why did the wtc's collapse? conclusive proof

[Theo Huxtable.]

i think "screw loose change" has been overly debunked.

 

By whom?????? I haven't seen one video or one research paper.

[Juan Fuentes]

Have any of you watched "Screw Loose Change" -- where every "dubious claim" (Dylan Avery's own description of his own statements) is debunked?

 

yes i did,and its not a debunkery of every "dubious claim",not all of them are looked at the main claim,many debunks are focused on a small fraction of the fact itself(something u like u do theo) and also they picked loose change to do the "debunking" instead of other more serious videos(just like u theo).

[lord_casek]

Loose Change claims:

 

June, 2001

Attorney General John Ashcroft begins flying on chartered jets, for the remainder of his term, due to a "threat assessment" by the FBI.

 

Here's the debunking from Screw Loose Change:

 

During that time he took commercial flights for personal travel and government flights for work-related travel. The threat was personal, not national. From Ashcroft’s 9/11 Commission testimony:

 

QUOTE

BEN-VENISTE: Let me ask you, as my time is expiring, one question, which has been frequently put to members of this commission; probably all of us have heard this one way or another.

 

And we are mindful that part of the problem with the Warren commission's work on the Kennedy assassination was the failure to address certain theories that were extant and questions and much of the work was done behind closed doors. So I would like to provide you with the opportunity to answer one question that has come up repeatedly.

 

At some point in the spring or summer of 2001, around the time of this heightened threat alert, you apparently began to use a private chartered jet plane, changing from your use of commercial aircraft on grounds, our staff is informed, of an FBI threat assessment. And, indeed, as you told us, on September 11th itself you were on a chartered jet at the time of the attack.

 

Can you supply the details, sir, regarding the threat which caused you to change from commercial to private leased jet?

 

ASHCROFT: I am very please pleased to address this issue.

 

BEN-VENISTE: Thank you.

 

ASHCROFT: Let me indicate to you that I never ceased to use commercial aircraft for my personal travel.

 

ASHCROFT: My wife traveled to Germany and back in August. My wife and I traveled to Washington, D.C., on the 3rd of September before the 17th -- before the 11th attack on commercial aircraft.

 

I have exclusively traveled on commercial aircraft for my personal travel; continued through the year 2000, through the entirety of the threat period to the nation.

 

The assessment made by the security team and the Department of Justice was made early in the year. [False: it was two months before - see below]

 

It was not related to a terrorism threat as a threat to the nation.

[False: 'a significant terrorist attack' was mentioned - see below]

 

It was related to an assessment of the security for the attorney general,

[False: not Ashcrofts but the National Security was the issue - see below]

given his responsibilities and the job that he undertakes. And it related to the maintenance of arms and other things by individuals who travel with the attorney general. And it was their assessment that we would be best served to use government aircraft.

 

These were not private chartered jet aircraft. These were aircraft of the United States government. And it was on such an aircraft that I was on my way to an event in Milwaukee on the morning of September the 11th.

 

 

From Commission- Report, p.258:

QUOTE

That same day (July 5th, 2001), the CIA briefed Attorney General Ashcroft on the al Qaeda threat, warning that a significant terrorist attack was imminent. Ashcroft was told that preparations for multiple attacks were in late stages or already complete and that little additional warning could be expected. The briefing addressed only threats outside the United States.

 

(See CIA memo “CTC Briefing for the Attorney General on the Usama Bin Ladin Terrorist Threat” July 5, 2001, and the accompanying CIA briefing materials,“DCI Update Terrorist Threat Review” July 3, 2001.) 9/11 Commission Report, 4/13/04

 

On this day, acting FBI Director Tom Pickard briefs Ashcroft about the terror threat inside the US. Pickard later swears under oath that Ashcroft tells him, “[i do] not want to hear about this anymore.“

 

Also watch CBS News Correspondent Jim Stewart reports on Aschcroft's travel arrangements.

 

That Ashcroft lies in front of the 9/11-Commission makes him not trustworthy.

 

QUOTE

The FBI obviously knew something was in the wind. Why else would it have Ashcroft use a $1,600-plus per hour G-3 Gulfstream when he could have flown commercial, as he always did before, for a fraction of the cost?

