# Iron microspheres in 9/11 dust?

1. 90
lone77starposted 4 years ago

What's behind the thousands of tons of iron microspheres found in the 9/11 concrete dust?

There were 780,000 metric tons of concrete in the 2 WTC towers. I did not include the third building which collapsed that day (7WTC), but that was only 47 stories tall.

The USGS outdoor samples of concrete dust contained between 0.2 and 1.3% iron microspheres. The mean of all the RJ Lee samples was 5.87%. I'm not certain if this was by weight or by volume. I'm assuming by weight. Please correct me if you know differently.

Using the lowest percentage for a conservative estimate: 0.002 (=0.2%) * 780,000 MT = 1560 metric tons!!! That's rough figures. A more accurate calculation would be,

total = 0.002*total + 780,000

.998 * total = 780,000

total = 781,563 metric tons

Minimum estimate of iron microspheres by weight is 1563 metric tons. Maximum estimate is 45,874 metric tons of iron microspheres. The 2 towers contained only 200,000 metric tons of steel beams. So, somewhere between 1-22% of the mass of steel could be found in iron microspheres. Did the iron come from the steel, or somewhere else? And how did it come in the form of microspheres?

What are the implications of this? Even the government reports admitted that the fires in the 2 towers were insufficient to melt steel. Where did 1500 tons of iron microspheres come from? These spheres ranged in sizes from about 1 micron (0.001 mm) to 1.5 mm in size.

And yet, the only way iron could form into such microspheres is through melting and forceful ejection. The steel or iron would have to have been far hotter than the melting point in order to allow the iron to form into spheres before it solidified again.

Steel Wool?

One enterprising investigator considered the idea that burning steel wool could create iron microspheres. Very clever, but with obvious problems. See the video of their efforts here:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=36b_1341461668

The problems are twofold:
(1) The iron microspheres created by burning steel wool have horns -- pieces of the steel threads sticking out of them. These aren't found in the 9/11 dust.

(2) If the thousands of metric tons of iron microspheres were to come from burning steel wool, then there would have to have been thousands of metric tons of steel wool within the fires of the two towers. This proves to be a very unrealistic expectation. It's unlikely that either of the airplanes carried thousands of tons of steel wool for whatever purpose. And that much steel wool is not usually found in the normal business office.

Controlled Demolition?

The only other likely source of iron microspheres is the controlled demolition using thermite or thermate. These use iron oxide (rust) and aluminum. Aluminum is far hungrier for oxygen than iron, so it steals the oxygen creating intense heat, aluminum oxide and elemental iron (metallic). The heat frequently reaches 4500F degrees, far above the 2800F degree melting point, and only 682F degrees below iron's boiling point. Because of the explosive expansion of gases and the constituent materials, reacting thermite will sputter explosively, forcing the iron into the air as tiny droplets -- aerosolized.

So, the question is: Can you think of any other sources for the substantial quantity of iron microspheres found in the 9/11 dust?

If not, then we are left with the unsavory problem of collapse of 3 steel skyscrapers being controlled demolitions. And because all 3 of the WTC buildings which collapsed on 9/11 were highly secure, this means that 9/11 was an inside job. Why? Because it takes weeks or months of unfettered access to buildings of that size to prepare them for controlled demolition. Two Bush family members were executives in the security company which oversaw the WTC. And the CIA was a tenant of 7WTC. I don't think they would've let Al Qaeda rig tons of explosives and thermate cutter charges, unless they were in on it.

Thoughts?

1. 87

Thoughts = "Hey, look, another obfuscating and ridiculous conspiracy theory... please, please pay attention to me."

1. 90
lone77starposted 4 years ago in reply to this

Wow, @Shadesbreath. Do you understand non sequitur? And you're so good at it.

How about answering the question: Where did the tons of iron microspheres come from?

I hope that's not too intellectually out of your league.

Don't blind yourself with the evidence:

Science can be intimidating sometimes, especially when you don't know what you're talking about. Come on! Open up. This stuff is fun and interesting. Physics and chemistry!

1. 87

Oh, it's fun and interesting, but that doesn't change the fact that "science," like statistics is easily manipulated. There's a HUGE difference between the "data" and the story it tells.

They can't even lock down global warming because of how much language (non science) gets stacked on top of the "data." It's "either" us or the natural ebb and flow of how the planet works. The data proves both.

While I can't prove that the data in this is garbage (youtube hardly makes your case for you, btw), even if it's not complete stupidity, there is a massive difference between observed and verified data and a correct interpretation of what that data means.

They observed that the horizon was flat, and that, if you sailed out as far as anyone could sail at the time, it was still flat: conclusion = the earth is flat. Win for "science."

Or not.

1. 90
lone77starposted 4 years ago in reply to this

Yes, statistics can be manipulated. Scientists do it all the time. Science has bias. But that bias is the topic of a different discussion.

For now, we're talking about iron microspheres found in every sample of 9/11 dust studied. In fact, the iron microspheres became sort of a signature for 9/11 dust. None of the massive amounts of concrete found in Lower Manhattan were found without these microspheres.

And when a ship sails to the horizon, there is clear evidence that the Earth isn't flat, because you can see the top of the ship as it goes over the horizon. Your logic on this one is a bit thin.

So, are you up to it? Care to weigh in on the iron microspheres which have been shown to exist in every sample of 9/11 dust?

Where did they come from? Ideas?

1. 87

They came from the same place most red herrings do.

2. 89
Quilligrapherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

Greetings Lonestar. I see you are still promoting microspheres in the dust from 9/11.

A lot of folks have a predisposition to treat theories that pose unanswered questions as though they represented irrefutable facts. The OP statement is a detailed account of a couple of such theories that actually assume a great deal but prove nothing. Even you admit there is no reliable conclusion when you summarize with a question.

So, with all those theories in mind, let’s get some real facts out into the open.

There is no proof today that the collapse of the WTC on 9/11 was the result of controlled demolition. Claims that proof exists are false and they are designed to mislead.

It is verifiably true beyond all doubt that there is no fact-based technical account that reveals the collapse modes of the Twin Towers. Therefore, all attempts to explain how and why they collapsed are purely hypothetical. {1}

In spite of all the analysis gathered, no formal scientific examination by groups of technical experts has ever been conducted and no official conclusions were ever reached as to how the towers fell.

The claims that thermite residues as well as iron-rich microspheres in WTC dust prove the use of thermite have both been found to have no basis in fact. {2}{3}{4}

“The only other likely source of iron microspheres is the controlled demolition using thermite or thermate” is a false statement of your own making. You call the microspheres found in the WTC dust “iron” microspheres even though you know it to be a fact that most of the samples were found to contain “iron-rich” microspheres. Dr. Steven E. Jones said, “I collected iron-rich particles in the dust by pulling a magnet across the outside of a plastic bag containing the dust.” {5} Your commentary omits this significant fact. “Iron-rich” microspheres suggest the presence of iron compounds, which melt at much lower temperatures than pure iron. Therefore, the existence of “iron-rich” microspheres can be explained by iron-sulfur eutectic found in corrosion of the steel from WTC7. This fact on its own destroys the entire “controlled demolition” theory. You do not use quotes and you do not reference any sources, therefore, your calling them “iron" microspheres advances a false conspiracy interpretation, which is not supported by the dust.

An over view of the literature finds an extensive array of opinions but no broad consensus and certainly no definitive evidence to explain the destruction at the WTC. Hence, each of us must decide if we want to believe vague and unproven theories, as you suggest, Lonestar, or if we will take a more rational and logical stance that acknowledges after ten years there is still no reliable evidence of a conspiracy that survives scientific scrutiny.

Keep up the fine work, Lonestar. There is nothing like a factually bankrupt conspiracy theory to attract attention.

{1} http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/ind … on=548:548
{2} http://www.nmsr.org/nmsr911.htm
{3} http://www.nmsr.org/nmsr911f.htm
{4} http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm
{5} http://www.journalof911studies.com/volu … Method.pdf

1. 90
lone77starposted 4 years ago in reply to this

@Quilligrapher, where's the conspiracy theory?

You say a lot, but you've jumped to a really lousy conclusion. I don't see a conspiracy theory in the OP.

I think it's pretty bankrupt to write such a long reply based on something that was never said in the first place.

The question remains. Every sample of 9/11 concrete dust contained between 0.2 and 5.87% iron microspheres. So, where did they come from?

That's not a conspiracy or a theory. Just a question. I hope that clears up any confusion.

Would you care to answer this? Do you have any ideas where such a mass of iron microspheres could come from?

1. 89
Quilligrapherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

Good evening, Lonestar.

I am so sorry. Was I wrong to suggest that this thread is an attempt to spread and promote an unproven theory that somebody intentionally destroyed the twin towers using controlled demolition and then conspired with government officials to cover it up? How silly of me! Perhaps, as part of your denial, you should also deny you wrote the following:

“because all 3 of the WTC buildings which collapsed on 9/11 were highly secure, this means that 9/11 was an inside job.” {1}

“Two Bush family members were executives in the security company which oversaw the WTC. And the CIA was a tenant of 7WTC. I don't think they would've let Al Qaeda rig tons of explosives and thermate cutter charges, unless they were in on it.” {1}

“The only other likely source of iron microspheres is the controlled demolition using thermite or thermate.” {1}

“If not, then we are left with the unsavory problem of collapse of 3 steel skyscrapers being controlled demolitions.” {1}

“Even the airplane black boxes supposedly didn't [survive] (except that we have witnesses who saw more than 1 black box being recovered).” {2}

“Bush and Cheney were suspicious by participating in the cover-up and felony obstruction of justice by cleaning up the 9/11 WTC site before a full investigation could be performed.” {4}

“Have you checked out those who … still think 9/11 was an inside job? … I'm one of them.” {5}

“Giuliani committed a felony by removing crime scene evidence and Bush went along with it. Don't tell me Bush didn't know a felony was being committed.” {5}

“The point is, Al Qaeda could not have placed the bombs and thermate cutter charges in all 3 buildings.” {5}

Was my post bankrupt, Lonestar? I don’t think so.

