September 11 – The New Pearl Harbor

[damnedifIknow]

Last edited Sat Mar 8, 2014, 05:32 PM - Edit history (2)

“September 11 – The New Pearl Harbor” is a 5 hour documentary that summarizes 12 years of public debate on 9/11. While aimed primarily at a general, uninformed audience, the film also contains some new findings that may be of interest to advanced researchers. This is a 2013 work of Massimo Mazzucco, an Italian filmmaker and researcher."

&hd=1

&hd=1

&hd=1

Time for a new investigation into 9/11

[Logical]

1. FFS will this stuff ever end? nt

[damnedifIknow]

2. With answers it will end

Without answers there will always be questions.

[Logical]

3. The answer is there! You just ignore it! nt

[damnedifIknow]

4. Not at all

I listen to both sides but the official explanation just doesn't sit well.

[Logical]

5. The real story is boring to you, conspiracy is alway more fun! nt

[damnedifIknow]

6. Would you be open to a new investigation?

I think it could only help in answering some of the lingering questions. I for one would rather know without a shadow of a doubt then to be left wondering.

[zappaman]

7. yes, but who would you trust to do the investigating?

and what was wrong with the investigation that was done?
do you reject the findings of the NIST?

[damnedifIknow]

8. Many do reject the NIST version

Over 2100 architects and engineers for starters.

http://www.ae911truth.org/

Now who would do the investigation is another matter that I'm not sure of.

[Logical]

9. Sure, no downside to that I agree. Unless really costly. nt

[AZCat]

10. What lingering questions would those be?

Unfortunately some questions just don't have answers, and others have answers that some people don't like (and therefore reject). It's not worth spending time further pursuing either set. Do you have questions that don't fall in either of those categories?

[wildbilln864]

11. why was there molten steel & iron? n/t

[William Seger]

14. You know the answer to that

... is, "WHAT molten steel & iron?" We don't need explanations for things that didn't happen.

[wildbilln864]

15. so again you'll deny what...

many witnesses who were there saw. What is your explanation for the iron spheres?

[William Seger]

16. What I deny is their ability to identify "molten steel" by sight

... especially when much more likely candidates were abundant. When challenged to produce some credible evidence of this "molten steel," the best that "truthers" seem to be able to do is show a photo of some glowing steel or a photo of steel that was eroded by eutectic intergranular melting which happened well below the ordinary melting point of steel. I've asked this before and never got an answer: We know there were thousands of tons of aluminum in the rubble, and we know that aluminum can melt in an office fire like that, so why is it that nobody reported seeing any molten aluminum? Couldn't be because they misidentified it, huh.

> What is your explanation for the iron spheres?

In the first place, you don't know when the iron spheres were produced -- before, after, or during the collapse -- so simply assuming they were produced during the collapse will not lead to any valid logic.

Secondly, since there are lots of sources of iron microspheres before and after the collapse (e.g. from brake pads and clutches, from fly ash in the concrete, or from all the steel that was cut with torches during the cleanup), experts expected to find them in the WTC dust -- no supernanothermite required. In fact, the spectra that Jones has published are not all the same, implying that they come from many different sources. So the question is, if we should expect iron microspheres in the dust from common sources, show me which ones were produced by thermite and how you separated them out from the common ones.

And third, since iron microspheres are abundantly produced in coal-fired boilers and trash incinerators burning paper, cardboard and wood -- i.e. hydrocarbon fires that don't themselves reach the temperature of melting steel -- it's absurd to assert that thermite is required to produce them. One reason that happens is because very small or thin pieces of steel can be ignited by a hydrocarbon fire, and the burning itself produces enough heat to melt the unburned steel. The simple proof of that is to light a piece of steel wool with a Bic lighter and then check for microspheres. So, at least some of the microspheres found in the dust could have been produced in the weeks-long fire -- no thermite required.

In short, the whole microspheres = thermite = controlled demolition argument is just invalid logic slapped on top of false premises.

