Challenge to 9/11 truth movement from new website i found

[AGENDA21]

UK site run by Mike Williams

http://www.911myths.com/index.html

Sorry if this has been posted here before..

[theSaiGirl]

1. Who is Frank Greening ?

I wonder which spook agency Greening is worknig for ?

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=3108&st=4065

[theSaiGirl]

2. More on nuclear "expert" Frank Greening

http://forum.physorg.com/Basic-Physics_3108-4000.html

[Kevin Fenton]

5. Not much money

If he is working for an organisation, then it hasn't got much money.
For example, he gives the weight of one tower as 510,000,000 kg (about 560,000 short tons, on p. 23 of the report you can find here: http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf) and divides it by 110 floors to get a weight per floor of 4,636,363 kg (5,110 short tons). Actually, one tower only weighed 250,000 tons (NIST report, p. 32).

He gets plenty of the other numbers wrong as well, in addition to which he doesn't even know which way round the south tower's core is.

[greyl]

10. He's a "nuclear whistleblower".

"I have a Ph. D. in chemistry , but my official title for over 20 years was Senior Research Scientist at what used to be called Ontario Hydro and is now Ontario Power Generation. I was in charge of radioanalytical chemistry research and discovered all sorts of problems with OPG's CANDU reactors... . I have published scientific articles in the Journal of Molecular Spectroscopy, Canadian Journal of Physics, Chemical Physics Letters, Journal of Nuclear Materials, etc. I even worked with the great Nobel prize winning spectroscopist, Gerhard Herzberg, for 2 years back in the 1970s."
http://www.911myths.com/html/dr_frank_greening_bio.html"

You should know that your lack of addressing any of Greening's arguments and theories is a glaring sign of not being able to argue with him. Ad hominem.

[Kevin Fenton]

27. His numbers are mostly wrong

His main report is here: http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf

For example:
The weight of the towers (p. 23). He says it's 510,000,000 kg each (about 560,000 tons). Actually it's 250,000 tons each (NIST report). He counted all the concrete in the basement under the plaza as if it were actually in the towers.
"The average distance from the perimeter wall to the core wall is 17 meters." (p. 12) Actually, it's 14.25m. 17m is the distance from the perimeter wall to the core on one of the "long" sides.
"About 20% of the support columns have been destroyed and another 10% may have been buckled to some degree." (p. 20). This is ridiculous and he presents no working for it. There were 283 columns in each tower, so 20 percent of that is 57. 35 perimeter columns were severed by the impact in WTC 1 (33 in WTC 2 - by the way he gets these numbers wrong, too), the other 201 are visibly intact. Therefore, he is saying 22 core columns were severed by the plane (24 in WTC 2). This is way out of line with other estimates, for example NIST's base case scenario says that the aircraft impact severed 3 core columns (5 in WTC 2). Even if we assume that he misstated and meant that "support columns carrying 20% of the building's gravity load" were severed, then he's still arguing 11 core columns were destroyed by the impact without presenting any evidence for it.

And he discusses the way gravity loads were distributed after the impact without mentioning the hat truss (go on, search the document - the words "hat truss" do not appear once). Given that the hat truss was one of the 4 major systems in the building and eficiently redistributed the loads from the missing columns, this absolutely takes the breath away.

The bit about the collapse times is better, though.

[theSaiGirl]

3. Bomb-sniffing dogs REMOVED just days before 9/11

Source: Newsday (09/12/01)
http://www.nynewsday.com/news/local/manhat...0,6794009.story
The World Trade Center was destroyed just days after a heightened security alert was lifted at the landmark 110-story towers, security personnel said yesterday.
Daria Coard, 37, a guard at Tower One, said the security detail had been working 12-hour shifts for the past two weeks because of numerous phone threats. But on Thursday, bomb-sniffing dogs were abruptly removed.
"Today was the first day there was not the extra security," Coard said. "We were protecting below. We had the ground covered. We didn't figure they would do it with planes. There is no way anyone could have stopped that."
Security guard Hermina Jones said officials had recently taken steps to secure the towers against aerial attacks by installing bulletproof windows and fireproof doors in the 22nd-floor computer command center.


Just more things which make you go ... hmmmm ?
Of course, a blind (or sleeping) person probably wouldn't see anything suspicious in this at all.

[DemInDistress]

8. I knew about those bomb sniffing dogs being removed a yr. ago

Paul Thompson Timeline to Terror..
www.cooperativeresearch.org

Still, I agree no MSM coverage about it,,no followups, no questioning of brother Marvin Bush..yes,

h'mmm



edit to add new smiley

[greyl]

11. "Today was the first day there was not the EXTRA security,"

Iow, the security wasn't below normal levels. There were still bombsniffing dogs in the buildings.

