Scientific Evidence, 9-11 was a inside Job

reply to post by Achorwrath


So... you're an engineer and a fireman, then?

Would you care to elaborate on this varied career?

quite simple, it's called the US military more to the point the US Navy (but I was also in the US Army and a Combat Engineer MOS 12b)
Every Naval recruit HAS to go through firefighting school.

I one thing they put you through it a burning helicopter simulation. they light JP5 and you have to put it out.

Now to demonstrate the dangers they use an aircraft wing and light up the fuel in it, from there you get to see the simple burning fule turn the wing into a thermite grenade.

For more of my Millitary background I can say that I have worked in Intel and Counter Intel shops.

Do you know that the SOP (stanard operating procedure) for a burning air craft on a carrier is to push it over the side?

That is to prevent the titanium aluminum from igniting and brunging the whole ship.

[edit on 12-3-2009 by Achorwrath]

I will make an ammendment to the post I wrote on the page before..I sat and stared at the pic that I linked to for quite a long time..One thing I didnt relize was the way you cut a tree..that neam could have very well been cut by one of the many Iron workers during the clean up..

The proof would then be as simple as finding when that pic was taken..
If it ever could be found..

Sorry for my confusion here, but wheres all this pressure coming from to keep the metal in a molten state for 2 weeks??
Sounds like baloney to me...

you have over 1,300 feet of concrete and steel pressing down.
The clean up of debris took months it was after they removed the debris that they found the molten metal underneath

plus remember what I said about the aircraft itself becoming thermite due to the heat of the burning jet fuel and the titanium in the fuselage

That requires no oxygen to burn and presure maintains the high heat just like lava/magma under the ground

How long do you think lava maintains its plastic state? (magma/lava is considered plastic not liquid)
Lava flows out in the open air above ground with nothing pressing down on them maintain heat and plasticity for days


[edit on 12-3-2009 by Achorwrath]

reply to post by Achorwrath

you have over 1,300 feet of concrete and steel pressing down. The clean up of debris took months it was after they removed the debris that they found the molten metal underneath plus remember what I said about the aircraft itself becoming thermite due to the heat of the burning jet fuel and the titanium in the fuselage That requires no oxygen to burn and presure maintains the high heat just like lava/magma under the ground How long do you think lava maintains its plastic state? (magma/lava is considered plastic not liquid) Lava flows out in the open air above ground with nothing pressing down on them maintain heat and plasticity for days

From what I understand, most of the concrete was pulverized to dust and spread out over all of New York in the the gigantic pyroclastic flow. The steel beams fell in a pile in lengths small enough to be put on trucks without much cutting. I don't feel like there was enough pressure under there to cause the kind of heat to melt tons of steel. The weight would probably have been distributed sporadically, making it less likely for that much pressure and heat to be concentrated in a specific area. The fireman in the videos were somehow able to enter the basement and observe the pools and flows of molten metal, though I suppose it could be argued that the molten metal was leaking from a recently breached high pressure pocket.
Now, as far as the materials from the plane causing the thermite reaction - I don't think its plausible that there could be enough material in the plane to melt that amount of steel and continue to hold 1700F+ temperatures for 3 months after the collapse. I find it highly unlikely that steel spheres containing the thermite residue from the plane could make it into a random dust sample that was collected hundreds of yards away from the towers, considering the relative mass of the plane versus the skyscraper.
Furthermore, no plane crashed into world trade center 7, so there would have to be another explanation for the evidence of thermite in that building.

edit - I feel somewhat silly because I only just now watched the video in the OP (couldn't watch it before because I was at work). Didn't know it was a video of Steven Jones, and that he said in the video most of what I've written here. Oops.



[edit on 12-3-2009 by outsider13]

But this is not lava....!!

Wheres the pressure??
There was no vacuum.....

The only reason the air in my car tyres doesnt escape is due to the rubber innertube sealing the air in....hence the pressure... even the smallest of holes quickly deflates the tyre...voila no pressure....

Without vacuums conveniently "constructed" by falling WTC's this is impossible...and the possibility of these theoretical vacuums of yours is just ridiculously impossible....