[wildbilln864]

17. What about Janet MacKinlay?

I have learned that she collected dust samples in her appartment before the clean up began.

[wildbilln864]

18. fail!

The debris pile at Ground Zero was always tremendously hot. Thermal measurements taken by helicopter each day showed underground temperatures ranging from 400ºF to more than 2,800ºF. The surface was so hot that standing too long in one spot softened (and even melted) the soles of our safety shoes.

Professional Safety The American Society of Safety Engineers 2002-05-01 - SH&E at Ground Zero Disaster Response

also this...
1. Researchers have found iron spheres in the WTC dust. Note emphasis on iron.

2. Spheres in fly ash that have some form of iron in them are extremely rare, and fly ash "iron" spheres are actually iron-oxide spheres. Note emphasis on oxide. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016236106001906

Therefore, fly ash does not explain the iron spheres found in the WTC dust. Carbon-fueled furnaces leave oxides, in this case iron-oxide. Fire is a form of oxidation = There must have been some other source for the iron spheres.

3. The red-gray chips ignite and leave iron spheres. Again, there is elemental iron in those spheres.

Thermite leaves elemental iron. Researchers have found red-gray chips in the dust that ignite and form iron spheres, this is in fact why those people claim the chips are a form of thermite! So-far, this is the only explanation for the observed iron spheres in the dust.

[William Seger]

19. Flail!

> The debris pile at Ground Zero was always tremendously hot. Thermal measurements taken by helicopter each day showed underground temperatures ranging from 400ºF to more than 2,800ºF.

Well, I see a lot of "truther" sites quoting that, but it doesn't agree with what the USGS actually reported:

AVIRIS images obtained from an airplane flying over the WTC complex were processed to indicate thermal hot spots, shown as bright red, orange, and yellow spots on the images to the left. The dark areas are shadows of buildings and other structures. The numbers show the original locations of Towers 1 and 2 in the WTC complex. The September 16, 2001 image (left) reveals a number of thermal hot spots in the region where the WTC buildings collapsed. Analysis of these data indicated temperatures greater than 800°F (orange pixels), with some areas reaching over 1300°F (yellow pixels).

They took images on the 18th and 23rd that showed the hotspots cooling, with only one hotspot over 1300°F on the 18th and only two over 600°F on the 23rd.

http://911encyclopedia.com/wiki/index.php/World_Trade_Center_Hot_Spots
(The link is a "truther" site but it has a nice table of the hotspots found on the three days.)

> also this...
> 1. Researchers have found iron spheres in the WTC dust. Note emphasis on iron.

> 2. Spheres in fly ash that have some form of iron in them are extremely rare, and fly ash "iron" spheres are actually iron-oxide spheres. Note emphasis on oxide. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016236106001906

> Therefore, fly ash does not explain the iron spheres found in the WTC dust. Carbon-fueled furnaces leave oxides, in this case iron-oxide. Fire is a form of oxidation = There must have been some other source for the iron spheres.

Emphasizing "iron" doesn't change the fact that Harrit's microsphere were "iron-rich" but they did contain oxygen -- look at his spectra and read the text. How do they compare to fly ash microspheres or similar sources? Sorry, you won't find that in Harrit's paper because they didn't do that test.

You seem to be missing the point, though, which is that there are MANY possible sources of the microspheres besides fly ash, and even if you want to exclude any that were produced in hydrocarbon fires, that doesn't exclude the ones from the welding when the building was erected, or as I mentioned from brake pads and clutches, or from many other possibilities. The point is that Harrit & Co. are claiming that the presence microspheres is a signature of thermitic burning, when in fact they are a very common form of a very common element. To make such a claim, at the very least they would need to show something unique about thermite microspheres, and they have not even attempted to do so.