Police K9 Sirius... ...was an Explosive Detection Dog with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey Police Department. Sirius, along with his partner, Police Officer David Lim, were assigned to the World Trade Center in New York, where their primary duty was to check vehicles entering the Complex, clear unattended bags and sweep areas for VIP safety...
On the morning of September 11, 2001, Sirius and Officer Lim were at their Station located in the basement of Tower Two...
http://www.novareinna.com/bridge/sirius.html

Security had been raised to EXTRA levels for a few weeks because of various threats, and on this day, they were back to normal. That may be evidence of incompetence. And the statement: "We didn't figure they would do it with planes. There is no way anyone could have stopped that." is totally ignorant. Especially in light of this: http://www.newwartimes.com/warnings.html

[Kevin Fenton]

4. About three months ago

I first saw it mentioned here about three months ago. It is not so bad and it doesn't have obvious errors like snopes, but I've noticed a couple of problems with it:
(1) From a debunkers' point of view: they don't actually debunk the whole idea there was a conspiracy or cover up - for example, they're explicit that they are not sure whether United 93 was shot down or not;
(2) Their debunking often starts with a statement that a claim made by CTers doesn't make sense, for example, regarding the hijackers that are claimed to be alive, "This has never struck us as an idea that made much sense, especially if you believe the US Government were behind 9/11. If you were constructing a fake terrorist attack because you wanted to attack Afghanistan, or Iraq, then wouldn’t you involve a few Afghans or Iraqis? But no, we’re supposed to believe that they made them inconvenient Saudis, instead."
IMHO this is the wrong way to go about it. Either they are alive or not (AFAIK most of the ones claimed to be alive aren't). What's wrong with letting the chips fall where they may?
Quote taken from: http://www.911myths.com/html/still_alive.html
(3) Their research is not bad, but far from perfect. For example, if you read their take on whether Saeed al-Ghamdi is alive, which you can find here:
http://www.911myths.com/html/said_al-ghamdi_alive.html
then you would never guess that the Saeed Al-Ghamdi who (wrongly as it happens) claimed he was on the list of hijackers actually lived in the US in the same town (Delray Beach) as the Saeed al-Ghamdi who allegedly hijacked United 93, although this is why he made the mistake in the first place. If I know this, then surely somebody who runs a website about it should also know this.

[DemInDistress]

7. Kevin..are you a 911 hunter or a 911 debunker? be honest..

I know we hunters don't have all the answers YET that would leave to criminal prosecutions within the whitehouse but we're diligently working toward that goal..just like to know where you stand.
Also, some people here are extremely smart while others are moderately smart (ME) but my passion for finding the truth and answering those pesky annoying questions that are still UNANSWERED.
I have you pegged as a 911 debunker, am I wrong?
thanks, please reply

[greyl]

13. Dammit, we're ALL debunkers.

Why is that not clear to you?
Why would you assume that all debunkers need to be in agreement with each other right out of the womb?

You're just spouting more of that separatist "you're with us or you're against us" bs.


"I know we hunters don't have all the answers YET that would leave to criminal prosecutions within the whitehouse..."

I disagree with that, totally. There are plenty of verifiably existing answers that could lead to criminal convictions of some in the bush admin.

"...but we're diligently working toward that goal."

You may believe you are, but to my eyes, you're ignoring the most relevant and valuable incriminating evidence against the asshole bush admin.

[DemInDistress]

17. greyl..sorry but I disagree..either one believes the ludicrous

911 report and has doubts they just need more concrete evidence to accept 911 was LIHOP or MIHOP..No middle ground. I don't have all the answers but when I see contradictory evidence that debunks the official whitewash I want an explanation unlike DU debunker's who denounce any new evidence to the contrary. If you greyl have the slightest doubt of the ludicrous 911 report than your with us. Us being 911 truth hunters and debunker's being 911 report supporters..
There is no middle ground here. If it walks like a duck then its a duck, period.
I am on your side Mr.greyl that is if your sincere. Another DUer said,"your hatred of bush" that by itself tells me he's a POS. 3,000 innocent people died on 911 and for what? To advance an agenda PNAC and maybe other reasons like getting rich in the process.
I wish it were 19 arabs who defeated the greatest intel, greatest military the GREATEST NATION TO EVER INHABIT THIS EARTH. Unfortunately, those 19 arabs were patsy's in a greater scheme brought to us by a sinister
crime family..BUSH & Company.
I don't mind criticism,or being mistaken for some of my replies that makes for a healthy debate. But when people like LARED,hack and kevin (by the way you answered for Kevin,why?) DEBUNKING what my eyes clearly see
and Christopera,Killtown,IChing,Make7 ryan and many others that's where I draw the line and ask,"are you a 911 hunter or a 911 debunker" Anyone can hate bush for he is a true imbecile but 911 is a separate issue that needs all the best minds to find material and share their opinions for 911 WAS TRULY AN INSIDE JOB" THERE...
Don't hate bush for being an idiot, hate bush for being a M-U-R-D-E-R-E-R and covering it up.