{1} http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/102698#post2187737
{2} http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/102698#post2188403
{4} http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/102698#post2188433
{5} http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/102698#post2188442

1. 90
lone77starposted 4 years ago in reply to this

So, Q. Where do you think the iron microspheres came from?

1. 89
Quilligrapherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

Regards, Lonestar. I hope you are enjoying your Labor Day Weekend.

You asked me, “So, Q., where do you think the iron [sic] microspheres came from?” You directed this same inquiry at several others in this thread.  Each time you ask this question you admit publicly that the data in the OP narrative is inconclusive.  Therefore, any explanation as to how the Twin Towers collapsed based upon this data has zero credibility.  That is a fact you and I must live with as we move on.

I wish you a happy holiday.

1. 90
lone77starposted 4 years ago in reply to this

Thanks, @Quilligrapher. I hope you had a great holiday weekend. Living in the Philippines, I lose track of American holidays.

Each time I ask the question I admit publicly? That's pretty illogical and non sequitur, as is your editorial note to let "iron" stand as-is (thus was it written). There was no confusion on "iron." Are you implying that there was? Of course it was iron -- not steel, aluminum, carbonaceous chondrites, titanium steel alloy or any other substance.

So, simple question. Few have even attempted to answer it. There's solid evidence of iron microspheres in the 9/11 concrete dust -- every sample. Even taking the lowest percentage of any of the samples, you have an estimated 1563 metric tons of iron microspheres.

So, again I ask: "Where did the iron microspheres come from?"

You don't have to answer, @Quilligrapher, but if you're not here to disrupt (troll), then why are you here? What would it hurt to give us your answer on this? I really want to know.

1. 89
Quilligrapherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

Good evening Lonestar.  Thank you for providing more questions. I shall try to answer them for you.

“@ Quilligrapher, but if you're not here to disrupt (troll), then why are you here?”
Ouch! As I have already explained, I am here because of several false claims in your posts. {1} I do not intend to be confrontational but I can understand how natural it is for someone to feel uncomfortable when his/her false claims are brought out into the open. However, there is no excuse for a personal attack just because I pointed out that any explanation as to how the Twin Towers collapsed based upon this data has zero credibility.

So, again you ask: "Where did the iron microspheres come from?”

Furthermore, this is your theory and the burden of proof lies with you! Your burning question asks others to prove your hypothetical conclusion is wrong because you are not even close to proving it is right.

Then you say “There's solid evidence of iron microspheres in the 9/11 concrete dust -- every sample. Even taking the lowest percentage of any of the samples, you have an estimated 1563 metric tons of iron microspheres.” Did you say “solid evidence?” Where? You have not provided one single source for your basic data except for the burning steel wool link (whose only purpose was to prove that high temperatures are not necessary to produce microspheres.) The absence of quotation marks and links to your source(s) implies these thoughts, words, and conclusions are all your own. However, concealing your source(s) makes it impossible to verify that you have represented the data accurately.

The underlying message of the OP is to spread and promote an unproven theory that somebody intentionally destroyed the twin towers using controlled demolition and then conspired with others to cover it up. {1} Other posts slander government officials, accuse them of mass murder, and claim conspiracy at the highest levels. And, you insinuate I am a troll for being critical of such falsehoods?

{1}
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/102698? … ost2189308
{2} http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/102698? … ost2188512

1. 55
American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

Quill,

It has been a while but great to see you as always. I hope all is well with you and you had a great Labor day weekend.

Excellent response as always. I am amazed at the growing amount of people here on the forums that toss stuff on the wall and want others to prove it by debating against no matter your response.

Great to see Buddy and take care.

2. 90
lone77starposted 4 years ago in reply to this

Thanks @Q.

You said, "you do not have a conclusive answer to your own question." Wow! Incredible! So why would I even ask it!?

Yes, I'm not satisfied with the answer given. Only one person offered an alternative, here. It could not have produced sufficient quantity of iron microspheres at 100 grams per cubic meter per hour. Yikes! Do the calculation yourself.

Good point on sources. Here's some:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/table_1.html
http://journalof911studies.com/articles … hTemp2.pdf
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/graph … -IMAGE.jpg
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/graph … -IMAGE.jpg
http://ae911truth.org/en/news/41-articl … rials.html

Figures for the percentages of iron microspheres came from:
http://911caper.com/2010/12/25/billions … materials/

2. 81
psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago

Very hot iron, such as that covered by burning jet fuel after being exposed by the impact. And the estimate is way off as dust does not contain a random sample of what is in a building.

1. 90
lone77starposted 4 years ago in reply to this

@psycheskinner, the jet fuel burned off in seconds. Did you actually do an experiment on this? Other people have and flame on steel beams, exposed or not, produces zero iron microspheres. Duh!

Estimate is way off? Apparently you didn't read very carefully. All samples of 9/11 concrete dust from various sources and locations (USGS, RJ Lee, and one person who lived right across the street) have at least 0.2%. Most samples have far more! Wake up. These were random samples of 9/11 concrete dust from the WTC collapses. And using even the lowest percentage we get 1500 metric tons of iron microspheres.

Care to add something else to the argument?

1. 55
American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

Jet fuel does not burn off in seconds even if the container holding it ruptures.

I guess we are getting close to September again.

1. 90
lone77starposted 4 years ago in reply to this

Thanks, @American View. You give a generality that can easily be disproven as most generalities can be.

"Jet fuel does not burn off in seconds." How much jet fuel and under what circumstances? If you had a thousand gallons spread over several football fields in a controlled experiment, you could get it to burn off even faster than a few seconds. A teaspoon full of jet fuel could be made to burn off in milliseconds.

Can you be more specific?

The large fireball shown in the videos of that day portray a great deal of fuel being consumed in a matter of moments. How is this possible? Forceful impact, spreading fuel through the air, explosive mixing creating a high surface area resulting in rapid oxidation. It's all about surface area. When you have such a collision at several hundred miles per hour, a ruptured (destroyed?) fuel tank will spread its fuel broadly.

And no, we're not getting close to September. It is already September. Your point? I've been writing about this stuff all year -- ever since I stopped believing the Bush conspiracy theory.

1. 94
wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

You make a good point here.  Jet fuel that is vaporized and in small droplets will burn large quantities in short times.

Giving rise to extremely high temperatures - enough to produce microspheres?  That could depend on the quantity of fuel, the area it is dispersed over, the amount of O2 available, the amount of vaporization of the fuel and other factors.  Maybe it could produce said spheres.

1. 90
lone77starposted 4 years ago in reply to this

@wilderness, outstanding! You bring up some good points, here.

The problem is that jet fuel does not burn hot enough to cause steel to melt, even when in a controlled environment like a jet engine or an oven burner. Temperatures would've been even less after the initial fireball.

The limited exposure of a few dozen beams at the crash site might have given rise to a limited amount of microspheres from the hydrochloric acid effect mentioned by @HowardBThiname (below), but that would've been insufficient to produce more than a few kilograms (far less than 1 metric ton) of iron microspheres.

It could also have produced a great amount of iron microspheres if there had been a large amount of steel wool in the path, but the problem with the steel wool microspheres are the "horns" that come with them. Also, it seems highly unlikely that there would be even half a ton of steel wool in the fire zone.

2. 55
American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

Lone,

I was not giving a generality for the sake of just saying something. I was responding to your quote "the jet fuel burned off in seconds". Only outsiders could make such a comment.

While your comment  "it's all about the surface size", in an accident scenario surface area plays no part in the original explosion. In the case of fuels inside of fuselages, what matters most is how much vapor, oxygen, and pressure converge upon its source. The fuel remaining in the tank, or the fuel that will spread all over the floor when the tank ruptured will continue to fuel the fire until was all burned off. Whether it be an airplane, car, a gas tanker, a tanker on the train track, the reactions will always be the same, there will be an initial explosion followed by the fuel burning off. Even in B.L.E.V.E. situations, when a tank first let go, it's a huge explosion, some can be felt for miles around, but the fire does not go out, it continues on because the source or the fuel is still there to burn off. The jet fuel to the trade towers spread all over after the crash. Not all of fuel ignited as was evident as get fuel was found on the floors leading up to stairwells leading up and in the elevator shaft.

1. 90
lone77starposted 4 years ago in reply to this

@American View, thank you. I got it. It looks as though I gave a big generality with my "the jet fuel." My apologies.

Now, do you have any thoughts on the iron microspheres -- where they came from?

We have an array of samples ranging from 0.2% to 5.87%. Let's assume, for the sake of discussion, percentage by weight. With 780,000 metric tons of concrete converted at near 100% to a fine powdery dust, we would have about 1,563 metric tons of iron microspheres using the smallest percentage.

1. 55
American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

Lone

I actually do have thoughts on the iron micron spheres, but I was only responding to the jet fuel comment.

1. 90
lone77starposted 4 years ago in reply to this

Great! I'd love to hear your thoughts. Any idea where they came from?

1. 55
American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

If I wanted to share or get into another truther discussion, I would have answered.

3. 60
JSChamsposted 4 years ago

What if a group of terrorists actually committed this act?
Would we even be pondering iron micro spheres had Bill Clinton or Al Gore been President on 9/11?
I seriously doubt it.

1. 90
habeeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

A group of terrorists?? Wow - that's a really outlandish conspircy theory!

1. 60
JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

Well it's just that every time I hear all this and you get to where the original ideas come from it's all about how much they hated George Bush.
Like I say.....would we be asking this if it were Clinton or Gore....likely not.

1. 81
Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

It seems to me that those who fall for that conspiracy theory are on all sides of the political spectrum.

1. 60
JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

Oh the big thing is always the explosives were installed by Halliburton employees by way of Dick Cheney.
Of course.

1. 72
Cody Hodgeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

Who says it wasn't an inside job?

Not suggesting it was the president, but what if it was some inside job done by a rogue agent/spy who was working with Al-Queda?