Sorry, but "iron-rich" doesn't begin to cut it when what you really want to "conclude" is that the presence of microspheres proves a deliberate controlled demolition. Thanks to independent analysis that I'm sure you're aware of, we now know that Harrit's chips are dead ringers for the rustproofing paint applied to the WTC floor joists. That should make a reasonable person suspicious of Harrit's paper when it fails to actually prove that the chips actually underwent a thermitic reaction or that they even contained the elemental aluminum necessary for a thermitic reaction, because they simply did not do the tests that would have actually proved either of those things. (Nor have they corrected that deficiency in the years since the paper, even though they have now been told exactly what tests need to be done.) Instead, they try to infer it from indirect evidence that might or might not have other explanations -- no way to tell from such poorly conducted research.

> 3. The red-gray chips ignite and leave iron spheres. Again, there is elemental iron in those spheres.

> Thermite leaves elemental iron. Researchers have found red-gray chips in the dust that ignite and form iron spheres, this is in fact why those people claim the chips are a form of thermite! So-far, this is the only explanation for the observed iron spheres in the dust.

Yeah, well, chocolate and shit both leave brown stains, but that doesn't mean that chocolate is shit; a little more testing would be required. Even if we accept the claim that iron microspheres were produced (even though another "truther" was unable to reproduce them), one important question Harrit's paper leaves unanswered (because he apparently didn't even attempt to find out what kind of paint was used) is, does the rustproofing paint used on the WTC joists and commonly used elsewhere for decades also produce iron microspheres when it burns? And if so, is it really from a thermitic reaction? And even if it is, SO WHAT? Would that really support the conclusion of the paper? Unintended thermitic reactions occur in many situations where iron oxide and aluminum get together, but one of the things we know from Harrit's paper is that the chips have less energy density than paper. How much damage would you expect to inflict on WTC columns if you wallpapered them and then set the wallpaper on fire?

But hey, wildbill, thanks for taking the time to type an actual response for a change.

[wildbilln864]

22. So stop flailing!

Janet MacKinlay! In her home! How did the microspheres get in her home unless they came in in the dust cloud?

[William Seger]

23. Microspheres were found in all the dust

If the samples were collected when she says, that would rule out microspheres created by the cleanup cutting, but that doesn't rule out that they were all over the building before the collapse or that they were created by the office fire immediately before the collapse (e.g. from tons of paper burning). The point remains that Harrit & Co claim without proof they are "signatures" of a thermitic reaction, which is simply not true; they are very common from non-thermitic sources and Harrit doesn't tell us how to tell the difference. Doesn't it bother you that people who call themselves "truthers" are lying to you? It bothers me.

[nationalize the fed]

12. Here are a few

QUESTION: Given that, according to the Pentagon Building Performance Report, (PDF)"the aircraft frame most certainly was destroyed before it had traveled a distance that approximately equaled the length of the aircraft (p. 40-p. 26 in PDF)", and that "it is highly unlikely that any significant portion of the fuselage could have retained structural integrity at this point in its travel (p. 40)", can you explain what caused the most perfectly round exit hole in the outer wall of the C-Ring?



QUESTION: The Secret Service knew about the incoming plane for the last 30 minutes, was following on radar, had the means to shoot it down, and should have done so in order to protect the Capital, but they didn't. Why?

QUESTION: In regards to the exchange between Cheney and the "young man", can you suggest anything different from an order not to shoot down the plane as it was approaching Washington's protected airspace?

Here's a handy guide to the film, with many more questions

September 11 - The New Pearl Harbor - Indexed with questions

http://www.reddit.com/r/911truth/comments/20kbeo/september_11_the_new_pearl_harbor_indexed_with/

[William Seger]

13. Gee, it's like 2006 all over again

> QUESTION: Given that, according to the Pentagon Building Performance Report, (PDF)"the aircraft frame most certainly was destroyed before it had traveled a distance that approximately equaled the length of the aircraft (p. 40-p. 26 in PDF)", and that "it is highly unlikely that any significant portion of the fuselage could have retained structural integrity at this point in its travel (p. 40)", can you explain what caused the most perfectly round exit hole in the outer wall of the C-Ring?