Dem..

[greyl]

18. Who here ever said "I believe everything in the 911 report"?

You need to understand that nobody here has said that.

We're all debunkers, hunters, and searchers for "the truth".

The idea is to have valid logic and critical thinking to support one's position.

Again, anyone who doesn't look at the "Official 911 Report" without skepticism is a total damn idiot.

Is that clear?

[DemInDistress]

22. I seen the signature of a controlled demolition in WT7..

undeniable,indisputable evidence yet you might say, "I'm blowing smoke" would you? let me know

[greyl]

23. You didn't answer the question. nt

[Kevin Fenton]

28. If you're asking...

do I think 9/11 was a false-flag operation run by the US government, then the answer is no, I don't.

However, I don't think:
(1) Buildings collapse just like that;
(2) The official account of United 93's last moments makes any sense;
(3) The US "intelligence community" is that incompetent;
(4) Puddle-jumper pilots can fly big planes like that.

[paulthompson]

9. I completely agree

This website makes some good points here and there. But all too often, rather than attacking a real issue, it attacks a strawman. For instance, instead of tackling the Odigo warning head on, it tackles Alex Jones' take on the Odigo warning and tries to point out inaccuracies in Alex Jones' comments to dismiss the warning altogether. Through techniques like this, the strong bias of the people behind the website becomes clear. But they do raise some good points from time to time, so I wouldn't dismiss everything they say.

[greyl]

12. Have you found any inaccuracies there?

I wouldn't argue that the site is a complete meta-analysis of 9/11, as it's admittedly composed of focused targets.

"But they do raise some good points from time to time, so I wouldn't dismiss everything they say."

That's faint praise. What exactly would you recommend we dismiss?

[paulthompson]

21. Yes, many inaccuracies

Yes, there are many inaccuracies at that site. I would consider most of them sins of omission. It's not that the links they quote are wrong, but rather, there are many other things they don't quote that would run counter to their assertions. I don't know if they don't know of them or deliberately ignore them, but in either case the result is inaccuracy.

For instance, on this page:

http://www.911myths.com/html/august_6_memo.html

They take the August 6, 2001 PDB's claim that there were 70 FBI investigations in progress at face value, since it supports a point they're making. Yet that number was clearly wildly inflated. Here's an entry I did on it:

August 6, 2001: Bush Misled on Number and Extent of FBI's bin Laden Investigations
The CIA's Presidential Daily Briefing (PDB) contains the important line, "The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full field investigations throughout the US that it considers bin Laden-related." Bush will state in 2004 that, based on this, "I was satisfied that some of the matters were being looked into." National Security Adviser Rice will explain that since the FBI had 70 "full-field investigations under way of cells" in the US, "there was no recommendation that we do something about" the large number of warnings coming in. However, the number and content of the FBI investigations appears grossly exaggerated. The FBI later will reveal that the investigations are not limited to al-Qaeda and do not focus on al-Qaeda cells. Many were criminal investigations, which typically are not likely to help prevent future terrorist acts. An FBI spokesman will say the FBI does not know how that number got into Bush's PDB. The 9/11 Commission will later conclude, "The 70 full-field investigations number was a generous calculation that included fund-raising investigations. It also counted each individual connected to an investigation as a separate full-field investigation. Many of these investigations should not have been included, such as the one that related to a dead person, four that concerned people who had been in long-term custody, and eight that had been closed well before August 6, 2001." (9/11 Commission Final Report, 7/22/04; Newsday, 4/10/04; Associated Press, 4/11/04)

So the 70 full field investigations number was a complete crock and we have never even been told what the real number was. Yet you won't find that kind of debunking at their site; they are very selective to only debunk information that runs counter to the official story. I could provide many more similar examples of selectivity and sins of omission.

Sometimes, they spin so furiously that it's difficult to take them seriously. For instance, on this page about a warning received by military generals the night before 9/11:

http://www.911myths.com/html/pentagon_officials.html

The website comments: "But still, let’s say they’re right. A warning was received, and Pentagon officials did “cancel a trip”. What is this supposed to prove? All it means is the officials were more likely to be in the Pentagon on 9/11. They'd be in more danger, not less -- hardly the best example for specific foreknowledge of the attacks."