1. 60
JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

It's never characterized that way.
It's always Bush and Cheney engineered and knew about the whole thing.
Always.

1. 90
lone77starposted 4 years ago in reply to this

Always? Have you checked out Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth?

@JSChams, check out their videos and let me know what you think.

Personally, I don't know who was behind it, but Bush and Cheney were suspicious by participating in the cover-up and felony obstruction of justice by cleaning up the 9/11 WTC site before a full investigation could be performed. What other murder scenes in American history were cleaned up so quickly? What other airplane crash scenes did the NTSB omit trying to piece together the parts of the airplane?

Here's the late Hollywood producer and Nevada politician, Aaron Russo, giving us his second-hand knowledge from the conspirators themselves:

Is Aaron Russo telling the truth? Maybe, maybe not. What if he is? What if this is only the tip of a much larger iceberg? That's why we need to ask more questions and have a new investigation -- one that cannot be hampered by government or private interests.

2. 81
Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

Whatever, it's all BS...in my opinion. I may be naive but I don't think a western government would do that to its own people.

Of course, the same people often believe the moon landing was faked.

1. 60
JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

Oh I agree I am just  trying to shine a light on where this all comes from.

2. 90
lone77starposted 4 years ago in reply to this

@Uninvited Writer, thanks for stepping into the discussion.

Yes, "conspiracy theorists" have been pilloried by some to have us think they're nut cases. Some of these "so-called" conspiracy theorists are only asking questions. Nearly 2,000 scientists, engineers and architects are asking these tough questions. That's what I'm trying to do here.

You don't think a Western government would do that to their people. I was in the same boat until a few years ago. I believed the Bush conspiracy theory and not the others.

* Has anyone ever been greedy?
* Has anyone ever committed murder for personal gain?
* In the history of planet Earth, has anyone conspired to do something bad or illegal?
* Do corporations have a fiduciary duty to increase profits?
* Do corporations lobby the US government to influence votes?
* If the military industrial complex runs out of work, would they long for a new war?

Have you ever heard of Operation Northwoods -- early 1960s? I suggest you look it up and read it carefully. Until a few years ago, it was confidential -- classified. Top brass at the Pentagon planned to attack Americans in order to provoke a demand for war with Cuba. This was a false flag operation -- pretending to be Cubans attacking Americans. Even though it doesn't explicitly say "kill Americans," it recommends terrorist attacks on American soil. How could such an operation not have collateral damage?

Still think our government couldn't pull off a false flag operation?

Investigate the USS Liberty. You can look at the Corporate Party media spin on this and other issues, or you could search YouTube for videos which include interviews with the actual crewmen and officers who experienced that event.

And, @Uninvited Writer, I do believe the late Neil Armstrong walked on the Moon. But hey, that's me. Just my opinion. But it's backed up by facts like the reflector left on the Moon that anyone can bounce a laser off of.

I wish the world were a nicer place. I really do. I used to think it was. Then I started to dig, finding some crazy stuff, but finding enough evidence to reveal that someone behind the scenes is really selfish and greedy. Should that surprise you that someone who has Billions would want more?

3. 90
lone77starposted 4 years ago in reply to this

@JSChams, please name me one person who always uses Cheney and Halliburton as the culprits.

Have you checked out those who don't but still think 9/11 was an inside job? Contrary to your generality, there are thousands.

I'm one of them. Sure I suspect that it's possible that Bush, Cheney and Halliburton were involved, but I don't know. There's only circumstantial evidence, but some very eye-opening evidence. Still we're left with questions.

If you listen to Bush, he doesn't want us asking questions. Heck, he resisted creating an investigative panel. It took 400+ days to start the official investigation. He blocked others investigating. Giuliani committed a felony by removing crime scene evidence and Bush went along with it. Don't tell me Bush didn't know a felony was being committed. Does that make Bush guilty of perpetrating 9/11? No, but it makes him complicit in a cover-up. Even the head of the 9/11 commission called it a cover-up on the part of the Bush White House.

The point is, Al Qaeda could not have placed the bombs and thermate cutter charges in all 3 buildings.

2. 90
lone77starposted 4 years ago in reply to this

@JSChams, I believed the Bush conspiracy theory for 10 years.

But was it based on science or evidence? How about a terrorist passport (made out of paper) that survived the impact, but a skyscraper didn't. Even the airplane black boxes supposedly didn't (except that we have witnesses who saw more than 1 black box being recovered).

You make it sound partisan. I'm not. I'm pro-America and its Constitution.

As to motive, here's the late Hollywood producer and Nevada politician, Aaron Russo, giving us his second-hand knowledge from the conspirators themselves:

Is Aaron Russo telling the truth? Maybe, maybe not. What if he is?

4. 94
wildernessposted 4 years ago

Conspiracy theories are such fun, but lets take a look at this one that Bush engineered it all.

A thermite reaction does indeed produce a very high temperature and large quantities of heat (the two are NOT the same) as well and you can produce your micro spheres with it, but only with large quantities of powdered aluminum and rust.

I don't know how much aluminum and rust it would take to produce thousands of tons of micro spheres - it will depend a great deal on how the heat of reaction is transferred to the steel in the building.  Lets assume for the moment that it takes a pound of aluminum to produce a pound of spheres.  Keep in mind that most of the heat of reaction is going to be dissipated into the surrounding atmosphere and not transferred to the steel.

It will thus take thousands of tons of aluminum, plus more thousands of tons of rust to produce thousands of tons of spheres (rust is much heavier than aluminum, of course).

We're left with the idea that it would take multi thousands of tons of reactant carried into the building and spread into intimate contact with the building steel.  The volume of material entering the building is staggering; neither aluminum powder nor rust is of particularly high density.

Now miles of building steel must be exposed.  Building steel is commonly contained within false walls plus encapsulated in fire retardant and all of this must be removed by workers operating in an occupied building.  Truckload after truckload of debris must be carted out (by hand) over a span of weeks or months without anyone noticing.

The tons of reactant must now be attached somehow to the steel; large bags maybe although as soon as the bag burns away the reactant falls to the floor and is wasted in melting concrete instead of heating steel.  Hundreds of thousands of small 8 oz. bags maybe.  That's OK because it must be in intimate contact with building steel, but spread out as well.  A ton of reactant attached in a huge bag to 2' of building steel won't do a lot; the heat will never reach steel 20' away in large enough quantity to raise the temperature enough to produce the needed spheres.  Again, temperature does not equal heat; the heat (calories) must travel down the steel in large numbers to reach the necessary temperature, and most of the heat of reaction is wasted on empty air.

By now we have thoroughly irritated every tenant in the building and office workers are leaving in droves because of the noise and dust, but that's OK - they're all stupid and can't figure out that something unusual is going on.  They're also too stupid to report all this activity after the towers come down.

Next is to set off the thermite; Bush provides planes and passengers to the terrorists and the burning jet fuel is spread over all of the miles of thermite encased building steel.  This will work; while it takes a fairly high temperature to start a thermite reaction, burning jet fuel will do the job.  It might be a little difficult to get that fuel to travel down 80 floors or whatever, but we can build in pipes to carry it throughout the building at the same time we took out thousands of square feet of wall exposing the steel.  No one could be expected to notice constructions workers putting in 100 miles of steel pipe over their desks to get the incoming jet fuel to spread out over every mile of exposed beam (now covered with little taped on bags of something) we've left beside those same desks.

Of course that burning fuel will go out as soon as it depletes the O2 in the pipes, but that minor problem can surely be overcome.
Good theory.

1. 90
lone77starposted 4 years ago in reply to this

You say, "lets take a look at this one that Bush engineered it all." But I say, "let's not! Let's look at the facts, first. And then ask questions about who might have done it."

Here's an engineer performing an experiment with homemade thermite:

A pound of spheres from a pound of aluminum? Iron from aluminum? Nice try. Iron comes from iron -- the iron rust in thermite or thermate.

Look at the video and you'll see how heat is transferred and steel beams are cut in seconds with only homemade thermite.

Nano-thermate (unreacted examples found in the 9/11 dust) is far more reactive and faster at cutting through steel beams than even Jonathan Cole's experiment shows.

Great point on the logistics. There are witnesses who told of suspicious activities occurring in the weeks before 9/11. Trucks arriving after the cleaning crews left and leaving just before the earliest occupants showed up for work.

There were incidents of noise and dust irritating occupants.

@wilderness, you raise some important issues, but your statements clearly show you haven't investigated this very carefully. Numerous former tenants have come forward to let us know of activities prior to 9/11 just as you described. The fact that you haven't seen their testimony does not mean anything other than you haven't done your homework. YouTube has lots of videos. Some are garbage and some are not.

And you don't need jet fuel to set off the thermate and other explosive charges. Ridiculous!

You say, "good theory?" I think your distortion of the facts is hilarious.

And just for fun, a short clip on George W.'s reaction:

1. 94
wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

"A pound of spheres from a pound of aluminum? Iron from aluminum?"

Don't be silly, and don't try to twist and trivialize my words.  I do not propose alchemy here, or even known processes of nuclear reactions.  Merely an assumption that a pound of aluminum, used in a thermite chemical reaction, will produce a pound of spheres.

I don't think you have any idea of the sheer volume of trash a demolition project involves.  Not demolishing a building, just removing non-load bearing walls and the sheetrock covering them (to expose the steel behind).  I've done this many times in small stores and other buildings and know from experience that a 10 man crew can produce a T/L of rubbish every day from just a 10,000 sq foot project.  That's minute compared to what would have had to be done in the towers.  We're talking hundreds of T/L's of garbage here.

I've been assuming that your spheres were produced from the steel in the building supporting structure, which means miles of steel exposed.  It could also, however, have come from the reaction itself.  That reaction takes 2 molecules of aluminum plus 2 molecules of rust (with two atoms of iron) to produce two atoms of free iron.