Yes, I can explain that: The debris from the destroyed airframe didn't just vanish or vaporize; the debris still had mass and velocity, i.e. kinetic energy. The generally accepted answer to your question, provided by the ASCE study, is that the hole was caused mainly by the large and heavy landing gear strut shown in this photo, but there was a lot of other debris that might have caused or contributed to it:



> QUESTION: The Secret Service knew about the incoming plane for the last 30 minutes, was following on radar, had the means to shoot it down, and should have done so in order to protect the Capital, but they didn't. Why?

You seem to be confusing the following of UA193 with AA77 (and the Secret Service for the military and FAA), but the real answer to your question of why they didn't shoot down either plane is because your assertion that they had the means to shoot it down is false. We were not prepared for hijacked commercial airliners being used as missiles. Why that was so is a legitimate question, but your loaded question is based on invalid premises. (It's also "interesting" that your first question implies that you don't believe it was AA77 that hit the Pentagon, but in your second question you claim that it was tracked.)

> QUESTION: In regards to the exchange between Cheney and the "young man", can you suggest anything different from an order not to shoot down the plane as it was approaching Washington's protected airspace?

Yes, I can: Cheney's order was to shoot it down, which is what Norman Mineta himself believed when he described Cheney's response to the "young man" and what others who were actually there reported. The speculation that Cheney had instead issued a stand-down order is purely a figment of "truther" imagination, completely unsupported by either evidence or plausible reasoning.

You seem to getting your "information" directly or indirectly from David Ray Griffin's books. You can't do that and then claim to be honestly looking for answers to your questions. At this stage, I don't think anyone expects "truthers" to accept reasonable answers, but pretending that the answers don't exist just makes you look like you're very poorly informed.

[nationalize the fed]

20. Gee, it's 2014 and people keep asking questions

The debris from the destroyed airframe didn't just vanish or vaporize; the debris still had mass and velocity, i.e. kinetic energy. The generally accepted answer to your question, provided by the ASCE study, is that the hole was caused mainly by the large and heavy landing gear strut shown in this photo, but there was a lot of other debris that might have caused or contributed to it:

So where are the photos of the landing gear strut that supposedly punched the hole?
Even one would help.

Why didn't the other landing gear struts punch other holes?

the first known photo of the exit hole. The photo was taken before hose lines were even laid...

The landing gear strut is one of a few theories. But there's no proof for any of these kooky made up "thought" experiments.

Pentagon Renovation Program spokesman Lee Evey explains on September 15, “the nose of the plane just barely broke through the inside of the C Ring, so it was extending into A-E Drive a little bit.” (US Department of Defense, 9/15/2001)

Eleven days later, another military source claims that an engine of the plane was responsible for creating the hole. (MDW News Service, 9/26/2001)

Another theory put forth in a 2004 National Geographic program is that reverberating shockwaves from the plane’s impact were responsible for the hole. (National Geographic Channel, 2004)

http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=lee_evey_1

the real answer to your question of why they didn't shoot down either plane is because your assertion that they had the means to shoot it down is false.

Are you saying that the Pentagon did not have the capability to shoot down aircraft that posed a threat? The centre of the "Worlds Only Superpower"? After 5 decades of a "cold war" where students were told to hide under desks in case of a nuclear attack?

Because truly that is an astounding, hilarious claim. You've heard of AA batteries?



http://cryptome.org/eyeball/wny-mb/wny-mb.htm

Yes, I can: Cheney's order was to shoot it down,

Anyone that believes anything uttered from Dick Cheney's mouth should be embarrassed and ashamed

Cheney Admits that He Lied about 9/11
Posted on March 8, 2013 by WashingtonsBlog
What Else Did He Lie About?

When they testified together before the 9/11 Commission, W. and Mr. Cheney kept up a pretense that in a previous call, the president had authorized the vice president to give a shoot-down order if needed. But the commission found “no documentary evidence for this call.”

In other words, Cheney pretended that Bush had authorized a shoot-down order, but Cheney now admits that he never did. In fact, Cheney acted as if he was the president on 9/11. *

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/03/cheney-admits-that-he-lied-about-911.html

At this stage, I don't think anyone expects "truthers" to accept reasonable answers, but pretending that the answers don't exist just makes you look like you're very poorly informed.

