Book Review: The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7

Login or register to post comments Last Post 88651 reads   605 posts
Viewing 10 posts - 551 through 560 (of 605 total)
  • Sun, Aug 12, 2018 - 02:23pm



    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 08 2011

    Posts: 2337

    count placeholder

    Means, Motive and Opportunity


“In reality, 9/11 and the resulting “war on terror” are parts of a massive authoritarian response to an emerging economic crisis of unprecedented scale. Peak Oil—the beginning of the end for our industrial civilization—is driving the élites of American power to implement unthinkably draconian measures of repression, warfare and population control. Crossing the Rubicon is more than a story. It is a map of the perilous terrain through which, together and alone, we are all now making our way.” – Crossing the Rubicon


“This is no longer about saving the world. This is about saving yourself.” – Michael C. Ruppert


  • Sun, Aug 12, 2018 - 03:34pm



    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jan 09 2016

    Posts: 177

    count placeholder

    baggage handler hijacking

I was watching the local “news” last night when the latest on that Seattle airport’s baggage handler and his hijacking of the commercial turboprop plane came on.  They mentioned how National Guard jets from Portland flew up there at supersonic speeds to intercept it.  They flew that 250 miles so fast that they were able to tailgate him until he crashed.  The first thing I thought about was why those same jets did not respond nearly as quickly, if at all, during 911.  Andrews AFB is a few miles away from the Pentagon.

It’s pretty obvious why nothing happened after listening to Norman Mineta’s testimony before the massively underfunded 911 commission where he said “The plane is 50 miles out, the plane is 30 miles out” (from the Pentagon) ………  Listen to it all here:

  • Wed, Aug 15, 2018 - 05:49am



    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 13 2011

    Posts: 2339

    count placeholder

    Jenga and the Collapse of Networked Structures

It is tough to “collapse” a network of interconnected structures.  Notice how the cross bracing prvents the loss of integrity of one column from propagating.  (Hope this posts)

… the collapse of society, and stop thinking “gold is being artificially kept down! Bank notes and SDRs are being artificially held up! “

Point being, we may well be in a total and catastrophic collapse, but it isn’t going to happen the way we think.

Case in point, the collapse of oil.

I’m hoping the lesson learned here was more general than just being about oil.

As before, our models are no good. Mine too. We can do better; we should do better.

And darned if I ain’t gonna cross tie this to a bigger issue.

WTC is nothing more than the WTC. Even as you say “but…” And yes, it is nothing more — even as you say it is more.

There’s tons more to go; in the end you’ll view it as minor and unimportant– a bellweather, perhaps.

  • Thu, Aug 16, 2018 - 12:26pm



    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 08 2008

    Posts: 415

    count placeholder

    Some questions for Chris



Regarding the issue of molten steel.


Looking first at the claims that it was molten steel flowing out of the twin towers before colapse.

First off I reffer to


This page I think would be classed as a truther site.

In it it says

I think we all can agree that the material flowing from the south tower has a orange-yellow appearance.
This indicates a temperature of 980C – 1050C”


The page does a good job of showing and explaining how it worked out this temperature.

It then says

as soon as the metal liquefied it flowed away from the heat source under the force of gravity. Therefore, the color of the liquid flowing from the 82nd floor was at approximately the melting point of the metal. And therefore, it was molten iron.


There is a problem with the cliam that it is molten iron.


From wikipedia

Steel with 2.1% Carbon by weight begins melting at 1,130 °C (2,070 °F), and is completely molten upon reaching 1,315 °C (2,399 °F). ‘Steel’ with more than 2.1% Carbon is no longer Steel, but is known as Cast iron.[15]


The simple facts of temperatures:

1535ºC (2795ºF) – melting point of iron

~1510ºC (2750ºF) – melting point of typical structural steel”


You put the melting point of steel as 1380ºC (2500ºF)


I suspect the differening numbers are due to looking at the different melting point numbers for a given steel aloy, being the solidus and liquidus. Most alloys melt over a range, exibiting a blended transition from solid to liquid between the solidus temperature and the liquidus temperature.


Roughtly speaking for example using some of the above numbers, say a bar of steel is heated untill it reaches 1380. At that temperature a small portion of interganular alloy has melted. If the temperature is maintained there no further melting will take place. In this state the steel is easy to break apart but is not flowing like a liquid. As the temperature is raised further a greater portion of the steel melts, and the steel will begin to flow slugishly, getting less viscus as the temerature increased., At 1520 it will be completely melted.


The stated higher estimate of the temperature of 1050C is 80C below the solidus of cast iron and 330C below your stated melting point of steel. Cast iron will not be flowing at its solidus, but it would possibly need to be 100C hotter to get it to flow, giving a difference between the claimed liquids temperature and the temp cast iron needs to be to flow of 180C ( but where did the cast iron come from?) and for structural steel the difference could be more like 400C.