 

Ashcroft demonstrated an amazing lack of curiosity when asked if he knew anything about the threat. "Frankly, I don't," he told reporters.

 

So our nation's chief law enforcement officer was told that flying commercial was hazardous to his health, and yet he appeared not to care what the threat was, who made it, how, or why?

 

Note that it was the FBI that warned Ashcroft before Sept. 11. That's the same FBI now claiming it didn't "connect the dots" before Sept. 11.

 

Had we in the press been on our toes, we might have realized that if flying commercial posed a threat to John Ashcroft, it also posed a threat to the population at large.(...)

We need a full-blown investigation of who know what before Sept. 11. We need explanations of such things as the FBI warning Ashcroft off commercial jets, while simultaneously ignoring strident warnings from its own agents in Minneapolis, Phoenix and Oklahoma. These things don't add up. San Francisco Gate

[Juan Fuentes]

The fires were hot enough to melt aluminum (which it did), but only softened and bent the steel. Go see "Screw Loose Change."

 

yeah but aluminum doesnt look glowing orange when it melts,never,its pure silverish,that there was steel not aluminum.

silverish and glowing orange,not equal.

[lord_casek]

To test the second hypothesis, we performed experiments with molten aluminum. We melted

aluminum alloy in a steel pan and poured out the aluminum. It appeared silvery, not glowing orange as

observed at the South Tower. We then heated the steel pan until it was glowing yellow-hot and poured

out the aluminum, and the flowing aluminum was still observably silvery. How do you get aluminum

to 1000 °C (orange-hot temperature) if the aluminum is liquid and free to flow, unless there’s a big pan

in the building to hold the aluminum while you heat it past its melting point?

The reason why hot flowing aluminum appears silvery is very understandable. Simple metals

incandesce when you heat them up, and orange hot represents a temperature of about 1000 °C.

Aluminum alloy melts at roughly 600 °C. We heated the steel pan and saw the pan glow yellow-

orange. However, the melted aluminum contains many free electrons and will therefore reflect more

light. Aluminum also has a low emissivity, meaning that the aluminum is glowing/incandescing but

only very faintly. In daylight conditions, the liquid appears silvery due to the high reflectivity

particularly when poured out. The glowing liquid flowing from the South Tower could not be

aluminum because it does not appear silvery -- rather, it has an “orange glow” (in NIST’s words and

by observation also).

Also, aluminum is very difficult to ignite. We found that out by directing an oxyacetylene

torch onto molten aluminum – and it oxidized but did not ignite with an “unusual flame” – no flame

from the aluminum was seen at all.

NIST in a fact sheet in August 2006 stated:

“NIST concluded that the source of the molten material [observed flowing out of WTC2

before its collapse] was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt

between 475 °C and 640 °C (depending on the particular alloy), well below the expected

temperatures (about 1,000 °C) in the vicinity of the fires.

“Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures and there is no visual

indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning.

“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.”

 

(and it goes on to explain an experiment with organic material and aluminum mixed and still no orange glow)

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.journalof911studies.com%2Fvolume%2F200704%2FJonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf&ei=YnJaRuO3OoiQggTOx8GPBQ&usg=AFrqEzcl4D2618XMiuPtVIFiE2oRJrvrig&sig2=Tj0lpTFj3ZUusJ9PBM3tfw

 

 

[Theo Huxtable.]

it wasn't aired on live tv, theo. it was scrapped soon after it was shot.

so, no. it hadn't been aired.

 

molten steel, theo.

 

 

molten aluminum looks no different. and aluminum ran throughout the entire building.

 

[Theo Huxtable.]

To test the second hypothesis, we performed experiments with molten aluminum. We melted

aluminum alloy in a steel pan and poured out the aluminum. It appeared silvery, not glowing orange as

observed at the South Tower. We then heated the steel pan until it was glowing yellow-hot and poured

out the aluminum, and the flowing aluminum was still observably silvery. How do you get aluminum

to 1000 °C (orange-hot temperature) if the aluminum is liquid and free to flow, unless there’s a big pan

in the building to hold the aluminum while you heat it past its melting point?