Transferring to weight rather than particles, that means 54 tons of powdered aluminum combined with 160 tons of rust will produce 111 tons of iron.  Let's say that 100% of the rust is converted to iron spheres (impossible of course, but say that it was) and that were 11,100 tons of spheres (from "thousands of tons").  That means 5400 tons of aluminum - powdered aluminum weighs in at 44# per cubic foot which means 245,454 cubic feet of aluminum.  At 27 cubic feet per cubic yard, that's 9,090 cubic yards of aluminum - a lot of material to hide in an occupied building.  You will need a similar amount of rust - it isn't going to fit in a janitors closet somewhere.  So put it in the garage.  Assuming a 10' ceiling height (pretty high for a garage), you will need an area 220 feet by 220 feet or about 1 1/2 football fields.  Going to be some pretty unhappy people as their parking spaces disappear.

I didn't even address the issue of cutting beams with thermite - of course it is possible and not particularly difficult.  It just has nothing to do with micro spheres, unless that process is supposed to be what produced those spheres, whereupon those miles of exposed beam still need to be uncovered.  It's one thing to slice out a small section of beam, melting the steel into a pound of spheres, and quite another to produce thousands of tons of spheres.

So you now have 5400 tons of aluminum in the debris - the same debris that produced 11,000 tons of micro spheres.  Except it isn't there, is it?  Aluminum is used in building construction, but sparingly.  More will be used in office furniture, decorations, appliances, etc. but it is still minute compared to the weight that was used in the thermite reaction.  "Researchers" have detected thousands of tons of spheres within the (millions?) of tons of steel in the debris of the towers - where are the thousands of tons of aluminum, now in the form of aluminum oxide?

1. 90
lone77starposted 4 years ago in reply to this

Yes, @wilderness, I was being silly ... and on purpose.

But I really appreciate you taking the time to draw a detailed picture. Very nice.

The low end of the percentages doesn't sound like much -- 0.002 (0.2%), but when we start out with 780,000 metric tons of concrete finely pulverized, 0.2% is more than a thousand tons. And 1,560 is a low-end estimate. If we had more samples, would the estimate go lower? I don't know. That's certainly a possibility. But even 1 ton of iron microspheres would be startling to me. It likely would not have come from burning steel wool.

But it's possible that part of the iron microspheres would've come from the thermitic reaction itself and part from the steel beams they were meant to cut.

You mentioned lots of garbage, and it's striking that witnesses in the cleanup reported finding very little trash in whole form. The largest piece of a phone, one witness said, was half of a keypad.

I guess equally amazing is the fact that 780,000 metric tons of concrete ended up as a fine powder rather than chunks. Falling buildings don't do that, do they? Pictures I've seen show large chunks of concrete from buildings which merely collapse from poor design or disasters. I don't remember seeing any of the concrete from the WTC towers found as chunks. And that takes a lot of energy -- energy which was mostly used up by the near free-fall acceleration of the collapse.

If we had only 1 microsphere found in 1 or 2 samples, then I'd say it could possibly have been steel wool in one of the office kitchens. No problem and no controversy. But that's not the case, here.

So, if we have even only 500 metric tons of iron microspheres, where could that have come from except a thermitic reaction (half from thermite and half from steel beams)? Suggestions? Can we debunk the idea that controlled demolition was used? Or are the iron microspheres, as one metallurgical engineer suggested, the smoking gun of controlled demolition?

1. 94
wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

Can't answer the question as to the origin of microspheres, but neither my ignorance, nor yours, nor anyone else's is evidence of controlled demolition.  At most it raises the possibility.

The other questions and problems with controlled demolition are nearly insurmountable, though.  I've never been personally involved in such a thing, (although I've been intimately involved in constructing buildings) but have watched the process on TV documentaries.

It isn't a matter of cutting a few beams or concrete pillars and the building falls gracefully to the ground.  Rather the entire building is nearly destroyed before the primary charges are even placed at key points.  Walls are ripped out everywhere and supporting steel and concrete cut and destroyed.  Before the main charges are set, let alone ignited, the building is on the verge of falling anyway.  Certainly the impact of an airliner would have immediately knocked it down rather than what we saw.

This means that there were thousands, not dozens, of beams and columns to cut at the time of impact and that all those thousands of thermite emplacements occurred long before 911.  The demolition of walls and finished surfaces in offices, hallways, stairwells, etc.  would have been very extensive and not something that could be overlooked for months.  There just isn't that much space in a large building that is not used habitation.  (a note here in that the garbage I referred to was the trash and debris from that work, not office garbage).

A very small percentage is given to the mechanics of the building; support, HVAC, plumbing, electrical, etc. but the vast majority is inhabited space.  The building supporting structure is spread out as well, all through that space, and must be accessed for demolition; this simply cannot be done while the building is in use.  The only possibility is that walls were opened or removed, thermite and detonators placed and the walls rebuilt, sheetrocked, mudded and painted all at night while inhabitants, janitors, security and other personnel were absent.  It didn't happen.  Those thousands of tons of aluminum and rust were never stored in the building, and weren't brought in a ton at a time for distribution through every closet in the place.  The debris wasn't carted out in lunchboxes or at the rate of a T/L or two per night.  The thousands of miles of wire necessary for detonation weren't run everywhere through the building and the thousands of thermite reactions weren't set off with batteries (it takes a good bit of energy to start a thermite reaction going).

The thousands of tons of Aluminum didn't blow away on the wind, or if it did it is detectable in surrounding buildings just as the dust from Vesuvius is detectable today thousands of miles away and hundreds of years later, on the other side of the world.

The hundreds or thousands of people working on the project won't have all been silent and weren't all murdered by the govt.  The dump sites of the area would have noticed hundreds of loads of construction debris coming from the towers, but didn't.  City building inspectors in the area would have noticed construction and investigated; they didn't.  Excessive power drain from the building at night from using heavy hand equipment should have been noted and investigated; it wasn't.

It just didn't happen that way.  I don't know where the microspheres came from, but it wasn't from setting thousands of thermite reactions off on all the supporting structures of the towers simultaneously as the airliners hit.

1. 90
lone77starposted 4 years ago in reply to this

@wilderness, thanks for the opportunity for me to be silly again. Ignorance is never evidence of controlled demolition. Gee thanks for cluing us in on that little pearl of wisdom.

Why are the other problems insurmountable? Based on your say so?

"Rather the entire building is nearly destroyed before the primary charges are even placed at key points." Okay, I'm no expert, but in one video of a demolition expert, he said that the building is weakened only by about 20% before charges are set. That's far from your "nearly destroyed" exaggeration. But that was only the standard operating procedure for normal demolitions. This was anything but ordinary.

And you said, "Certainly the impact of an airliner would have immediately knocked it down rather than what we saw." Huh? Can you please explain? Now you're saying that the building should've collapsed on impact? The engineers in charge of building the towers built them in mind with the impact of a slightly smaller airplane impacting the building. The redundant connections has been likened to a wire screen punctured by a pencil -- local damage, yes, but not global catastrophic collapse.

I find it rather peculiar that you claim that the pulverization of 780,000 metric tons of concrete into a fine powdery dust, along with the near-complete pulverization of every piece of office equipment could've been accomplished by gravity impact alone. I'm saving my discussion of required energies for a different forum thread.

But you're assuming some things that are not necessary. You don't need to knock out walls months in advance of a demolition carried out by explosives and thermite cutter charges.

In the months leading up to 9/11, there was a major overhaul of the elevators in the towers. You said, "The building supporting structure is spread out as well, all through that space," but that's not true. The core columns were concentrated at the center, adjacent to the elevator shafts. Convenient, huh?

Unlike most steel frame skyscrapers, the 2 towers had wide open, unobstructed spaces with no steel beams. Only the core and exterior beams held up the building.

One CIA asset noted that trucks were pulling up to the WTC towers right after the cleaning crews left, and those trucks pulled away from the towers just before the early risers showed up for work the next morning. This happened in the days just before 9/11.

Miles of wiring? Not if you used radio control.

Interesting how you make claims without supporting evidence. I know there's a certain amount of sense to what you're claiming, but you're guessing, even though you state it as fact. Like I said, thermitic white smoke IS aluminum oxide. If you look at any videos on YouTube of thermite experiments, the white smoke goes up, as all heated smoke does. So, did you see an article testing the dust miles from the WTC? And aluminum oxide smoke is far different from the pumice of Vesuvius.

Thousands of people working on the project? What makes you think it would take thousands of knowledgeable people? Compartmentalization can keep most people out of the know. Not many people who pull off black ops ever want to talk about it, I would guess. It took nearly 50 years for E. Howard Hunt to come forward on his involvement in the JFK assassination. That was an eye-opener. So, please don't give me any crap about people not keeping secrets. Operation Northwoods was classified for 35 years before coming to the attention of the public-at-large, and that was a 9/11-style event that was not implemented. The fact that they thought it up in the first place should be chilling enough to any American citizen.

"Excessive power drain from the building at night from using heavy hand equipment should have been noted and investigated; it wasn't." How do you know it wasn't noticed? And how do you know how big a drain it would be, especially if preparation took months or years? If Wirt Walker, III, a distant relative of George W. Bush, and George's younger brother, Marvin, were executives of the security company in the years leading up to 9/11, then, if they noticed it and did nothing, then they were involved. Nice, when the security company is in on the inside job. (Walker was CEO of the security company up to and beyond 9/11.)

You said, "It just didn't happen that way." I agree. You painted a biased scenario that I couldn't help but disagree with. But that's not the only possibility. Sounds like a straw man argument (logical fallacy), to me. I agree that it didn't happen the way you painted it. The buildings weren't brought down by Martians, either. I'm sure that's something we can agree on, too.

"Simultaneously as the airliners hit?" No, demolition would've occurred many minutes after the plane collisions. I thought that point was clear. If it had been simultaneous, then the towers would've collapsed with each collision, rather than an hour or so afterward.

There was one explosion seconds before the first airplane impact, but that was in the sub-basement. Several people were injured by that one. Yes, before the airplane struck.