My comment: the notion that this warning, if true, would have no revelance about 9/11 foreknowledge is simply absurd. And look how quickly they jump to conclusions if it supports their point. When people make a phrase like "top Pentagon brass," the word Pentagon is considered a synonym for military, it does not necessarily literally mean they work in the Pentagon every day. Further, most believers in LIHOP or MIHOP theories would argue that the fact that Flight 77 hit the one unoccupied and newly reinforced section of the Pentagon was no coincidence, but again, no mention of that when it comes to their theory.

The website is not completely worthless. Sometimes their debunking is spot on, as in this page noting the evidence of Ariel Sharon planning to be in NYC on 9/11 is next to zero:

http://www.911myths.com/html/ariel_sharon.html

But all in all, their bias and inaccuracy rate is about as bad as the worst pro-conspiracy sites they complain about.

[DemInDistress]

24. regarding the aug 6 2001 pdb..it was publicly aired and quickly

removed from our eyes and said this shocking paragraph, "weeks, many many dead very very big uproar,possible
using hijacked commercial jets as suicidal weapons to be crashed into skyscrapers in NYC,Chicago and Washington DC". That was on page 2 which BTW was conveniently removed. I watched the hearings and later that day cable news showed a 2 page pdb. I quickly memorized those very words not realizing I'd never see them again. After viewing that pdb I was sorry my VCR wasn't on so I could have recorded that item. I kind of figured since they aired it once I'd probably see it again on other cable news channels and in the daily's.
But no, that troubling paragraph was removed most likely by Poppy and Baker.
This from Rice: Unbelievable news in coming weeks" * "Big event ... there will be a very, very, very, very big uproar" * "There will be attacks in the near future
Now please believe me when I say I saw that PDB page 2 lower half of the page..its now gone.
I didn't make those words up I write them as they were printed.
Another troubling aspect of the 911 hearings and George Tenet: When asked if he met with bush during Aug 2001
Tenet replied"no bush was in Crawford and I was in Maryland" later that afternoon Kean and Tenet on camera
amend Tenet testimony to include meeting with bush on Aug 18 2001 (moussouai had been arrested) Aug 25 2001
Tenet spent the day at Crawford with Rice,top Generals and others, and Aug 31 2001 when bush returned to Washington DC. In public and on camera Tenet couldn't remember that...wow give me a break..
I love the Timeline to Terror, its my Bible ^5 Paul Thompson

[paulthompson]

26. reply

DID,
I'm all over anything 9/11-related like white on rice, and I NEVER heard anything like that. Now, it could very well be that you heard of other warnings that a show broadcast at that time. For instance, in 2004 it came out that there was a warning in April 2001 given to the FBI that skyscrapers in the five biggest cities in the US would be targeted. So they may have been talking about that. Maybe even your TV show itself was confused. But if there was a briefly released version of the PDB with more info on it, I'm almost positive someone would have told me about it at the time, or later.

Alternately, if you can remember the exact program and the time, it may be possible to get a transcript or recording of it. In this electronic age, nothing ever really disappears, if you know where to look. So if you have that info, please let me know.

I do know the stuff about Tenet. He was quickly proven wrong on that.

[DemInDistress]

29. thanks Paul..it was the day the pdb was released publicly

it was in the afternoon (late) I believe it was CNN or MS NBC I rarely ever watch fox. The discussion was about that pdb and the cameraman panned his camera on to the pdb. Quickly, I read page 2 in particular the lower half of page 2. What is said was what I wrote. Most disturbing was it wasn't repeated later.It was as though someone made a hugh mistake airing that pdb in public with damning info.
Even condi refers to a portion "very very very big uproar". So, exactly what day did the pdb make its first appearance on cable news. Thats when I seen it. Trust me please, I don't make shit up and in a way I have mixed feelings not taping it for if I did have it I'd be in danger. Imagine if I came forward with that missing paragraph I'd be killed. Nevertheless,it was aired 2pages 2nd page was filled 80% with text. The cleansed version only has half a page on Pg.2..Would you mind if I send a PM? Thanks

Dem

[paulthompson]

30. reply

Sure you can send me a PM. But I think you're confusing stuff that was said and reported that day with what was on the PDB itself. Yes, Rice talked about a "very, very, very big uproar" and such in her testimony, but she wasn't referring to the PDB, she was talking about other warnings that had come in that summer.

Here's a couple of links:

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=44918

http://212.58.240.35/2/hi/americas/3610031.stm

If your TV news showed those words on the screen the same day the PDB was released, I could see how you could get confused to think they were actually on the PDB. But I still don't think they were.

