|
Post by laurel on Oct 7, 2008 15:17:26 GMT -4
Thanks, I searched for BBC with his name and found that interview.
|
|
|
Post by jaydeehess on Oct 9, 2008 23:06:12 GMT -4
Another who the TM are found of quoting the policeman at the Pentagon CITGO station, Lagasse, has stated many times how disgusted he is with the particular group that uses his account of the passing of Flight 77, calling itself the "Citizen Investigation Team" or CIT.
Jennings at 53 was (if he is dead) only one year older than I am. hmmmm, if you don't hear from me for 6-7 months then start the FOIA requests to find out if I was offed by the MIB.
|
|
|
Post by lazarusty on Nov 27, 2009 21:44:24 GMT -4
Richard Gage on 9/11:
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Nov 27, 2009 23:24:53 GMT -4
His name is Richard Gage. I just saw him on The Fifth Estate.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Nov 28, 2009 0:15:15 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Nov 28, 2009 12:27:53 GMT -4
Loved that, an organisation that would happily accept Berevtov Szánitiy as a member. I just tried to check up on their current membership, for example, any structural engineers yet, but got this: www.ae911truth.org/supporters.phpWhat are they hiding?
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on May 11, 2010 11:28:01 GMT -4
I found myself watching a video from the truthers yesterday, a lecture of some kind by the architect guy. Then today in a thread on Apollo Jay says this:
(emphasis added)
The whole argument that the architect guy puts forth is like this, where he goes down a checklist of characteristics of thermite, and of controlled demolition, and then checks them off against the WTC collapse, focusing on WTC 7 in particular. At no time does he ask "could any other things cause each of these criteria to be met?" He simply waves his arms and says that a fire might cause one or two but not all of them to be met.
One of the details he flails on for a while is an analysis of the WTC dust, and an analysis of thermite residue. He points to two graphs that are similar but clearly not identical and declares them to be identical. He suggests that the only possible source for manganese in the dust would be thermite. So I google manganese, and find that it's used in, among other things, corrosion resistant aluminum alloys.
Hm. Heck of a lot of aluminum alloy cladding those buildings, and a bunch in the airplanes. Not pure aluminum, but alloys.
Anyway, so I started thinking about the hot spots and wondering if they could have been in part created by the aluminum reacting to the steel down in the coal-seam-fire-like conditions of the burning carpet, plastics and particle board in the rubble pit.
Any thoughts on this? I'm not a chemist, I took high school chemistry 25 years ago, but I can crunch numbers if someone can point me in the right direction.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on May 11, 2010 12:40:50 GMT -4
I didn't take high school chemistry at all. I skipped right to physics, where we didn't do any work for a large part of the year. So I'm no help there. I will, having just finished it, advise Voodoo Histories: The Role of Conspiracy Theory in Shaping Modern History, by David Aaronovitch, as a pretty decent look into the workings of the CT mind.
|
|
|
Post by trevor on May 12, 2010 1:12:47 GMT -4
Manganese in aircraft grade aluminium is generally used for added strength and easier welding. It is usually used for engine cowls, propeller spinners and wheel fairings etc.
Many aircraft structures are made from 2024 T3 copper alloyed aluminium which allows it to be heat treatable but does increase its chance of corrosion, which is why it is given a layer of pure aluminium cladding which is the most corrosion resistant. Hence the term 'alclad'.
Manganese is used alot in steel work and aluminium so I don't think finding the manganese dust anything special. And it does have burning properties similar to magnesium - hot, white and bright.
Jeez I sound like a text book!
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on May 12, 2010 10:02:35 GMT -4
Okay, so there's a possible source for manganese. What about the sulfur?
Well, with about 5 minutes of google yesterday I found that polyurethane can be vulcanized with sulfur. The building had a heck of a lot of carpet padding. Some of that padding and some of the padding in office chairs would likely have used sulfur. How much? I don't think there's any way to know - one would have to go back through the workorders for the building to find the contractor who did the carpet and ask them what they used.
But thermite is not the "only" possible source for sulfur.
Next question - the architect guy shows images of iron microspheres - he suggests that the only possible source for them would be the spitting action of the side-cutting thermite gizmos (which would have been present in large numbers, but nobody has found one....) blasting the beams.
First question, did they really exist?
Second question, are they part of the original debris dust cloud, or were they made by demolition work during the cleanup process?
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on May 12, 2010 12:03:25 GMT -4
Next question - the architect guy shows images of iron microspheres - he suggests that the only possible source for them would be the spitting action of the side-cutting thermite gizmos (which would have been present in large numbers, but nobody has found one....) blasting the beams. First question, did they really exist? Second question, are they part of the original debris dust cloud, or were they made by demolition work during the cleanup process? You've seen sparks flying when metal is worked. When a spark cools down, what you have left is an iron microsphere. They are amazingly common.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on May 12, 2010 20:49:10 GMT -4
Okay, so there's a possible source for manganese. What about the sulfur? Well, with about 5 minutes of google yesterday I found that polyurethane can be vulcanized with sulfur. The building had a heck of a lot of carpet padding. Some of that padding and some of the padding in office chairs would likely have used sulfur. How much? I don't think there's any way to know - one would have to go back through the workorders for the building to find the contractor who did the carpet and ask them what they used. Why go looking for it that far? There were tonnes and tonnes of sheetrock in the building, which is of course Gypsum (CaSO 4). It has been shown that at temperature and with a CO catalyst, gypsum breaks down releasing the Sulphur as Sulphur Dioxide which reacts nicely with steel especially high CR-MN steel
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on May 12, 2010 21:08:54 GMT -4
The air around NYC has been full of sulfur since the WTC buildings were started from fuel oils being burned by trucks and ships. Its hard to say how that had interacted with the structure over the years but we know its been there.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on May 21, 2010 17:13:04 GMT -4
For reasons I can't explain I've gotten into a thread at Delusional Idiots Forum with the "no plane" crowd. Yeah, I know, it's probably a symptom of something else.
Anyway, one of the debating "points" (debating should be in quotes too, given the amount of ad hominim) involves the ability of an aluminum aircraft to penetrate the steel columns of the outer perimeter structure.
The question keeps being tossed back --
"Tell me...what would happen if just 1 of those perimeter columns was thrown at the plane at 500+ mph ?
Would that column bend and break ? Or would it crush the alu tube construction ? "
I'm honestly not sure. I'm inclined to think that the two equations are not symmetrical but that the beam would deform or even break anyway, given the amount of kinetic energy involved.
Anyone know the answer? This goes way beyond calculating static load and dynamic load of a floor system, which I have to look up anyway.
I've calculated the kinetic energy of the 767 at 400knots as 1.8 gigajoules, equal to .4 tons of TNT, and tried to get the "tosser" to look at the airplane as a tightly grouped plane-shaped shotgun blast rather than a solid object.
Not that it matters, it's like arguing with Jehovah's Witnesses.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on May 21, 2010 20:49:36 GMT -4
it's like arguing with Jehovah's Witnesses. Except, in my experience, the Witnesses are unfailingly polite.
|
|