So truthers own numbers say it was not steel. 


cmartenson wrote:

Stan, you missed at least one very important comment, which was mine made here.

In it I put forward an image of a (formerly) solid steel beam taken from a FEMA report on the WTC7 collapse.  This beam sample was taken a few weeks after 9/11.  It was vaporized to the thinness of paper and had a “swiss cheese” appearance.

The report has some big jargon words in it such as “liquid eutectic” and “severe high temperature corrsion attack” but a tiny bit of sleuthing reveals the sorts of conditions necessary to produce such a bit of damning evidence could NOT have originated via “office fires.”

I agree that the sample could not have happened prior to the colapse.

First up lets look at you saying “ vaporized to the thinness of paper”.

Steel boils at 2800C, From thermite only reaches about 2500C.

Another issue is that vaporising a material takes a considerable amount of energy,

To heat steel from room temp to 1300C takes about 570J/g

To melt steel takes about 247J/g

To vaporise steel takes about 6254J/g

Or are you using ‘vaporization’ like this?    The term vaporization has also been used in a colloquial or hyperbolic way to refer to the physical destruction of an object that is exposed to intense heat or explosive force, where the object is actually blasted into small pieces rather than literally converted to gaseous form.


The report you quote in relation to in big jargon words “severe high temperature corrsion attack”

In simple terms part of this just rusting by reacting with oxygen. But at high temperatures it happens a lot faster,and the ‘rust’ tends to be dark grey and from hard layers that flake of in solid but brittle sheets (scaling) that break off.

I use 44 gallon drums to burn the bones, fat and other waste left over from processing cattle beasts for the freezer. It often gets red hot and forms this type ‘rust’ (scale) and after a number of uses become useless because areas become so thin that holes apear, with razor sharp edges.

This process is higly likely to have occurred in the debris pile, as there are videos showing yellow hot steel being pulled from the rubble with indications that that was happening up to 8? weeks after the colapse.


While looking for high temp oxidation rates on line, I found this, (Saved me typing it myself ), a good starting point for learning what processes may be involved.

“”As for the steels analysed in that Appendix C, more specifically sulphur-rich species diffused in between the grains of the steel structure – which isn’t smooth, it’s granular. The process there was:

  1. Sulphur (actually: sulphides, sulphites, sulphates or sulphur oxide) diffuse into the intergranular area while hot,

  2. lowers the melting temperature on the grain’s surface,

  3. surface melts,

  4. grain falls off,

  5. a fresh bit of surface thus gets exposed to the sulphur-rich gases

  6. repeat

This is a relatively SLOW process. Biederman et al were not sure whether it took hours or weeks for those steel specimens to lose half an inch or so of thickness. We are, however, definitely NOT talking about seconds here!  “”


cmartenson wrote:

Also notably thermate chips were found in 9/11 dust, and also spectroscopically, microscopically, chemically, and calorimetrically examined and determined to be nanothermate, a substance commonly found in military stockpiles.

Regarding truther claims over thermite, one minute thermit was being used to cut beams to initiate the colapse because it is quiet, the next is the source of the molten material flowing out of the building prior to colapse, was the source of the sulfur for the thining of the steel beams to paper thin or holes, and the proof it was present during the collapse was the finding of active nano thermite in the dust.

From what I gather on from this thread, nanothermite is a high explosive, and so by its behaviour does not fit with a number of the above claims, so I am uncertain how all this is supposed to fit together.

Can you express how you belive nano thermite produced the results claimed for it?

cmartenson wrote:

Accordingly, a few questions emerge:

1  What’s the proposed source of energy for underground melted, vaporized, and/or red hot steel? There has to be one.

2  What sorts of underground, poorly oxygenated (if not anerobic) reactions are postulated to bring about the conditions to not just create melted steel but an steel artifact that has undergone vaporization?

3  Where did the sulfur come from?

4  Has there been even one other example in all of human history where a collapsed steel building was found to have molten, red hot and vaporized steel in the basement some weeks afterwards? (Hint: the answer is assuredly “no.”)

5  Why, given all that, was not the most simple, obvious answer explored which is that there was an externally provided accellerant, of which the one that most closely aligns with all the available evidence is nano-thermate?

Why did NIST not conduct even a single test to explore and rule out this possibility?


  1. Paper, carpets, desks, seats, victims, plastics. steel.

  2. This is complex one so only a generalised comment. Large scale fires can burn slowly. An example of this is Before working on this one further we need to sort out this Vaporisation term. 

  3. Wallboards, some plastics, paper, wood, victims, resteraunt food…..

  4. I know of no such examples. But controlled demolitions strip a lot of stuff out of the building first, and they very definatly do not want a ruble pile on fire. Also events prior to the colapse and scale play their part.


  5. The paper claiming nano thermite chips were present in the dust was not writen until about 8 years after 911. How in detail does nano thermite achieve all the effects that it is claimed to? There have been a number of claims about nanothermite but I do not know what you believe was caued by nanothermite and how it did it.