[DemInDistress]

31. Paul.

The documents i seen (2pages) were aired when that PDB began its circulation. It had to be late in the same afternoon condi testified around 4-5 in the afternoon. I can't recall the reporter or exact cable news channel but that cameraman panned down to show the 2 pages. I know they harped on "historical information" but on page 2 where the current public PDB is readily available it ends,cutting out the next paragraph which was not HISTORICAL INFORMATION. This is what was printed believe me I can't make these words up,..
'WEEKS MANY MANY DEAD, VERY VERY BIG UPROAR. POSSIBLY USING HIJACKED COMMERCIAL JETS AS SUICIDAL WEAPONS TO BE CRASHED INTO SKYSCRAPERS IN NEW YORK CITY,CHICAGO AND WASHINGTON DC" Now that's something to be very concerned about for if it were allowed to circulate goodbye 2004 election. Clearly must have been a mistake on the people behind the release that day and not my error. last year I posted that same statement hoping someone else would have seen it but no luck. I am not a kook,crackpot or dis-info specialist. I love DU and the 911 hunters (I am one) I have had a battle with Rudy Giuliani in 1997 and sincerely plead my case..
I AM NO BULLSHITTER...ITS JUST THAT I DIDN'T HAVE MY DAMN VCR ON --SHIT !! WISH I DID..anyway checkout my journal still under construction.. http://screwedbyRudy.blogspot.com
Thanks for the feedback Paul Thompson your a hero.

Dem

[Kevin Fenton]

32. Sirrs / Pentagon

Their article about Julie Sirrs is here:
http://www.911myths.com/html/julie_sirrs1.html

They don't actually have anything of substance to say against her, although they do get their usual little dig in first, "Problem number one is that we only have Sirrs side of the story."

However, they point out that her visit to Afghanistan was in October 1998, not 2001, which is what DRG claims. The impression this gives is that the whole thing is debunked, whereas in actual fact only one small detail is. It's not inaccurate as such, just misleading.

Pentagon:
You write: "most believers in LIHOP or MIHOP theories would argue that the fact that Flight 77 hit the once unoccupied and newly reinforced section of the Pentagon was no coincidence."
However, I would argue that:
(1) It actually hit at the join of the newly reinforced section (Wedge 1) and an unreinforced section (Wedge 2, this is where the punchout hole is);
(2) The reinforcements didn't actually make much of a difference (i.e. they might have saved some lives, but not that many) and most of the money involved in the renovation project was spent on stuff like new escalators. The layer of kevlar obviously didn't slow the plane, neither did the blast-proof windows. Given that most of the fuel should have exploded inside the building, I doubt they afforded much protection from the blast. As for the reinforced concrete frame of the outer wall, the horizontal elements (the floors) were there anyway (i.e. they were also present in the other 4 wedges) and the vertical elements were just there to hold the window frames in, in the event of an explosion outside (there's no point in putting blast-resistant windows in, if an explosion would just blow out the window frames). The part of the Pentagon that collapsed was in the reinforced Wedge 1, whereas none of the unreinforced Wedge 2 that suffered impact and fire damage collapsed. However, Wedge 1 was sprinklered - part of the renovation project - but Wedge 2 wasn't, which is why the fire damage there was worse;
(3) Wedge 1 wasn't unoccupied. As far as I can tell, it was about half occupied, as was Wedge 2. Pentagon Renovation Program manager Lee Evey said, "on the morning of September 11th, there were approximately 2,600 people in the immediate area of the aircraft impact". http://fpc.state.gov/fpc/13250.htm
It strikes me that this is a very broad definition of "the immediate area of the aircraft impact" - probably he means everybody in E, D and C rings of Wedges 1 and 2. The 2 planes that hit the WTC killed less than 600 people between them; had American 77, a smaller aircraft, hit a part of the Pentagon that was full, it probably would have killed 200-250 people, no more.

[Bushwick Bill]

6. He writes off many things as insignificant.

He just says the stock trades are no big deal, but doesn't explain that whether the trades are anomolous is measured by how many calls were also made. I believe those numbers were way out of whack. Similarly, with the evidence that two firemen found the black boxes, he just says it's a matter of who you believe and unverified. He misses the whole point that, of course we don't believe the government's position and trust a couple of firemen.

Also, I don't see anything on Sibel Edmonds, Indira Singh, or General Ahmad.

[greyl]

14. where does he say "the stock trades are no big deal"? nt

[Bushwick Bill]

15. Right here.

http://www.911myths.com/html/put_options.html

[greyl]

16. No, he doesn't. You're being dishonest.

In contrast, I'll offer 2 authentic quotes from that page:

"This is a complex story."