Perhaps somewhere between thousands of metric tons and dozens of metric tons is the right figure for thermitic cutter charges needed to do the job.

And there were numerous suspicious activities noticed by the occupants of the towers in the days and weeks prior to 9/11. Did you know about their testimony? Did you even check?

1. 94
wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

"Certainly the impact of an airliner would have immediately knocked it down rather than what we saw." is based on the idea that the building was already prepared for demolition; that hundreds or thousands of support beams or columns were already cut during the prep stage.  That it didn't means that unlike an ordinary demo job all the beams were cut at once.

Cutting 20% of support columns IS "nearly destroying" a building.  That was my point.

Supports may well have been clustered around elevator shafts; that is fairly common and I believe I've heard before that it was done that way in the towers.  Nevertheless, those beams aren't accessible in the sense that they can be reached out and touched by anyone walking by.  They are still hidden behind false walls that must be opened up.  Exterior beams are the same way - hidden behind false walls that are there for the express purpose of hiding those beams from sight.

"radio controlled"; where the energy come from to "light off" the thermite if it wasn't wired?  Batteries?  You can't light a thermite reaction with a 9 volt battery and a radio controlled detonator - it will at a minimum require that battery plus addition explosives, all sitting for months or years inside walls.  In addition you want to believe that these things were set years before (through at least 2 administrations) and these batteries left to sit inside re-built facades.  No.

Thousands of people - either the job took a few dozen, spread over years, or a few hundred, maybe a thousand, spread over a couple of months.  Either way I have a really hard time with the work involved and that people didn't complain the entire time.

Same thing - spheres found, indicating possible controlled demolition but that can come from other causes as well.

Dozens of problems with controlled demolition that cannot be reasonably gotten around.

Conclusion - no controlled demolition.

1. 90
lone77starposted 4 years ago in reply to this

Thank you, @wilderness.

I'm no expert on demolition, but the one expert I heard described such a building as still quite safe to work in. So, "nearly destroying" is a relative term that may not mean the same thing to two different people.

But you're assuming that this would've been an ordinary demolition. What if the prep work was not done? Is prep work to help with a more efficient and less costly method of demolition? Couldn't demolition be done without prep work when expense was no object?

Couldn't there be other methods besides batteries for detonation?

You raise some critical issues about logistics. That's good, but I don't see any of them as being insurmountable.

There were a number of complaints from tenants of heavy work being done on other floors, vibrating the office space with noise and motion, plus leaving heavy layer of dust every morning for an extended period of time.

You create a number of scenarios that are not mine, point out how ridiculous they are and think that closes the argument? Please! There are other methods and other scenarios.

Where did you get the idea that people didn't complain? Did you survey all of the people in the building? Your statement is an argument to ignorance (logical fallacy): Something doesn't exist because you haven't seen the evidence. But I have heard the testimony of former tenants that did complain. So, your argument that "no complaints proves no preparation for controlled demolition," is busted simply because there were complaints of noise and work that could have been preparation for controlled demolition. Of course, the complaints do not prove controlled demolition. They only increase the possibility.

Now, when it comes to iron microspheres, you are willing to talk about alternate sources (even though you seem reticent to talk about alternate scenarios). Well, so am I -- willing to talk about alternate sources for the iron microspheres. But none of the alternate sources mentioned so far are very likely, given all of the factors involved.

That's why I created this forum thread. I wanted to see if someone could come up with an alternate that would plausibly explain even a few hundred metric tons of iron microspheres -- or heck, even 1 ton.

Alternates (so far):
* Steel wool -- not likely, because it would take so much steel wool right in the middle of the fire zone; but then that concentrated steel-wool-produced iron microspheres would have to lose their horns (possibly with friction) and would have to be distributed throughout the concrete dust. Something would have to have stirred up the steel wool iron microspheres. How likely is it that you'd have even 1 ton of steel wool in the fire zone? How likely is it that 100% of that 1 ton would be converted to iron microspheres without the tell-tale horns and attached steel wool fibers?

* @HowardBThiname mentioned an intriguing method that is a bit more exotic. It involved HCl/Cl2, SO2/SO3, O2, water, exposed steel beams and heat of at least 677C degrees. That would produce iron "wastage" at the rate of about 100 grams/m^2 per hour, according to his source. That's not a whole lot. In fact, it's miniscule. Even given a maintained temperature and maintained chemical cocktail on the exposed steel beams for the full time after impact and before collapse, and being generous with say 1000 square meters (~100ft x 100ft) of steel beams that maintained these conditions for the entire period, you'd be able to produce only 0.3 metric tons. But that's only under ideal, laboratory type conditions. But would the wastage be in microspheres? Or some other shape? Plus, you have the problem of stirring the iron wastage into the whole of the concrete dust.

So, the question remains. Are there any other alternative methods for producing iron microspheres of that quantity? Let's be even more conservative. Say, 1 ton of iron microspheres, instead of 1,563 metric tons (my original, "conservative" estimate). None of the alternate methods mentioned are satisfactory.

And perhaps far fewer materials were needed to bring down the 3 buildings. Perhaps only a few tons, instead of hundreds or even thousands. Perhaps the samples of concrete dust were atypical.

Conclusion: Controlled demolition is still the best explanation for the iron microspheres. I'd love to see if we can figure out a better alternative source.

5. 90
lone77starposted 4 years ago

Lot's of interesting thoughts, so far. But most are not yet grappling with the big question:

...=====================================================================...
---Where did the tons of iron microspheres come from?---
...=====================================================================...

1. 94
wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

...=====================================================================...
...Where are the tons of aluminum oxide now?
...=====================================================================...

1. 90
lone77starposted 4 years ago in reply to this

Excellent question!

Any ideas on the other question, though? ... Oops! I see your answer above. (Thanks!)

2. 90
lone77starposted 4 years ago in reply to this

@wilderness, bless you. You're the first one to contribute something really interesting to this discussion.

If the byproduct of a thermitic reaction is extreme heat, plus molten elemental iron and aluminum oxide, you would think that the extreme heat and explosive force of the thermitic reaction would blow the resulting products away from the reaction. Iron would be atomized into aerosol droplets and aluminum oxide would be... what? A fine powdery dust?

As aluminum oxide, there would be little to cause cohesion, so the dust may have been so fine that it rose to the top, above concrete dust and flew farther afield than did the concrete dust or iron microspheres. That's a hypothesis. I'm curious if anyone has ever studied this aspect.

3. 90
lone77starposted 4 years ago in reply to this

@wilderness, the white smoke seen coming off of a thermitic reaction is the aluminum oxide. So far, I have not yet found any documents that clarify what percentage of the aluminum oxide is found in the smoke and what percentage is left behind as coarser material, but if a large percentage of the aluminum oxide merely floated away on the wind, then it's possible that very little would be found amongst the concrete dust and iron spheres.

Amazing that tons of aluminum could literally go up in smoke, but then I remember from meteorology that a normal thunderhead cloud is thousands of tons of fine water droplets.

White smoke was seen coming off of the WTC towers before they collapsed, mixing with the darker smoke of the office fires.

So if the aluminum simply went up in smoke, then it could be spread over half of New York and New Jersey.

6. 89
HowardBThinameposted 4 years ago

The microsphere's conspiracy has been debunked.

http://www.911myths.com/html/traces_of_ … e_wtc.html

1. 90
lone77starposted 4 years ago in reply to this

@HowardBThiname, microspheres are not a "conspiracy." Perhaps you need to look up the definition of conspiracy. (You know, 2 or more people? -- not iron microspheres.)

And the article does a good job of arguing that Steven Jones's writings do not prove thermite was used. But that is far from proving that thermite was not used. To say that this article "debunks" even thermite would be an argument to ignorance (logical fallacy). The lack of proof of a hypothesis never disproves a hypothesis. That's logic 101.

Now, the USGS and RJ Lee samples and others all contained iron microspheres. Do you have any ideas where this stuff could've come from? That's the big question here. That's the topic of this forum.

I hope you do have some ideas. If it's not controlled demolition that created these hundreds of metric tons of iron microspheres, then what did? I don't think it was burning steel wool.

1. 89
HowardBThinameposted 4 years ago in reply to this

I understand your position, Lone Star, but Stevens is trying to link the microspheres to thermite, while it's possible they were formed by a combination of other elements at lower heat. Steven's research misses too much and here's physics expert that explains the problem to Steven;

"The formation of iron-rich microspheres below the m.p. of pure iron at ~ 1537 deg C is a complex process but is possible, indeed probable, in an environment containing HCl/Cl2 and SO2/SO3 in the presence of O2 and H2O. The WTC fires produced lots of HCl from the combustion of PVC and oxides of sulfur were present from sources such as lead acid batteries, residual fuel oil and gypsum. In such a chemical soup, iron is transported as volatile di or tri-chlorides. FeCl2 has a m.p. of 677 deg C and allows "active" corrosion to occur with iron wastage rates as high as 100 g/m^2 per hour. The iron chloride is relatively unstable and eventually decomposes but the iron does not wind up as a pure iron microsphere. At the very least it will be oxide coated, (probably with Fe3O4), and alloyed with other metals such as Al. Fly ash usually contains mullite, Al6Si2O13. Pure mullite has a high m.p., ~ 1828 deg C, but small additions of K2O and/or CaO lower the m.p to below 1200 deg C. These complex Al/Si/K/Ca/O phases readily combine with iron oxide at ~ 1000 deg C to form iron-rich calcium/potassium aluminosilicate microspheres on cooling. Steven, as long as your microspheres contain Si and/or K and Ca, they are NOT derived from thermite. "

You can find the rest of the conversation here:

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/ind … on=186:186

1. 90
lone77starposted 4 years ago in reply to this

@HowardBThiname, thanks for continuing the discussion, but that doesn't change the fact that the article you cited before did not discuss microspheres and did not disprove thermite.