Chris Martenson wrote:

No serious scientist, let alone a physicist would postulate a heretofore unknown, uncategorized, untheorized, and untested “explanation” as being “the most likely.”

Yet you seem comfortable with claiming that “the most simple, obvious answer” is that ‘nanothermite did it.’


cmartenson wrote:

“melted steel” but truly “vaporized” might be a more accurate term.  I don’t need to produce any other evidence.

It would be a lot easier if you explained exactly what you mean when you say vaporized.


Regards Hamish

PS still cannot get it to show up not in iatalics, or get spell check to work. Sorry

  • Thu, Aug 16, 2018 - 02:28pm



    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 08 2011

    Posts: 2337

    count placeholder

    Waste of time

Wouldn’t advise putting any more time into discussion with the “cons” group here (gyrogearloose, Michael_Rudmin, Doug, Stan Robertson). It’s simply time that you’ll never get back that is much better put to use elsewhere. Doug is a die-hard statist and utterly blinded by a misplaced sense of loyalty, gyrogearloose can’t even spell properly and perhaps Stan should stick to climate change denial given his “physics background”?

Michael_Rudmin wrote:

WTC is nothing more than the WTC. Even as you say “but…” And yes, it is nothing more — even as you say it is more.

There’s tons more to go; in the end you’ll view it as minor and unimportant– a bellweather, perhaps.

Keep telling yourself this Michael.


  • Fri, Aug 17, 2018 - 12:17pm



    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 08 2008

    Posts: 415

    count placeholder

    Details matter



cmartenson wrote:

Lots oRiddle me this.  How did the tail portion get all mangled like that, the nose portion even  more utterly mangled, but somehow a perfectly round 6.5 mm cross section from the middle area of the bullet (presumably) get left behind on the rear wall of the cranium?


Back to the calculation drawing board, right Stan?


The X-ray you posted was a bit grainy but even in it I could spot no perfectly circular 6.5mm fragment.

I looked and found a higher resolution version of the Xray in question and pasted a circle over it in paint.

Even excluding the segment of arc from 3 to 6, its outline is not perfectly circular.

Back to the observational drawing board, right Chris?


Regards Hanish

Time2help wrote:

gyrogearloose can’t even spell properly.

Is that the best you got?

“”False cause, burden of proof, appeal to authority, black-or-white…what will it be today Doug Time2help?”” your post #471

Take your pick…

  • Sat, Aug 18, 2018 - 12:44am

    Mohammed Mast

    Mohammed Mast

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: May 17 2017

    Posts: 499

    count placeholder


I think there is a mistaken notion that the WTC complex of buildings contained enough flammable material to ignite and melt steel. This is simply not the case, Every bit of furnishings, draperies, etc. were required to be treated with fire retardant. The jet fuel was spent in a matter of minutes, most in the explosions.

If one thinks there was enough copy paper, to melt steel then one is somewhere out in left field. The New York Port Authority which was responsible for the construction was well aware of the possibility of the towers getting hit by a plane. This was accounted for in the design. The Empire State building had been hit in the 40’s.

The elephant in the room is in the entire history of concrete and steel contruction not one building collapsed due to fire yet on one day three just by coincidence did. 

Lucy you got some splainin to do.

Fire retardants do not prevent organics from burning in all circumstances, They just prevent the material from supporting an isolated flame.

Wool is a natural fire retardant material, After killing sheep for the freezer I am left with a skin with a heavy wool growth to dispose of ( good meat breed sheep woolen sell for less than the cost of shearing the sheep ). Point a blow torch at it and the area where the blow torch hits chars while making some flames. Remove the blow torch and the flames go out, so I just dump in my good old 44 gallon drum with a bit of waste fat and set ti alight. Smokes a lot for the first bit but once it gets hot it all burns away with a cleanish flame.


You contend that there was not enough copy paper, well what caused large areas of the site to be so hot for so long and the pockets of yellow hot steel 8 weeks? Nano thermite? At what stage did it burn. How did the yellow hot pockets come to be and survive for 8 weeks, and how many tens of tons of nanothermite would have been required to crate the number of hot pockets found in the ruble.

As with many of the claims by truthers they reek of a lack of objective observational analysis, inaccurate descriptive works, and lack of sufficient understanding of the behavior of the materials present.


The buildings did take some quite significant damage prior to catching fire.


And truthers consistently say ‘it was designed to survive the impact of a larger plane and fires, and imply that as it did fall down ti must have had ‘help’

Well either the engineers who designed the bridge in Italy (that collapsed recently ) designed it to collapse in a storm after only 50 years or did they design it to survive storms and 100 years and got it wrong.

And look at the number of bridges in the states that have failed while people are on them.

Maybe the designers of the WTC buildings got it wrong too.


Viewing 10 posts - 551 through 560 (of 605 total)

Login or Register to post comments