That's funny

We will keep asking questions and doing things like phoning C-SPAN and there isn't anything at all anyone can do to stop us.

[William Seger]

21. Gee, the people in Groundhog Day kept asking the same questions, too

> So where are the photos of the landing gear strut that supposedly punched the hole?

I posted a photo with the strut outlined.

> Even one would help.

Apparently not.

> Why didn't the other landing gear struts punch other holes?

Uh, maybe because they got stopped inside the building, as shown in this photo? Are you saying that it's a mystery to you how a strut could punch that hole, but if it did, then it's a mystery to you why this other one didn't? You really love mysteries, dontcha.



> The landing gear strut is one of a few theories. But there's no proof for any of these kooky made up "thought" experiments.

The wider picture I posted seems to show a large piece of engine, so that is another possibility, but if you think that mass times velocity is "a kooky made up 'thought' experiment" then you're not likely to solve any mysteries involving physics. Are you suggesting that if nobody can prove which piece of heavy debris punched that hole, then it's rational to conclude that no plane hit the Pentagon? I'd be more careful about calling other theories "kooky."

> Are you saying that the Pentagon did not have the capability to shoot down aircraft that posed a threat? The centre of the "Worlds Only Superpower"? After 5 decades of a "cold war" where students were told to hide under desks in case of a nuclear attack?

Yup, that's exactly what I'm saying: There is no evidence or credible testimony from anyone who would know that there were anti-aircraft missiles or guns at the Pentagon. In fact, there are explicit denials, but my own opinion is based on the Google Earth historical photos taken before 9/11 which don't show any such thing. As for your picture, the link it comes from says, "Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld ordered the launchers placed around Washignton (sic) as a 'prudent precaution' on the first anniversary of the terrorist attack on the Pentagon." That was an odd thing to do if they were already there, but why are you trying to deceive us by posting a picture of one of those launchers?

> Anyone that believes anything uttered from Dick Cheney's mouth should be embarrassed and ashamed

I didn't ask you to believe Cheney, nor would I. If you'll look back, what I actually said was about "what Norman Mineta himself believed when he described Cheney's response to the 'young man' and what others who were actually there reported." It's pretty clear (and funny) what criteria "truthers" use to decide what to believe and what to reject about Mineta's testimony.

> We will keep asking questions and doing things like phoning C-SPAN and there isn't anything at all anyone can do to stop us.

LOL, no doubt about that, since facts and logic don't seem to have any effect, but the question is, if you keep asking questions like those here and then ignoring the answers, why should anyone take you seriously?

[Politicalboi]

24. Where are the seats?

You know there should be over 200 from each plane. Or did everyone stand? Seats bounce, they break off in sections, and when they burn, they leave a metal frame. So ALL the seats burned beyond recognition, but DNA was collected? You accept ONE video of the Pentagon, while some of us want more evidence. It is after all our biggest DEFENSE building that sat there and did nothing. Why is it wrong to ask questions that haven't been answered. Our tax money goes for defense, why do we the people only see ONE blurry tape by our defense department? Why can't we see the tapes that were confiscated from businesses by federal thugs? Let me know when you find ONE picture of ONE seat in all 9/11 debris. There should be over 800 in all. You have NO answers. You buy the official story of bullshit.

[AZCat]

25. There really isn't any point in this.

We've been through this dance before, and know what to expect. Someone like you produces a criteria and insists it's the one thing that would convince them, yet when it's provided the evidence somehow just isn't quite enough. Perhaps you should be a little more honest and admit that no photos or video or technical analysis will change your mind about September 11th? You don't want just want more evidence - you want evidence that supports the conclusions you've already reached. Anything else will be dismissed one way or another.

[wildbilln864]

26. "We've been through this dance before, and know what to expect."

Then you know you're not fooling anyone don't you.

[AZCat]

27. Fooling anyone about what, bill?

I'm not sure I follow you. Please clarify.