I find it fascinating that iron microspheres can be created at lower temperatures, but I would find it very difficult to believe that so much could be created from the rather limited crash site fires. Like you quoted -- only 100 grams per square meter per hour. We might be talking about a few kilograms at most even under the best of circumstances. But the damage zone was anything but a controlled incubator for iron microspheres. I would expect that, because it wasn't a controlled fire, that the environment at the crash site might have produced no more than a few iron microspheres, if any. The necessary chemicals would have to have been held against the steel beams for an extended period of time. How much of the exposed steel beams would've been assaulted by this cocktail of chemicals plus heat for anything more than a few seconds? Could it have been Gremlins holding everything in place while 1500 metric tons were pumped out and somehow magically dispersed throughout all of the concrete dust as the building collapsed? I don't think so.

I find particularly troubling the last statement: "Steven, as long as your microspheres contain Si and/or K and Ca, they are NOT derived from thermite." Why is this NOT derived from thermite? Why would it be impossible that iron -- after thermitic reaction -- could not be doped with these elements from the chaos of explosions and building collapse? Star systems are doped by their suns passing through metal-enriched star clouds. The same thing could happen to iron while it is still liquid -- passing through clouds of silicon, potassium and/or calcium laden dust. Sounds like your expert has just enough truth to sound convincing, but leaves some gaping holes in his logic.

So the question remains: Where did all the iron microspheres come from? 1563 metric tons is conservative based on the lowest percentage found in 9/11 samples. Let's just say that your expert is right, despite his illogical leaps. Where did the iron microspheres come from -- 1500 metric tons of it, or more?

1. 89
HowardBThinameposted 4 years ago in reply to this

My first link was only about thermite - but that's just because I felt that was the quickest way to where the conversation was headed - thermite.

I can't guess where all the microspheres came from, but knowing that they can be produced in other ways - at lower temps, suggests that there is no smoking gun. Gypsum was in abundance in the towers and that could explain it.

I also can't guarantee that something other than what we saw actually happened at the WTC. I posted on a similar thread to this a few weeks ago because there was/is a conspiracy that a plane did not hit the Pentagon. On that thread I mentioned that I could personally vouch for seeing that wreckage. It was undoubtedly a plane. I wasn't near the WTC but my instincts tell me that the idea that our government (or any other state) pulled off the attack. I can't prove it, obviously, but as the conspiracies rise - they're usually debunked. Or at least softened to the point of not being much of value.

I certainly don't trust our govt. but I've yet to see real evidence that anything but what we think happened that day - happened.

1. 90
lone77starposted 4 years ago in reply to this

@HowardBThiname, I understand, but your link did nothing to dispel the idea of thermite. It only showed that Jones's ideas were not the only possibility. They did nothing to disprove thermite. So, in a sense, the article was a red herring on the issue of where the iron microspheres came from. If you don't think they came from thermitic reactions, then where?

You said, "I wasn't near the WTC but my instincts tell me that the idea that our government (or any other state) pulled off the attack." So, you're saying here that you feel the government pulled it off? Or did you leave out a word?

Yes, I understood all too clearly your statement that iron microspheres could've come from other sources. But did you read my rebuttal? The chemical process you described could only have produced extremely limited quantities of iron microspheres. Compare a kilogram or two to several hundred metric tons. Did you pay any attention to the rate of creation you yourself quoted? That was miniscule! We're talking hundreds of metric tons of the stuff!

Like I said in the OP, another researcher claimed that it could've been burning steel wool. Yes, it could have, but that would only have been likely if there had been fires throughout the entire building and that each site of fires contained hundreds or thousands of pounds of steel wool right in the fire! I find it far more likely that thermite was installed, instead of steel wool.

I really would like to talk more about the Pentagon situation, but on another forum thread. I'd love to get more input from you on what you actually saw.

You say that conspiracy theories are usually debunked. I've seen many of the debunk videos on YouTube. Some of them bring up some very good points that require further investigation, but all of them that I've seen, so far, do nothing more than give an alternative explanation. They do nothing to debunk anything. Coming up with an alternative hypothesis raises questions, yes, but it does not disprove the opposing hypothesis. Like I said, it's an argument to ignorance logical fallacy to think that it does any debunking. Now, you may have seen a more compelling argument, and I'm open to it. But I remain just as skeptical of debunking claims as I used to be of conspiracy theories. Now, the only conspiracy theory I laugh at is George Bush's theory.

You also said, "I certainly don't trust our govt. but I've yet to see real evidence that anything but what we think happened that day - happened."

"We think happened?" Who's we? And what is this generality of "what happened" that day? Are you talking about the Bush theory that kept changing as new evidence was found to refute it? 19 hijackers, some of whom claimed that they did not die in the 9/11 crashes and had nothing to do with the event? Oops! And how did L. Paul Bremer magically know to avoid his office on the morning of 9/11 (right in the impact zone of the second tower to be hit) and make all the TV stations with the "knowledge" that Al Qaeda was the culprit and that we will likely need to attack Iraq, Afghanistan and possibly Iran? Investigations usually take a little longer than an hour or two. Don't you think?

Unless we can come up with a different source for the Quantity of iron microspheres found -- likely somewhere between dozens of tons and a few thousand metric tons -- I can only think of controlled demolition as the source. I'd like to be proven wrong, but weak possibilities (like hydrochloric acid or steel wool) don't produce near enough iron microspheres.

There is far more "iron clad" evidence of controlled demolition, but that's the subject of another forum -- things like the energy deficit in the 9/11 collapses.

1. 89
HowardBThinameposted 4 years ago in reply to this

LoneStar, I didn't mean to interject the Pentagon issue to detract - only as an example. I'll leave it alone for now.

On the thermite - it's an assumption that there were hundreds of thousands of tons. That assumption comes from taking samples from many different areas and then using the numbers as empirical evidence that those spots were indicators.

Gypsum at lower temps creates iron microspheres.There was beyond a doubt hundreds of thousands of tons of concrete in the lower levels of the towers. Concrete contains gypsum.

When I say "I haven't seen real evidence" this microsphere story is what I mean. The purveyors of the story (Steven) proposes the spheres came from the use of thermite - hence - a controlled demolition. But Steven's theory is not scientific because he did not allow for other known sphere-causing factors.

That's not only a big problem - it creates a conspiracy based on faulty science.

You're asking me (and others) to prove a negative, which we cannot do. So the debate moves out of that realm into the one of logical cause and effect. And that's where the conspiracies come up short. Although you try (in your JFK post) to draw the attention away from conspiracies - the talk of thermite as the causative agent for the microspheres cannot be separated from a conspiracy - that's what it is.

You can try to direct the debate but when you do - it loses integrity. In my mind - the two are inseparable and I think they are in the minds of many. When you start a thread that (in essence) says ...look here...something was found at Ground Zero that indicates a controlled demolition of the towers...you've just cemented the two issues.

That's why I responded as I did. Because your lone researcher is drawing a conclusion based on an unscientific process. Therefore, the entire reasoning is at issue.

Knowing that there was sufficient gypsum in the concrete to produce the mocrospheres counters Steven's theory.

On the JFK video - I'll try to watch it later -  I'm pretty sure you're right on that one. But something that occurred half a century ago - isn't relevant today.

1. 90
lone77starposted 4 years ago in reply to this

@HowardBThiname, that's okay about the Pentagon. I'd love to explore all aspects of the event that day and sometimes get easily distracted. I'm sorely tempted, but I'll use some restraint.

On thermite, excellent points. It's quite possible that the iron microspheres in all of the samples was not representative. It's possible that samples in other parts of the city had far less percentage. Yes, that's quite possible. That's why I used the lower end of the percentage scale.

You say gypsum at lower temperatures creates iron microspheres. Let's look at that. Gypsum is calcium sulfate dihydrate. No iron there. You say that there were hundreds of thousands of tons of concrete in the lower levels of the towers. Actually, no. There were hundreds of thousands of tons of concrete spread throughout the entire tower.

Gypsum couldn't "create" iron microspheres as solid, undamaged concrete. I don't know this process you quoted, but it would seem to require HEAT + GYPSUM + IRON (STEEL) all in contact to create iron microspheres. At the crash site, we had fire, yes. We had exposed steel beams. We also had exposed concrete. How quickly did that process create iron microspheres? I supposed it would depend on whether the gypsum in the concrete was reactionable or not. Likely there were large chunks of concrete and not fine powdery dust, so any reaction would produce very little of the necessary byproducts. The steel (iron) was still all connected in the lattice work of structure supporting the building, and thus heat on the steel beam would be conducted away. Metals are great conductors of heat, bleeding heat away from the hottest point. If you've ever tried to solder pipes connected to the plumbing, you know it's not as easy as pipes laying on your workbench. The conditions for creating iron microspheres would've been weak at best. At a few grams per hour per square meter. Let's be generous and say there were 1000 square meters of exposed steel undergoing the right combination of chemical assault while maintaining the perfect range of temperatures at that area. It would take 10 hours to produce 1 metric ton. I suspect, though, that the chemical soup needed to produce iron microspheres may have existed sporadically (if at all), but never in one place for very long, and perhaps only rarely at the exposed steel while under those temperatures. In a laboratory, you'd be able to achieve the maximum production rate. But this was far less than ideal laboratory conditions.

Let's say the total time was 3 hours for 1000 square meters (1 hour for the South Tower, 2 hours for the North Tower). The maximum iron microspheres possible under the best of circumstances would be 0.3 metric ton. Personally, I'd be surprised if 1 gram was produced by that method. The fire was not stationary, the chemicals might not have been mixed properly in such a chaotic environment, the chemicals would not have remained at a constant mix, drafts caused by the fire plus wind would've interrupted the mix -- definitely not a good laboratory.

Another way to produce iron microspheres (with horns) is to burn steel wool. But what was the likelihood of a large supply of this substance in the fire zone?