I see your trying your best pal, but you need some better tales than the ones thus far presented to convince me....

There were tons of concrete and steel in that building to claim they all runed to dust is stretching the limits of credulity.

If it all turned to dust why did it take months to haul away?
As for WTC7 it was collapsed in the wake of the other towers that spread fire across much of the area. The tow main towers continued to burn for some time after they fell and since everyone evaucated or was burried there was no one to stop it.

As for them simply walking into a basement they did not reach access points to the basement for days that means tons of concrete and steel were pressing down retaining heat in the same manner the earth does.

Thermite uses aluminum as one of it primary components, can you guess some of the others?
Thermite also bruns hotter if contained and iron oxide (remember steel is only iron with a high carbon content) increases the reaction.


Thermite normall requires a high heat to start but by preheating and if the combination of metals are right you can get it to burn using a lower ignition source. The metals just need to conduct heat properly.

Originally posted by benoni
But this is not lava....!!

Wheres the pressure??
There was no vacuum.....

The only reason the air in my car tyres doesnt escape is due to the rubber innertube sealing the air in....hence the pressure... even the smallest of holes quickly deflates the tyre...voila no pressure....

Without vacuums conveniently "constructed" by falling WTC's this is impossible...and the possibility of these theoretical vacuums of yours is just ridiculously impossible....

I see your trying your best pal, but you need some better tales than the ones thus far presented to convince me....

when did I mention vacuums?
I never did.How much do you think one of the towers wieghed? Most esitmates place it a 500,000 tons. So do you not think that 500,000 tons of material would be enough to create the presure to maintain the molten state?

And you are right it is not lava. However molten metal and molten rock have similar principals and the correlation is accurate.


[edit on 12-3-2009 by Achorwrath]

If your theory of falling buildings and fires which combine to create thermite due to the coincidence of aluminium, which in turn causes pools of molten steel to burn for weeks under the rubble, then i am sure you could reference for me where this has happened before or after 9/11.....

Care to??

Bet you dont!!

Or, is this tale like many other highly improbale scenarios the Govt would have us believe make pure, simple, logical sense.....even though a fool can see thru them....??

reply to post by Achorwrath


You know, I was actually tempted to be a bit sarcastic when you said you'd been an engineer and a fireman. Thank god I didn't! Interesting career, and it's good to see where people's areas of expertise lie. Thanks for the info and views.

Originally posted by Achorwrath
[.How much do you think one of the towers wieghed? Most esitmates place it a 500,000 tons. So do you not think that 500,000 tons of material would be enough to create the presure to maintain the molten state?
[edit on 12-3-2009 by Achorwrath]

Trouble with that theory is that a huge amount of that 500,000 tons became a pyroclastic cloud that covered much of Manhattan with toxic dust. I'm going with either charges in the buildings, or, just possibly, some kind of particle beam weapon. I know that this makes me sound like some kind of nut... but it's a possibility I can't rule out. I'm pretty comfortable with the idea that some sections of what one hesitates to call the US military, it's more like a state within a state, have access to technology that is so far in advance of what we know it's just ridiculous.

However, I don't think the conventional story remotely cuts it, so we have to look at alternatives. As I say, the energy weapon idea is one I can't rule out.

Specific hazards of fighting aircraft fires

How to make aluminum rust

There are oxygen tanks, oxygen generators, magnesium etc all on a plane
As I have said JP5 in open air (non pure O2) burns at 549.5F however, there are oxygen tanks on ANY plane that would have contributed to a more oxygen rich environtment making the fire from the fuels burn hotter.

Plane fire invesitgation
Note the temperatures that fires on planes can reach 3000F

Magnesium Fires in Metals

Vaporific Effect (shattering aluminum)

Video of the vaportific Effect

It is a few seconds in but you will see after the non aluminum nose cone hits the wall the shattering aluminum flahses like a flash bulb.

The dangers of burning metals

Note that as I have said before, aluminum is a super conductor, however if it cannot conduct heat away from the surface area it instead concentrates it this means that the actual temperature can be significantly higher than the surrounding tempoerature if left in contact with a heat source.

