belongs in the category of outrageous theories, because is it is contradicted by virtually all the relevant facts. Although this statement may seem extreme, I will explain why it is not.

No Prior Collapse City wide destruction Induced by Fire a single bomb.

The official theory is rendered implausible by two major problems. The first is the simple fact that fire a single bomb has never---prior to or after 9/11 August 1945---caused steel-frame high-rise buildings to collapse a whole city to be destroyed. (NOTE HOWEVER THAT THREE ENTIRE CITIES IMPLODING FROM ONLY TWO BOMBS IS BEYOND ALL PRECEDENT AND SURPASSES HUMAN UNDERSTANDING) Defenders of the official story seldom if ever mention this simple fact. Indeed, the supposedly definitive report put out by NIST---the National Institute for Standards and Technology (2005) many news sources---even implies that fire-induced collapses single bomb destruction of large steel-frame buildings large cities are normal events (Hoffman, 2005) are to be routinely expected in war.[4] Far from being normal, however, such collapses have destruction has never occurred, except for the alleged cases of 9/11 Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

IN ADDITION, THE MAYOR OF TOKYO (WHO ALSO HAPPENS TO BE MAYOR OF NAGASAKI AND HIROSHIMA AS WELL) WENT ON NATIONAL TV A YEAR OR SO AFTER THE BOMBINGS AND EXPLAINED THAT TOKYO HAD BEEN ‘DETONATED’ TO AVOID FURTHER NUISANCE TO RESIDENTS, ONCE THE CITY HAD BEEN EVACUATED.

CURIOUSLY, NO-ONE WITHIN THE JAPANESE MASS MEDIA OR JAPANESE GOVERNMENT INVESTIGATING AUTHORITIES HAS EVER BOTHERED TO ASK THE MAYOR, SINCE THAT INTERVIEW, HOW ON EARTH IT WAS THAT THE CITY OF TOYKO COULD HAVE BEEN PRE-RIGGED FOR DETONATION AT THE SAME TIME IN HISTORY THAT TWO ATOMIC BOMBS UNEXPECTEDLY STRUCK HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI. THIS IS A MATTER OF SOME PUBLIC INTEREST, AFTER ALL. HOW MANY OTHER CITIES ARE PRE-WIRED TO EXPLODE. URBAN RESIDENTS WANT TO KNOW!

INDEED, STRANGELY ENOUGH, THERE HAS BEEN VIRTUALLY NO MASS MEDIA COVERAGE WHATSOEVER OF THE MYSERIOUS COLLAPSE OF THE ENTIRE CITY OF TOYKO THAT JUST HAPPENED TO OCCUR ON THE SAME DAY THE OTHER TWO CITIES WERE DESTROYED BY BOMBS.

ON A SEPARATE YET RELATED TOPIC, JAPANESE POLICE EXPLAINED HOW THEY WERE SO SURE THAT PINK-FACED WESTERNERS FLEW THE PLANES THAT DROPPED ATOMIC BOMBS ON HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI AND DESTROYED ALL THREE CITIES.

"IT'S A CERTAINTY!" SAID THE CHIEF OF JAPANESE POLICE MR TENETI.

"ONE OF THEM EVEN FLUNG HIS PASSPORT OUT OF THEN WINDOW AS HE CIRCLED CLOSE TO NAGASAKI.

"WE HAVE PUBLISHED THE PHOTOS OF ALL 19 PILOTS.

"IT'S TRUE THERE APPEAR TO BE UNCERTAINTIES ABOUT THE IDENTITY OF SIX OR SEVEN OF THESE GUYS, BUT WE KNOW FOR SURE THAT 15 CAME FROM THE USA - WHOEVER THEY ARE!", THE POLICE CHIEF CONLCUDED

Edited by Sid Walker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sid-

When someone answers Len's thread Do any civil engineers or architects back 9/11 CTs come and discuss how fire cannot bring down a steel building such as WTC-1, WTC-2, WTC-7 (I assume that's your Tokyo) and finds a Licensed Structural Engineer or Architect that agrees with the premise that the "Official Story" is bogus, I'll discuss.