Is it faulty science to ignore sources with vanishingly small chances of existing? Probably. A scientist shouldn't ignore any possibility, and should be open to changing their assumptions at any time. But a scientist usually will base their assumptions on experience and the evidence at hand. If a scientist assumes that tons of steel wool would not have been in the building, they may miss the fact that there had been an erroneous shipment of tons of steel wool the week before. Someone may have sent a PO for steel wool, but the warehouse erroneously added zeros. It's possible, but not likely.

I'm asking you to prove a negative? Huh!? You have me confused here.

I'm only asking one thing in this forum: Where did the iron microspheres come from? Nothing more; nothing less. Perhaps I should've been more strict on staying on topic. Prove a negative? You'll have to elaborate. I have no idea what you're talking about.

If the 1500 metric tons of iron microspheres have a

95% chance of coming from controlled demolition
01% chance of coming from your chemical cocktail (and I'm being generous)
01% chance of coming from burning steel wool
03% chance of unknown

then I'd take the controlled demolition as a strong working hypothesis. If tons of other evidence also supported controlled demolition and no other hypothesis could explain those other phenomena, then I'd say controlled demolition raises to 100%. That's a more scientific approach.

Take each fact in turn, and compare it to the working hypothesis. If it doesn't pass muster, then adjust or dump the hypothesis until you have a hypothesis that works for all known facts.

Like I said elsewhere here, the debunkers I've seen on YouTube videos have never yet debunked anything. At best, they give plausible alternatives for isolated facts. They validate their own alternative hypothesis, but do not disprove the other hypothesis. That's not debunking, pure and simple.

@HowardBThiname, you imply that I'm stacking the discussion toward conspiracy. Well, I admit to a certain bias going in, but I'm not as attached to that bias as you might think. Sure, I'll argue strongly on that point, but I'm also trying to provoke something substantial from those in the forum. I'm happy to provoke someone into thinking of something I didn't.

For instance, @wilderness asked, "Where are the tons of aluminum oxide now?" Outrageously wonderful! Why didn't I think of that question? This is great. Why don't we see more aluminum oxide in the 9/11 dust? A little investigation showed that thermite reaction produces aluminum oxide as white smoke! Could it be that several hundred tons of aluminum oxide went up in smoke? That seems too incredible, but then I remembered that a thunderhead cloud is tens of thousands of tons of fine water droplets floating in the air. That aluminum oxide may be spread far wider than the concrete dust because of a finer particle size and greater heat energy, making it stay aloft far longer.

But this is the type of thing I'm after. The big questions that force us to look at the facts a bit closer and more critically.

Hey, that's science. And I love it.

But my dear @HowardBThiname, there wasn't enough "gypsum" + cocktail + heat + iron at the same location to produce anywhere near the right quantity of iron microspheres. Like I said, I'd be surprised that even 1 kilogram was produced, unless there were gremlins at the crash site directing chemicals to stay in the proper mix while iron microspheres were being produced. See what I mean? This was no controlled laboratory and the speed of microsphere production would have been far too slow for our purposes.

And I'm sorry you missed the relevance of the JFK video. And I disagree strongly. The relevance is in the fact that the American government (parts within it) can be compromised to do the unthinkable -- like Operation Northwoods and like assassinating the Commander in Chief. America's government is not immune to perpetrating crimes against humanity or treason. That's the point. That's the relevance. But like I said, perhaps I should've stayed more on topic.

7. 90
lone77starposted 4 years ago

I just watched a video on a slightly different topic that could help here, for those who think the government could not do such things.

My point of this forum is not to explore "conspiracy theories," but since the existence of iron microspheres tends to lead in that direction, here's a video which gives a death-bed confession of one of the men involved in the plot to assassinate JFK -- E. Howard Hunt.

Combined with the details of Operation Northwoods and other nefarious government projects and lies, we have to be willing to investigate further. There is a lot we don't know.

We've gone to war 4 times because of 9/11. We found out that WMDs was a lie and one CIA agent lost her job because of the administration's desire to keep the WMD lie alive.

So, get this out of your system and please return to the question at hand: Where did the many metric tons of iron microspheres come from?

1. 89
HowardBThinameposted 4 years ago in reply to this

Operation Northwoods never got off the ground and there is no evidence that it was ever taken seriously by those in power.

1. 90
lone77starposted 4 years ago in reply to this

@HowardBThiname, you're absolutely right. Op Northwoods never got off the ground, but I disagree with you completely about it not being taken seriously by those in power. General Lemnitzer was the head of the Joint Chiefs of the Pentagon. That's the highest position in the military. His signature was on the document. I would say that he was "in power." The fact that JFK was not much longer in power, seems to indicate that he was not ultimately in power. Someone else was. Or some group.

Look up USS Liberty Dead in the Water on YouTube. The BBC documentary shows how Lyndon Johnson took the spirit of Northwoods seriously. He was going to have one of our own ships sunk to give him free reign to invade the Middle East -- something the military industrial complex and the oil companies ended up having to wait for for another 36 years. And that incident was only 4 years later.

1. 89
HowardBThinameposted 4 years ago in reply to this

You lost me with the Liberty story. Virtually no incident has been investigated as often or as in-depth as the Liberty attack and each time, it's deemed to have been an accident.

The conspiracies that surround the Liberty focus (in a large part) on people who have an agenda against Jews - Zionist Jews in particular. Yes, some of the navymen think it was intention - but careful study of the conditions, prior communications and other intelligence refute anything but an accident in that specific incident.

Sometimes, we get a little whiff of a story - and then our sense of intrigue draws us in - against our better sense.

1. 90
lone77starposted 4 years ago in reply to this

A repeated accident with multiple strikes? In broad daylight with the American flag waving clearly? All the while they're jamming the very specific American military frequency? Accident?

It depends on which source you hear or read. If you believe the Corporate Party media in America, you get their propaganda. Sometimes, you might get something resembling truth. Not all bad, but not all good. But everything that breaks in the mainstream media is either neutral or positive on the agenda of the ones in control. Yes, that "conspiracy theory" -- a working hypothesis based on years of facts. Is it true? Until a year ago, I had never thought much about it. But I've been weaned of the American news media (living 5 years outside the country), so I can see how slanted it is. I saw tons of that slant in the run up to the RNC. Blew my mind how biased the media was. Perhaps the Rockefellers invested billions in 9/11 and don't want the opportunities it afforded to slip away. But when you control the media, it makes it easier to keep the masses dazzled and entertained (and divided). Easier to paint those who investigate as kooks. Without strong ego, you can paint me "kook," too, if you want. That's okay. I like getting my ego bruised. I'd like to see it disappear entirely.

But when the Admiral in charge of the fleet in the Med says that President Johnson told him to recall the birds and that he wants that goddamn ship sunk, that sounds pretty intentional. Did the president really say that? It sounds like something Johnson (a Texan) would say. There's an Alex Jones interview on this on YouTube.

And the officers and captain believed it was not an accident, but intentional. Watch the video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=va0sHuZyJwU

@HowardBThiname, you don't know me. You don't know my lifelong quest for answers and truth over and past my own attachments and ego. I understand that you may suspect people of "hidden" or "not-so-hidden" agendas. Could I be one of those who bears a grudge against Bush and Zionists? In your mind, perhaps. I understand that. And the ones behind the scenes like to spread misinformation and divisiveness (painting people with labels so that they collect in groups of us versus them). I've had to correct my assessment of things numerous times. I'm always open for new information.

I try to find facts and avoid my own misinterpretations. I keep finding new things that force me to change my mind. And that's good. Truth matters. Ego doesn't.

Yes, stories and intrigue do pique our interests. I understand that. And, by the same token, so does Normalcy Bias keep some people from investigating further and from looking into other sources of information than the easy and "standard."

1. 89
HowardBThinameposted 4 years ago in reply to this

That's a good story, LS - but it's not a factual one. Like all stories conceived in great stress, early accusations were made that later did not hold up to scrutiny.

I don't begrudge the survivors of the Liberty their story, and from their perspective, I'm sure it seemed like an intentional attack. But 10 internal investigations by different administrations and teams all deemed it to be an error. So many elements - like the flag flying - were misrepresented.

I do see a picture forming here - and I'll withdraw because I don't want to unfairly paint anyone with a broad brush - if they, indeed, are just seeking the truth.

1. 90
lone77starposted 4 years ago in reply to this

@HowardBThiname, thanks. And if you come up with any other thoughts on where a substantial batch of iron microspheres could come from, I'd love to know.

8. 61
Moderndayslaveposted 4 years ago

What would cause this ? Please don't try to tell me kerosene and isn't molten aluminum silver?

1. 90
lone77starposted 4 years ago in reply to this

Well, molten aluminum can be silver when it's just above its much lower melting point, but it can also glow orange, yellow, white or even bright blue white, depending on the temperature. The idea that the metal pouring out of the corner is aluminum seems ludicrous considering the fact that it is long minutes after the hottest fire went out (the ball of flame upon impact). The white smoke seems to indicate thermite's aluminum oxide byproduct. The only other possible source of aluminum would've been the airplane. Small chance it could've been aluminum, but considering all of the factors, it seems highly unlikely. The bulk of the fires were cooling down, smoldering with dark smoke. That is to be expected in an office structure where most of the materials would be treated with fire retardant.

9. 89
HowardBThinameposted 4 years ago

For those who mentioned that this wouldn't be an issue had GWB not been president, consider that GWB was only in his seventh month of the presidency. Had this been a govt. act (and I reject that theory) it would have been in the planning stages long before GWB was in the White House.

Also - consider that B Clinton had bin Laden in his sights more than once following the '93 bombing of the WTC and a very different conspiracy emerges.

In essence - going after a govt.-complicit act targets the Clinton administration far more than it targets the GWB administration.

1. 90
lone77starposted 4 years ago in reply to this

@HowardBThiname, you make some good points, though this is not the topic of this forum thread. I'll just say briefly that what you mention is only one of many possibilities.

Consider this: that the United States has not had a real, sovereign president for decades. Perhaps Reagan was the closest thing we had to one, but he had his warning 69 days into his presidency. He wasn't the one in power.