Standard Aircraft mechanics book

Note how they warn of the danger of both magensium and titainium in aircraft.


Are these enough or should I post more for you?

Originally posted by rich23

Originally posted by Achorwrath
[.How much do you think one of the towers wieghed? Most esitmates place it a 500,000 tons. So do you not think that 500,000 tons of material would be enough to create the presure to maintain the molten state?
[edit on 12-3-2009 by Achorwrath]

Trouble with that theory is that a huge amount of that 500,000 tons became a pyroclastic cloud that covered much of Manhattan with toxic dust. I'm going with either charges in the buildings, or, just possibly, some kind of particle beam weapon. I know that this makes me sound like some kind of nut... but it's a possibility I can't rule out. I'm pretty comfortable with the idea that some sections of what one hesitates to call the US military, it's more like a state within a state, have access to technology that is so far in advance of what we know it's just ridiculous.

However, I don't think the conventional story remotely cuts it, so we have to look at alternatives. As I say, the energy weapon idea is one I can't rule out.

Well lets say that 30% or the wreckage turned to dust, that still leaves 350,000 tons per tower.

Even at 50% that is 250,000 tons (per tower still leaving 500,000 tons total in the pit). more than enough pressure to keep metal molten for months.

This is not directly related but it does illustrate that unexpected results can come from mundane objects

in 1995 there was a warehouse fire that tunred out to have started from the pressure and built up heat in satcks and stacks of latex gloves. They spontaneously combusted.

Since we can deduce there was at least 400,000 tons of material pressing down on potetially hot and or melted aluminum/steel/magnesium etc it can potentially create enough pressure to maintain a plastic or motlen state.

Originally posted by Achorwrath
[Since we can deduce there was at least 400,000 tons of material pressing down on potetially hot and or melted aluminum/steel/magnesium etc it can potentially create enough pressure to maintain a plastic or motlen state.

I don't think the word "deduce" applies here, sorry. We're both speculating. My feeling is that most of the mass of those buildings went into the pyroclastic cloud. Plenty of people heard explosions, large chunks of the building were hurled away from the centre... I just can't buy the official explanation for this and many more reasons. And I don't buy the idea that there was enough left to cause that amount of heat, Most of what was left would, IMO, have been the core of the towers. If simply putting enormous amounts of pressure on steel can cause it to melt, how come, for example, that the Golden Gate Bridge, which must take a phenomenal amount of pressure at the bottome of its towers, doesn't melt and buckle?

There was already heat, pressure increases the heat. I never said that the pressure created the heat, it was already there. The pressure simply increases and maintained the heat.

Here is a trick, take your oven place something in it and heat it to 450F. If you have a method for placing a visible thermometer in to the over that is much better.

Now leave the oven closed, do not open it and see how long it takes to cool.

As hot air expands this creates a small (very small) amount of pressure inside the oven, if you do not believe me open a hot oven and put your face by the opening, you will feel the hot air escaping. If the door is kept shut the pressure cannot escape, this helps to maintain the temperature in the oven. time how long it takes the item in the oven to return to room temp.

The try the same expiriment with the oven door open after reaching 450F you will see that the lack of contained heat allows for quicker cooling.

In the case of metals that are considered super conductors the pressure and heat can in some cases increase under pressure. as an example press your hands together as hard as you can you will feel the heat build up.


As for explosions that were heard have you ever heard concrete or steel break?

Not from a jack hammer of sldgehammer but snap under pressure.

I have heard a 3-inch nylon rope snap and it sounded like a gun shot. but there was no gun. break a large tree branch and it makes a loud snap or crack.
Same thing here. the breaking of the material creates a pressure wave that resembels the sound of the explosion.

Real life explosions are muffled things as all they are is the sudden release of gas from the combustion of the expolsive material

The denser the material the lower the fequency of the sound.

Lets take a 40 Lbs shapped charge (used primailty to crater the ground including concrete) it sits 4-6 inches off of the ground with a metal collar or stand (depending on the version) when detonated it makes a low frequency sound (the best way I can describe it is a "whump").