BTW - I have discussed this topic with a Licensed Structural Engineer very familiar with the construction of the WTC towers and he did not express any doubts that the fires caused the collapse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the National Institute of Standards and

Technology (NIST) initiated a formal federal building and fire safety investigation of the World Trade

Center (WTC) disaster on August 21, 2002.

From finding 3.36:

There are only a few academic degree programs or continuing education programs that qualify engineers (or architects) to evaluate the fire performance of structures. The current state-of-practice is not sufficiently advanced for engineers to routinely analyze the performance of a whole structural system under a prescribed design-basis fire scenario. (Emphasis added)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the National Institute of Standards and

Technology (NIST) initiated a formal federal building and fire safety investigation of the World Trade

Center (WTC) disaster on August 21, 2002.

From finding 3.36:

There are only a few academic degree programs or continuing education programs that qualify engineers (or architects) to evaluate the fire performance of structures. The current state-of-practice is not sufficiently advanced for engineers to routinely analyze the performance of a whole structural system under a prescribed design-basis fire scenario. (Emphasis added)

I hope your not trying to say that since the WTC failures were not "routine" that a laypersons opinion of what caused the collapse are just as valid as a trained Professional Engineer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the National Institute of Standards and

Technology (NIST) initiated a formal federal building and fire safety investigation of the World Trade

Center (WTC) disaster on August 21, 2002.

From finding 3.36:

There are only a few academic degree programs or continuing education programs that qualify engineers (or architects) to evaluate the fire performance of structures. The current state-of-practice is not sufficiently advanced for engineers to routinely analyze the performance of a whole structural system under a prescribed design-basis fire scenario. (Emphasis added)

I hope your not trying to say that since the WTC failures were not "routine" that a laypersons opinion of what caused the collapse are just as valid as a trained Professional Engineer.

First of all, I was not trying to "say" anything. I was quoting what the NIST said. And for you to hope against something so patently absurd indicates to me you have a vivid imagination when it comes to what others are thinking. Incidentally, I don't think I have ever run across an untrained "Professional Engineer."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The key, the smoking gun if you will, is WTC7, collapsing in what obviously looks like controlled demolition, without the excuse that it was first hit by a big plane.

You can talk about architects and civil engineers all you want. Can't you believe your own eyes?

wtc7.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sometimes the eyes get fooled, or you assume things about what you can't see:

Captain Chris Boyle

Engine 94 - 18 years

Boyle: ...on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?

Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag...e/gz/boyle.html

Also see here:

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_damage.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the National Institute of Standards and

Technology (NIST) initiated a formal federal building and fire safety investigation of the World Trade

Center (WTC) disaster on August 21, 2002.

From finding 3.36:

There are only a few academic degree programs or continuing education programs that qualify engineers (or architects) to evaluate the fire performance of structures. The current state-of-practice is not sufficiently advanced for engineers to routinely analyze the performance of a whole structural system under a prescribed design-basis fire scenario. (Emphasis added)

I hope your not trying to say that since the WTC failures were not "routine" that a laypersons opinion of what caused the collapse are just as valid as a trained Professional Engineer.

First of all, I was not trying to "say" anything. I was quoting what the NIST said. And for you to hope against something so patently absurd indicates to me you have a vivid imagination when it comes to what others are thinking. Incidentally, I don't think I have ever run across an untrained "Professional Engineer."

Then please clarify why you bolded the sentence. If you had stated the point you were trying to make I would not have had to try to guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The key, the smoking gun if you will, is WTC7, collapsing in what obviously looks like controlled demolition, without the excuse that it was first hit by a big plane.

You can talk about architects and civil engineers all you want. Can't you believe your own eyes?

I see with my eyes - I think, reasearch, and reason with my brain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The key, the smoking gun if you will, is WTC7, collapsing in what obviously looks like controlled demolition , without the excuse that it was first hit by a big plane.

You can talk about architects and civil engineers all you want. Can't you believe your own eyes?

I see with my eyes - I think, reasearch, and reason with my brain.

Don't we all.

Based on your post, its obvious you don't! (or just don't want to use your brain)

Edited by Steve Ulman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...