Personally, I don't think Bush had anything to do with the set-up. Perhaps his father did. Clinton may have gone along for the ride, as presidents do in recent history.

If the late Aaron Russo was telling us the truth, then the Rockefellers knew of 9/11 in October, 2000 -- eleven months before the event. Nick Rockefeller told Mr. Russo of a "big event" coming up soon which would allow "US" to take over Iraq and Afghanistan, and that we would be chasing terrorists in caves and fighting a never-ending War on Terror. The end game being to have everyone microchipped for the ultimate form of slavery. That's the closest thing we may have to words from the "horse's mouth." I don't know if Russo was simply making it up, but he had a photo of him being buddies with that member of the Rockefeller family. Do the super rich buy presidents and congressmen? Are there lobbyists in Washington?

I'm from Texas. And some of my fellow Texans were proud that GW was our new president. I wasn't. I thought he was a joke even before he took office. I've since learned that voting machines in Florida were tampered with. One in particular had a minus 64,000 votes. How do you get a minus number?

But recently, I came up with my own "theory." Bush was the poster boy of fallibility. He was "walking deniability." One look at Bush and all his crazy verbal slip-ups and no one would believe the government could pull off such a heinous crime.

This isn't proof of wrongdoing, but it sure is funny. Think, "kid with his hand caught in the cookie jar."

10. 85

11. 90
lone77starposted 4 years ago

Let's say that the late Aaron Russo was telling the truth. The Rockefellers and their banker friends effectively run the government. The Corporate Party wins all the elections.

Here's Aaron Russo talking about Nick Rockefeller revealing the "Big Event" that would give US Iraq and Afghanistan -- 11 months before 9/11.

12. 61
Moderndayslaveposted 4 years ago

It's going to be tough arguing with this crowd. This is a must see
http://video.pbs.org/video/2270078138

1. 90
lone77starposted 4 years ago in reply to this

Yes, already saw it. Good presentation.

I particularly like the statistics mentioned at the start:

=== Quote: ====
Why revisit 9/11?

Our world changed that day...
2744 lives lost in New York...and counting
1 million lives lost in Afghanistan and Iraq...and counting
6,000 US troops lost in the War on Terror... and counting
\$4.5 Trillion - War on Terror cost to US taxpayers... and counting
Precious civil liberties removed by the
* Patriot Act
* Military Commissions Act
* Department of Homeland Security
* National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA 2012)

Today, Americans ca be...
subject to search and seizure without a warrant...
detained or imprisoned indefinitely...
...without charge
...without evidence
...without a lawyer
...without a trial
...or even tortured
...or assassinated
...merely by being accused of being associated with terrorism.

Ignoring the World Trade Center evidence is no longer an option.

=== END: Quote ====

The world is being ruined by the lies of 9/11. It's time we put a stop to that and got to the bottom of it.

Don't be fooled like the Germans 80 years ago.

13. 90
Reality Bytesposted 4 years ago

September 11, 2001...............Another terrorist attack on George Washington bridge, two suspects in custody.  Truck bombs found by authorities, what the heck happened to the suspects?  Why are we not discussing this attempt at death and destruction?  Who were the suspects and where are they now?

911 cover up

1. 89
Quilligrapherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

Hey there RB.  Good to see you again.

Like you, I am often struck by questions like this.  The difference between us, I guess, is I look all over for the answers and you just circulate the questions.

In a CNN interview aired on 9/11, Bernard Kerik, NYC Police Commissioner, stated, “I just got a confirmation from the Chief of Detectives, he's reach out to the FBI. They have confirmed that someone has been stopped in New Jersey, three men in a van. However, there was no explosives in the van.”

The "truckload of explosives" story was one of many false 9/11 accounts spread in the media and later disproved and retracted. The problem, however, is some people WANT TO believe these stories so they substitute questions for the lack of facts. Are you one of those, RB? I hope not.

Wishing you the best.

{1} http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/ … se.05.html

1. 90
Reality Bytesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

I read that there were traces of explosives in the van, how about the map, the videotaping of the towers beginning before the attacks.  The access to the towers days before the attacks, the fake companies, the fake ID's.  that video raises far more questions than a van with explosives. It is worth watching before beginning any research.  There are some good questions raised.   I have never written anything concerning this event simply for the fact that I cannot form a complete opinion.  New questions always arise.  I came across the video while conducting inquiries earlier today.

I have no answers, but the video is relative to the topic of the thread.

Good to see you.

1. 89
Quilligrapherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

Hey there, RB. Really cool to see you again too.

I am amazed someone would post, “September 11, 2001...Another terrorist attack on the George Washington bridge,” and then in the next post glaze over the fact the statement is not true!

First, one informs his fellow hubbers, “Truck bombs found by authorities, what the heck happened to the suspects? Why are we not discussing this attempt at death and destruction? Who were the suspects and where are they now?” The post concludes with “911 cover up” and is subsequently followed by, “I have no answers” and, “I cannot form a complete opinion.”  Duh? Saying “911 cover up” sure sounds like a complete opinion.

I believe 9/11 conspiracy theories have survived for over 11 years because of the dumb-as-dirt reality that so many people repeat unproven notions rather than examine their accuracy. Every time they express their theories in the form of questions in stead of facts, they prove they have no facts to support their beliefs.

Stay well, RB.

14. 61
Moderndayslaveposted 4 years ago
1. 89
Quilligrapherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

Hi MDS.

It makes me want to ask my own questions.  Was Bernie Kerik convicted of lying about a truck allegedly filled with explosives? No! Then why would you mention it? Why bring it up in the form of a question when you already know the answer?

When will proponents of a 9/11 conspiracy stop relying on questions and start producing facts? A logical mind would use questions to form a hypothesis, i.e. a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences. A hypothesis should then lead to research. Research should finally lead to a conclusion. If the conclusion is ironclad there is no problem. If it is not, however, then in the end, all you have is the original unproven tentative assumption. Time to do more research or move on to a new hypothesis.

The fact that Mr. Kerik is now in custody is another dead, rancid, red herring adding nothing to the discussion but its smell.

15. 60
TLMinutposted 4 years ago

And why were the security cameras covered during the week before the collapse? (Asked by someone who was working there) Not the whole week but during it.

1. 89
Quilligrapherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

Greetings, TML.  Nice to hear from you.

2. 90
lone77starposted 4 years ago in reply to this

Hi @TLMinut. I'm sure a good conspiracy theorist would wonder if the covered security cameras helped in the secret delivery of something that helped to bring down the building. But what does that have to do with iron microspheres?

So far, we have 3 possible sources of such iron microspheres. One proved to be too slow in producing iron debris, but no guarantee that it would be spherical. Another (steel wool) doesn't seem likely because it would require a huge quantity of steel wool in the fire zones, but would also result in spheres with horns -- something not found in the 9/11 dust.

The only remaining source (so far) is controlled demolition.

Any ideas on an alternative source of a few tons (possibly as much as 1500 metric tons) of iron microspheres?

16. 60
TLMinutposted 4 years ago

The only reason I wrote anything is that it's always such an emotional day around here still. Three family members - and one just had a heart attack this past 9/11. Brings it all back up. One (family member) is convinced that it was either orchestrated or at least condoned by our government, another insists that we should go bomb the h*ll out of all terrorist countries and that our government would never be involved in any way, the third refuses to discuss anything (that's the one that we thought was at the Pentagon but instead was at an underground bunker a mile away).

Plus I get annoyed that "conspiracy theorists" are denigrated as crazy, mentally unbalanced people when even a quick look through history shows that conspiracies abound. I don't know about the iron but one who was there certainly does.

1. 90
lone77starposted 4 years ago in reply to this

Thanks, @TLMinut. We all lost a lot that day. I feel for all of the family members of those who died or were injured. Trauma isn't easy to bring up, I know. Some people don't handle it well.

What you said about the security cameras is interesting. Reminds me of the scheduled power down the prior weekend where all security cameras would've been off. And there were a number of other anomalies. Why don't you start another forum thread on the cameras?

I know what you mean about the demonizing of "conspiracy theorists." It's funny that Bush can get away with being a conspiracy theorist, but everyone else can't compete with his monopoly on theories. I believed Bush's "conspiracy theory" for 10 years, until I saw scientific evidence that blew his out of the water, plus lots of circumstantial evidence that made our government, military and super rich to be extremely suspicious -- perhaps even more suspicious than Obama bin Laden.

Here's a lighthearted look at the ludicrousness of Bush's theory:

17. 58
ITcoachposted 4 years ago

Hi,
your information on 9/11 iron micro spheres is quite new for me. Step by step elaboration of the topic increases interest in the topic any more. Why the Govt. is not interested in such information. The micro spheres may cause loss to human health too.

Thanks for sharing your theory publically

1. 90
lone77starposted 4 years ago in reply to this

Thanks @ITcoach, but it's not a theory that there were iron microspheres in the 9/11 dust. That part is fact.

We don't know exactly how much of the iron microspheres were in all of the dust, but based upon percentages (if taken by weight), there were as much as 1500 metric tons of the stuff, possibly more.

As far as loss of life, I don't think the iron would've been much of a factor, but the burning plastics and the asbestos in the air were definitely a hazard. And I think the EPA was criminal in declaring the air safe to breathe. The clean up crew and responders should've demanded breathing equipment, despite the government assurances, but someone should sue the EPA for the false assurances. Hopefully that would pay for the medical bills of those who suffer.

The government needs to be held accountable. And those who tell falsehoods that result in deaths should be arrested and placed in jail. Without accountability, the government can do anything with impunity.

18. 90
lone77starposted 4 years ago

I just saw a video clip that makes all of these discussions meaningless if it ever becomes true. It's a pre-production trailer of a movie called "Gray State." The sad thing is, we're halfway there already. This is what 9/11 made possible. That event allows for massive eugenics (population control), dismantling America and the establishment of a New World Order run by the bankers (not the tellers; the CEOs and chief stockholders).

http://www.graystatemovie.com/

working