"Foreknowledge of 9/11 isn’t required to explain these trades."

http://www.911myths.com/html/put_options.html

[Bushwick Bill]

19. Sorry.

I thought you were just looking for the link to where that site addressed the stock trades. Anyway, to me, "they weren’t as exceptionally high as some sites like to claim," "Some point to stories like the “unclaimed millions" from UAL puts as having a sinister explanation, but we disagree," "We haven’t researched these in any depth, but it’s worth pointing out that some people believe the claims were overblown," and "We weren’t convinced" = no big deal. I was being sloppy and didn't realize you were looking for those exact words.

Anyway, I'm sure the trades were just a coincidence.
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/051602_liewontstand.html
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/042202_bushknows.html

[greyl]

20. It's okay. I was looking for the reason you chose be dishonest

about a source of information instead of dealing the presented arguments.
It's an easy mistake to make.

[dailykoff]

25. Same old same old.

From a quick skim this looks like spin control from the usual suspects, decked out to look like an "amateur" web site.

So the talking points start with "I'm no expert, but common sense tells us" and that kind thing, but it's basically high-end PR or defense lawyering. IMHO anyway.

[stickdog]

33. I don't find their claims very convincing.

For anybody unclear on the concept this post's subject was an ironic comment on the sort of "debunking" found at http://www.911myths.com/index.html

[reprehensor]

34. Two areas that suck. "Hijackers" and "Greening's study"

Actually, the whole site pretty much spins for "9/11: THE OFFICIAL NEOCON VERSION"

The bar is set pretty low at 911miss. As long you are not a "conspiracy theorist", your views are perfectly logical.

Beyond that, they are perfectly omitted.

Here Prof. Jones deflates the Greening "study".

(This record of experiments is posted freely at ST911.)

-----------------------------------------------------

February 17, 2006
Draft 1.1

Experiments Testing Greening’s Hypothesis Regarding Molten Aluminum

By Steven E. Jones with Wesley Lifferth, Jared Dodson, Jacob Stevenson and Shannon Walch

In a treatise entitled “Aluminum and the World Trade Center Disaster,” Frank Greening raises an intriguing hypothesis:

“Modern airframes are invariably constructed from series 2000 aluminum alloys. Alloy 2024 is a typical example containing 93 % Al, 4.5 % Cu, 1.5 % Mg, and 0.5 % each of Mn and Fe. These metallic additions to aluminum lower the melting point of the alloy from a value of 660 C, for pure aluminum, to about 548 C for alloy 2024. This relatively low temperature indicates that the fires within the Twin Towers were quite capable of melting at least some of the Boeing 767 aluminum airframe structures remaining in the WTC before its collapse…

“Based on these findings it is proposed that the formation of molten aluminum in the Twin Towers just before their collapse, accounts for most of the startling and controversial observations that accompanied the spectacular destruction of these massive structures. It is suggested that molten aluminum initiated the global collapse of each Tower by burning through key structural supports in the impact zones. Molten aluminum-thermite reactions could explain the rapid intensification of the fires and the many detonations seen and heard moments before and during the collapse of each Tower. Molten aluminum-thermite explosions - reactions that are quite capable of shattering ceramic or metal molds during aluminum casting - would go a long way to explaining the much-debated pulverization of the WTC concrete.” <1>

I noted to Greening that this explanation would not apply to the 9/11 collapse of WTC 7, since it was not hit by an airplane, and in he agreed:

“Ah yes, the WTC 7 collapse! What can I say…… Since no aircraft hit WTC 7, I have no provable proposal for what brought that building down.”

In reference to my further skepticism that melted aluminum could cause global failure and symmetrical collapse of the Towers, as well as the speed of the collapses, Greening replied:

“I therefore suggest an experimental resolution: The NIST fire tests, which were designed to simulate the conditions in WTC 1 & 2 after the aircraft impacts, should be repeated in a more realistic environment that includes shredded aluminum alloy 2024, crushed concrete and gypsum, water, rusted steel, aviation fuel, plastics, etc.... Then I want to see two thing happen: (i) The fires melt the aluminum, and (ii) The molten aluminum ignite violent, explosive reactions.”

Accordingly, an experienced welder along with students and I conducted such tests on a small scale at BYU, on February 16, 2006. We performed two tests involving approximately 500 g of aluminum alloy 6061 in each test. This alloy is composed of 97.9% Al, 0.6% Si, 0.28% Cu, 1.0% Mg and 0.2% Cr <2> and has a melting point of about 600 C. The aluminum alloy was melted in a steel pan using an oxyacetylene torch. The pan reached red-hot temperatures (about 600 C) during the melting process. We noted that the aluminum retained its silvery appearance throughout the melting process and final heating. Temperatures were monitored with an infrared probe.