The reason why hot flowing aluminum appears silvery is very understandable. Simple metals

incandesce when you heat them up, and orange hot represents a temperature of about 1000 °C.

Aluminum alloy melts at roughly 600 °C. We heated the steel pan and saw the pan glow yellow-

orange. However, the melted aluminum contains many free electrons and will therefore reflect more

light. Aluminum also has a low emissivity, meaning that the aluminum is glowing/incandescing but

only very faintly. In daylight conditions, the liquid appears silvery due to the high reflectivity

particularly when poured out. The glowing liquid flowing from the South Tower could not be

aluminum because it does not appear silvery -- rather, it has an “orange glow” (in NIST’s words and

by observation also).

Also, aluminum is very difficult to ignite. We found that out by directing an oxyacetylene

torch onto molten aluminum – and it oxidized but did not ignite with an “unusual flame” – no flame

from the aluminum was seen at all.

NIST in a fact sheet in August 2006 stated:

“NIST concluded that the source of the molten material [observed flowing out of WTC2

before its collapse] was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt

between 475 °C and 640 °C (depending on the particular alloy), well below the expected

temperatures (about 1,000 °C) in the vicinity of the fires.

“Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures and there is no visual

indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning.

“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.”

 

(and it goes on to explain an experiment with organic material and aluminum mixed and still no orange glow)

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.journalof911studies.com%2Fvolume%2F200704%2FJonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf&ei=YnJaRuO3OoiQggTOx8GPBQ&usg=AFrqEzcl4D2618XMiuPtVIFiE2oRJrvrig&sig2=Tj0lpTFj3ZUusJ9PBM3tfw

 

 

 

 

 

sorry, you got this from a conspiracy-theorist website. so that all goes out of the window. try finding objective sources. my picture of orange-red molten aluminum was retrieved from a site that has nothing to do with 9/11.

[lord_casek]

the picture on bottom of your picture...

 

^ molten aluminum

 

p.s.: why were sulfur traces found in that? oh, and iron oxide?

[lord_casek]

funny, it looks silvery here, too

[Theo Huxtable.]

yeah but aluminum doesnt look glowing orange when it melts,never,its pure silverish,that there was steel not aluminum.

silverish and glowing orange,not equal.

 

WRONG AGAIN!

 

molten aluminum, and their respective colors/temperatures:

 

 

 

Figure #9b: Molten aluminum at approximately 930°C - 1100°C.

 

Source: The International Aluminium Institute

 

 

 

Source: http://www.metalwebnews.com/howto/furnace2/melting.html

[lord_casek]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-F0MnfzkOhM

molten metal 6 weeks after september 11th

 

 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/thermal.r09.html

 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/hotspot.key.tgif.gif

[Theo Huxtable.]

the picture on bottom of your picture...

 

^ molten aluminum

 

That's obviously at a very cool temperature

 

p.s.: why were sulfur traces found in that? oh, and iron oxide?

 

That is a much more cooled aluminum. Sulfur found in what?

[Theo Huxtable.]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-F0MnfzkOhM

molten metal 6 weeks after september 11th

 

 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/thermal.r09.html

 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/hotspot.key.tgif.gif

 

 

I didn't see anything that showed "puddles of molten steel" like that video claimed. There were fires still burning beneath the rubble for weeks, yes. The fireman in that video not once mentioned molten steel, nor was molten steel ever shown. You people continue to pull non-existant "info" out of your asses.

[Juan Fuentes]

If that chart is right

u wanna make it glow u gotta get it real hot like the one pouring from the towers,around 980 C because of its color.

STILL 825ºC (1517ºF) - maximum temperature of hydrocarbon. thats the MAX,like adding air to it constantly...

[lord_casek]

That is a much more cooled aluminum. Sulfur found in what?

 

sulfur found in samples from the trade centers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

i read through the DELTA website, it notes that particles were

coated with combustibles

http://calag.ucop.edu/0203MJ/briefs.html

[lord_casek]

 

[Juan Fuentes]

There were fires still burning beneath the rubble for weeks, yes. The fireman in that video not once mentioned molten steel, nor was molten steel ever shown.

 

fires need oxigen to continue on,the theory that the steel or aluminum "cooked" beneath the rubble its imposible.