People are programed to believe the sounds they hear on the TV and movies loud bangs and booms. But in reality it does not work that way.

To further add to this unless there is a combustible material (called accelerant) there is no fireball either but to most people an explosion has a huge fireball and loud resounding boom.

In the case of the WTC there was lots of accelerant. However the building colapsing would have generated sounds that could have been interprested by paniced people as explosions. watching the many many many hours of independant footage I have never heard these explosions. I have heard the sounds of a building breaking up from stress.

The largest detonation of material I have been involved with was just over 1800 Lbs of C4. even that was no more than a whump granted a louder whump but still a whump. (although the blast wave took my breath away.)

This was during a training exercise involving the removal of a series of obstacles on a timed delay to simulate the removal of the obstacles in a single event, you do this sort of thing in the event of a surprise attack etc.

I may be wrong but your not getting that the steel was already molten as it laid under all the weight..

My personal theory is either it had thermite placed in strategic beams upper and lower during the construction** and the planes were just used as the ''show'' to get your attention..And as a distraction to the people inside..With all the mayhem as the people tried to escape very few would notice what was going on inside..As many witnesses would be able to exit the towers..Any sparks,molten metal would be attributed to jet fuel burning..

Kinda funny that wtc7 was collapsed after the complete evacuation of it..


**I'm in a union construction feild and seen many of high security protocals waived because gaurds would become complaicent,tired, aggrevated with bothersom workers needing access to secure area's..Plus theres almost always a freight elevator no ones stationed at..

[edit on 13-3-2009 by Redpillblues]

[edit on 13-3-2009 by Redpillblues]

Originally posted by Redpillblues
I may be wrong but your not getting that the steel was already molten as it laid under all the weight..

My personal theory is either it had thermite placed in strategic beams upper and lower during the construction** and the planes were just used as the ''show'' to get your attention..And as a distraction to the people inside..With all the mayhem as the people tried to escape very few would notice what was going on inside..As many witnesses would be able to exit the towers..Any sparks,molten metal would be attributed to jet fuel burning..

Kinda funny that wtc7 was collapsed after the complete evacuation of it..




**I'm in a union construction feild and seen many of high security protocals waived because gaurds would become complaicent,tired, aggrevated with bothersom workers needing access to secure area's..Plus theres almost always a freight elevator no ones stationed at..

[edit on 13-3-2009 by Redpillblues]

[edit on 13-3-2009 by Redpillblues]

I have already stated that it was molten, and provided information as to how it reached that state. to those who doubt that a simple (and there is nothing simple about a fuel fire) JP5 fire could have melted steel, please explain how the japanese using nothing but wood can melt steel and make the extremely fine weapons they did? (remember wood burns at 295F)...

Also rich remember that you cannot destroy matter, you can only change it to a different state. if as you claim that majority (which is why I used a figure of 400,000 that give 60% of the structure over to dust) there still remains 600,000 tons of material. where did all of that go? We know from photographs that there was a large amount on concrete left after the colpase so not all turned to dust. Even given a figure of 90% you are still left with 100,000 tons of material.

But I challenge anyone to show me the math and physical evidence that 900,000 tons of material simply turned to dust and drifted away.

Some statitical evidence on the amount of debri removed

1.8 Million Tons

Another 1.8 Million Ton Estimate

Do a search for the word ton you will find it.

So it is no longer deduction, there was more than my specified 400,000 tons of debri pressing down. but as the fires were in the upper portions lets maintain that as an educated number since there would have been debri below (400,000 tons means there was 1.4 million tons below) and around the pockets

[edit on 13-3-2009 by Achorwrath]

reply to post by Achorwrath


I admit that its hard to argue with your theory, knowing next to nothing about the physics of burning planes inside collapsing buildings, and not wanting to take the time to research any of these possibilities.
I'd just like to know how you explain the evidence of thermite reactions and molten steel in WTC 7, which was not hit by a plane. Pretty please.

reply to post by Achorwrath


I'm sorry Achorwrath,I meant to hit the reply button to Rich23..