TEST 1, Molten Aluminum on rusty steel

In this test, we explored Greening’s hypothesis that molten aluminum alloy would initiate violent thermite reactions when poured onto rusty steel:

“At 50 minutes, molten aluminum forms and starts to flow from the airframe in WTC 2. The molten aluminum re-ignites some of the smoldering fires and rapidly burns through other combustible materials that survived the initial conflagration. Molten aluminum also falls onto concrete, gypsum and rusted steel surfaces inducing violent thermite explosions, dispersing globules of molten metal and igniting new fires. The extreme heat generated by the molten aluminum rapidly weakens already damaged steel columns and trusses in the impact zone causing local slumping and partial collapse.” <1>

Just in case Greening was right, the students and I stood well back from the heated and very rusty angle-iron as Wesley Lifferth poured molten aluminum onto the rusted steel surface (see photos). Lifferth has had considerable experience with aluminum and had never seen “violent thermite” reactions or explosions of any kind while working with molten aluminum, so he was willing to pour the molten aluminum without special precautions.



We observed: nothing much happened. No explosions whatsoever. No “globules of molten metal” were dispersed. No fires, and certainly no melting or warping of the steel member.

We observed that the temperature of the molten aluminum in contact with the pre-heated rusty iron simply cooled at about 25 C per minute until the aluminum solidified, so that any thermite reactions between the aluminum and iron oxide must have been minimal and did not compete with radiative and conductive cooling. When we removed the solidified aluminum alloy from the rusty steel surface, we found that a small percentage of the rust did adhere to the aluminum and may have undergone a reaction, since the color of the adherent metal had changed from orange-red to black indicating reduction. However, no damage to the underlying steel was observed at all. There appears no justification for larger-scale tests on WTC models.

This experiment lends zero support to the notion that molten aluminum in the WTC Towers could have destroyed the enormous steel columns in the core of the buildings.

TEST 2, Molten Aluminum on concrete

Greening also predicted that molten aluminum impinging on concrete would initiate violent reactions:

“As previously noted, the combination of water and metal oxide bonding in concrete makes this material very susceptible to explosive reactions in the molten aluminum.” <1>

So we poured molten aluminum onto a concrete cinder block to see whether “explosive reactions” would in fact ensue. They did not. In this case, we formed two “puddles” of molten aluminum, one directly onto the concrete, and the other onto concrete, acrylic plastic, and a piece of aluminum foil which held a fair amount of iron rust extracted from a very rusty iron ball. In both cases, the molten aluminum sat on the surfaces with no “explosive reactions” whatsoever. Instead, the aluminum cooled steadily, suggesting no exothermal chemical reactions were competing with radiative and conductive cooling.



Some water was present in the concrete, which clearly formed steam and then a distinct bubble under the aluminum melt. The rectangular piece of plastic also released gases which formed a separate bubble under the aluminum melt poured over the plastic. The rust was embedded in the aluminum melt (the aluminum foil melted) without showing any “explosive” reaction at all. When the aluminum was removed from the concrete surfaces, we observed a dark pattern on the surface (not deeply etched into the concrete) where the aluminum had been, so there may have been some surface reactions with the concrete. The rectangular piece of plastic left an image which shows where the aluminum did not contact the concrete (photo above).

Conclusions

These experiments do not support the assertion of Greening that molten aluminum in the WTC Towers could have attacked the enormous steel columns (47 core columns and 240 perimeter columns) sufficiently to cause total collapse of these skyscrapers. Further experiments along these lines could be done if serious proposals are suggested.

We also conclude that pre-planted thermate (sulfur added to iron oxide and aluminum powder) is much more likely to have cut through steel-core columns in the Towers and WTC 7 on 9/11 than aluminum melted from the planes and contacting the columns at random places, if at all. The cutting effect of thermite derivatives is well-substantiated and rather routinely used. <3> The use of thermate or thermite would explain the enormous pools of molten metal observed pouring down the rubble immediately following the collapses, and then forming in pools beneath the rubble piles of both Towers AND WTC 7 (where no aluminum-frame plane hit). The use of thermate would also account for the significant sulfidation attack structural members at WTC7 and the Towers. <4> These issues are all treated in a previous paper. <3> The collapse of WTC 7, the molten metal beneath the WTC 7 rubble pile, and the observed sulfidation of structural steel from WTC 7 and the Towers’ rubble piles are very important facts not treated or explained by Greening in his treatise <1>.