 

and there is firemen videos saying they saw molten steel running like in a foundry(last post for today,cant get the video today,but i know uve seen it,casek posted,u watched it? i dont know that)

[lord_casek]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2FB2Y1BQs0&mode=related&search=

 

here's an odd clip i haven't heard before.

[Theo Huxtable.]

 

In that video, that misinformed conspiracy theorist referred to the "molten metal" as evidence that there was "high explosives such as thermite."

 

Is thermite an "explosive"? Not the last time I checked.

 

 

You conspiracy theorists continue to be at odds amongst each other as to what brought them down. Were these explosives or thermite to bring the towers down?

[Theo Huxtable.]

yes i did,and its not a debunkery of every "dubious claim",not all of them are looked at the main claim,many debunks are focused on a small fraction of the fact itself(something u like u do theo) and also they picked loose change to do the "debunking" instead of other more serious videos(just like u theo).

 

 

So you're saying Loose Change is not a serious video? And it appears Casek was saying the same as well.

 

So all three of us agree that Loose Change is bullshit? I'll call it "bullshit," you guys just call it "not serious" or "not important" or whatever term you wanna use. It all means the same.

[Theo Huxtable.]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2FB2Y1BQs0&mode=related&search=

 

here's an odd clip i haven't heard before.

 

So wouldn't that contradict your theory, since that recording suggests that there were arabs that were in the cockpit of flight 93? That would also mean the air traffic controllers were "in on it", since they're stating that they were sending communications to flight 93.

[Mellow]

why do people have to specualte, whatever happend people died and that sucks, what you should be spending your time is protesting the war not trying to sell your bullshit propaganda to the public.

[lord_casek]

So wouldn't that contradict your theory, since that recording suggests that there were arabs that were in the cockpit of flight 93? That would also mean the air traffic controllers were "in on it", since they're stating that they were sending communications to flight 93.

 

 

"did you hear that?

"did he just say there was a bomb on the plane"

"i think that's what he said"

 

 

thermite is a reactive incendiary.

 

no, i don't think loose change is bullshit. i just think they got ahead of themselves and

said some things they couldn't prove right off the bat. some mistakes. the point of the video is to get people to think.

 

 

i've brought to your attention that the united states government has been involved in terrorist activities.

 

i can show you documented proof over and over.

 

i've brought to your attention that there was insider trading in the days before and the morning of september 11th.

 

you just keep defending a government that doesn't give a fuck about you.

[lord_casek]

why do people have to specualte, whatever happend people died and that sucks, what you should be spending your time is protesting the war not trying to sell your bullshit propaganda to the public.

 

 

there is no bullshit propaganda. there is no agenda. i just want answers.

why don't you educate yourself and then come back with a more intelligent reply?

 

then maybe you can tell me why "al-qaeda" was a name that the cia came up with.

you can tell me why operation northwoods outlines terrorist activity similar to 9/11.

you can maybe tell me why the government isn't parading video of this awesome feat of a passenger jet slamming into the pentagon.

 

do that and then we can talk.

[Theo Huxtable.]

"did you hear that?

"did he just say there was a bomb on the plane"

"i think that's what he said"

 

 

thermite is a reactive incendiary.

 

no, i don't think loose change is bullshit. i just think they got ahead of themselves and

said some things they couldn't prove right off the bat. some mistakes. the point of the video is to get people to think.

 

 

i've brought to your attention that the united states government has been involved in terrorist activities.

 

i can show you documented proof over and over.

 

i've brought to your attention that there was insider trading in the days before and the morning of september 11th.

 

you just keep defending a government that doesn't give a fuck about you.

 

against their own citizens?

 

most nations have conducted low-scale espionage or "terrorist" operations. however the US would not do something like massacre 3,000 of its own citizens, and there is no evidence or proof that suggests this. however there are mountains of evidence and proof that show Osama bin laden and a small network of his al qaeda followers commited the act.

 

have you even read the 9/11 commission report?

 

and yes the government does "give a fuck" because i have benefited greatly because of the government. i get paid to go to college because of the government. i get free medical and dental for life because of the government. i've been to 13 countries before the age of 22 because of the government.