References

1. http://www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf

2. http://www.efunda.com/materials/alloys/aluminum/show_aluminum.cfm?ID=AA_6061∝=all&Page_Title=AA%206061

3. http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

4. Barnett, J. R., Biederman, R.R. and R.D. Sisson, Jr., "An Initial Microstructural Analysis of A36 Steel from WTC Building 7," Journal of the Minerals, Metals and Materials Society, 53/12:18 (2001), and FEMA WTC report, Appendix C.

------------------------------------------------

In the most updated version of his "study" (which apparently didn't include actually "studying" dick-all), Greening rebuts Jones... but my guess is if even if Jones crushed a bunch of building materials and threw it on top, the aluminum's heat would just wick away, like studied above.

Frankly, I've seen better movies...



------------------------------------------------

Myself, I have problems with the "Hijackers" page...

This page is replete with misdirection, omission and strawman hooey. Here are some examples:

Example #1:

"Many of the hijackers were actually trained to fly by the US government"

I've heard that some of the hijackers may have been trained at US military bases. 911myths clarifies;

"Some of the hijackers were trained by the US government, at Pensacola Naval Air Station."

Ok, not "Many", but... "some".

"However, if you look at the original source for this story, a Newsweek article, you'll find some important qualifications."

Uh, yeah. It was reported in Newsweek, The Washington Post, and in a Knight-Ridder wire piece, followed up by The Pensacola News Journal and Daniel Hopsicker who reports this exchange;

We reached a major in the Air Force’s Public Affairs Office who was familiar with the question, she said, because she had read the initial Air Force denial to the media.

“Biographically, they’re not the same people,” she explained to us patiently. “Some of the ages are 20 years off.”

“Some” of the ages? We told her we were only interested in Atta. Was she saying that the age of the Mohamed Atta who attended the Air Force’s International Officer’s School at Maxwell Air Force Base was different from the terrorist Atta’s age as reported?

Um, er, no, the major admitted. Still, she persisted. “Mohamed is a very common name.”

We asked if the registrar of the International Officer’s School might provide us with the name and address of this second Mohamed Atta, so that we might call him and confirm that there were really two Mohamed Atta’s of about the same age pursuing flight training in the U.S. at about the same time.

“I don’t think you’re going to get that information,” the major replied.

Example #2:

"The hijackers reportedly had girlfriends, drank alcohol, went clubbing, not the acts of fundamentalists"

Reportedly? You can say that again;

Filipinos Recall Hijack Suspects Leading a High Life
http://www.iht.com/articles/2001/10/05/clark_ed3_.php

Agents of terror leave their mark on Sin City Las Vegas workers recall the men they can't forget
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/10/04/MN102970.DTL

Suspects’ actions don’t add up
http://web.archive.org/web/20010916150533/http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-warriors916.story

Top Ten Things You Never Knew About Mohamed Atta
http://www.madcowprod.com/index60bb.html

So, not "reportedly" but, "definitely", from multiple sources.

But, that's ok! 'Cause Atta was Takfir! Sorry, believed to be Takfir.

But, but, Takfiris hate Al Qaeda. They think Osama and co. are a bunch of pussy sell-outs.
So much for that one.

It is incomprehensible that a person could drink and go to a strip bar one night, then kill themselves the next day in the name of Islam. People who would kill themselves for their faith would come from very strict Islamic ideology. Something here does not add up.

- Mahmoud Mustafa Ayoub, Professor of Religion at Temple University in Philadelphia. >>MUSLIM<<

There are scholars who fully disagree with 911myths.com, if you bother to look for them.

Example #3:

"It’s claimed that many of those named as hijackers are still alive"

Yes, yes it is.

Just some silly "name confusion". Yeah, and...

The Saudi Airlines pilot, Saeed Al-Ghamdi, 25, and Abdulaziz Al-Omari, an engineer from Riyadh, are furious that the hijackers' "personal details" - including name, place, date of birth and occupation - matched their own. - Revealed: the men with stolen identities
Yeah. "Name confusion".

Example #4:

"The planes were flown to their targets by remote control, not hijackers"

"Can these planes really be controlled remotely?"

Uhm, yeah. The technology to fly full-sized Boeing jets via remote control has been around for ages. Ages, I say.



Example #5:

"The final list of bodies identified from Flight 77 shows there were no hijackers aboard"

Not only is the title misleading, but their rationalization is such a complete and utter mutilation of the original article that it must be read to be believed.

----------------------------------------------------------

911myths.com is not, not, I say, a "debunking" site. It is pro-official spin, as partial as the business-end of Dick Cheney's 28 gauge shotgun.

Cite at your peril.

Here is the antidote to all of the above HIJACKER HOKUM.

Nafeez Ahmed - Subverting "Terrorism"