Disqus - Friends of Greta

Re: Ventura’s ‘Conspiracy Theory’ show probes 9/11

Albury Smith — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 08:44:53 -0000

I have an even better question. If this "nanothermite" that Harrit, Jones, and the others allegedly found in some dust samples can be painted on steel columns and then detonated to damage or destroy them, why won't they get some of it and a steel column or two, and demonstrate it for us on a video? Get some concrete from an old sidewalk or something and show us how it gets turned to fine dust by "nanothermite," too. If it keeps steel molten for months, that could also be documented, and I see the end to all of our energy problems here. Make a video of this and post it on Gage's web site. What are they waiting for?

Re: Ventura’s ‘Conspiracy Theory’ show probes 9/11

Albury Smith — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 19:55:30 -0000

Do you ever think at all, or just call people names and insult them if they aren't stupid enough to drink "truth movement" Kool-Aid? I've emailed Dr. Harrit and suggested that he demonstrate his alleged discovery on some steel columns and video the whole thing. He says it's unnecessary, and made up other excuses for not doing it. Do you really believe that explosives or incendiaries can be painted on steel columns and will blow them up or sever them, and then leave no evidence on the steel in the debris pile later? That's a real fairytale, but he's not willing to prove me wrong.
My opinions are based on the obvious fact that these secret, miraculous, invisible, redundant, plane-proof, fireproof, flash-and bang-free, imaginary explosives could never have been hidden on any WTC column, but especially the 236 perimeter ones in full view of everyone. Assuming someone could even have secretly gotten to them through two or more layers of security, since most were in tenant spaces, those columns were tightly encased in aluminum on three sides, and had a coat or two of plaster on the fourth, and there simply was no place to hide anything on them. Since they were in plain sight, maybe you can explain the lack of flashes and bangs from them prior to or during either tower collapse. The whole controlled demolition "theory" for the WTC is thoroughly asinine.
Now please feel free to tell me what your credentials are for discrediting the scientific conclusions of at least 230 top structural engineers and other experts, most of whom didn't even work for the US government, but were from the private sector and academia. Do you think they're all lying to you? The ones lying to you are Steven Jones and his pals, as I explained on here earlier, with examples.

Re: Ventura’s ‘Conspiracy Theory’ show probes 9/11

Albury Smith — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 19:56:04 -0000

Re: Ventura’s ‘Conspiracy Theory’ show probes 9/11

Albury Smith — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 19:57:03 -0000

Re: Ventura’s ‘Conspiracy Theory’ show probes 9/11

Albury Smith — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 20:33:56 -0000

WTC 7 wasn't blown up, it collapsed after burning for ~7 hours. Since when does a fire department take orders from a property owner whose building is burning, and when did the FDNY go into the demolition business? READ the quote. THEY made the decision, not LS. They did it because of the "terrible loss of life" earlier, and they didn't want to risk losing more firefighters in a building that was slowly deteriorating structurally from fires on a dozen or more floors. And show me ONE C/D site with "pull" used as a term for imploding a building.
And please feel free to explain to me why all eleven of his insurance companies, some in foreign countries, paid him a total of nearly $5 BILLION if he admitted to blowing up his own property.

Re: Ventura’s ‘Conspiracy Theory’ show probes 9/11

Albury Smith — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 20:40:24 -0000

http://www.pbs.org/newshour...

No comment on the lies of Steven Jones? OK by you to use photos of torch cuts and halogen lights as thermite and molten steel "evidence"?
The 4 planes didn't hijack themselves. The US embassy explosions in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam and the one on the USS Cole weren't accidents. If you're a "no-plane" nut, don't even bother answering.

Re: Ventura’s ‘Conspiracy Theory’ show probes 9/11

Albury Smith — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 20:45:08 -0000

He declined to demonstrate his "theory" because the stuff won't do what he claims it will. If he's so sure, why won't he show us all how it works? Are you really nutty enough to believe that an explosive or incendiary painted on columns will all migrate to one place and cut through it, leaving gray slag on the steel?

Re: Ventura’s ‘Conspiracy Theory’ show probes 9/11

Albury Smith — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 20:54:28 -0000

I guess you're another one who's never heard cutter charges going off right before a building collapses in a C/D. "Everyone" didn't hear deafening bangs that carry for miles; people close by heard the sounds of partial collapses, exploding transformers, and other explainable events. Where was all the severed steel in the debris from these "explosives"? Were all of the ~40,000 cleanup workers at GZ for eight months in on the plot too? A blind man would have noticed it, without any C/D experience at all.

Re: Ventura’s ‘Conspiracy Theory’ show probes 9/11

Albury Smith — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 21:10:18 -0000

Jones and Harrit could find "nanothermite" in a ham sandwich, and they paid to have their malarkey "peer-reviewed" in Bentham. Why were no columns found with ends melted or cut by it? It makes a blinding flash, requiring a welder's mask for eye protection, so why wasn't it seen or heard on any of the 236 perimeter columns in each tower during the collapses? They were in plain sight.
And why won't they get some, paint it on a steel column, and show us how it works? That would be a cheap effective way to convince people that their theory is at least possible, if you ignore the fact that there was no place on a perimeter column to hide anything.

Re: Ventura’s ‘Conspiracy Theory’ show probes 9/11

Albury Smith — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 21:47:47 -0000

Why would there have been any Vierendeel trusses, since they weren't used in the towers' floor systems, and 7 was framed with WFs? Did you completely miss the point I was making about the total lack of evidence of a C/D on any column found in the pile at GZ?

Re: Ventura’s ‘Conspiracy Theory’ show probes 9/11

Albury Smith — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 06:55:49 -0000

We all have a vested interest in the events of 9/11. Are you even capable of honest discussion?

Re: Ventura’s ‘Conspiracy Theory’ show probes 9/11

Albury Smith — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 07:02:00 -0000

They've painted nanothermite on an upright column and severed the column with it? Turned a few yards of old concrete to fine dust in seconds with explosives? Shown us how thermite keeps steel molten in debris piles for months? I missed that; do you have the link?

Re: Ventura’s ‘Conspiracy Theory’ show probes 9/11

Albury Smith — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 07:14:40 -0000

Is that another "truth movement" legend? It's an especially dumb claim, considering the fact that there weren't any missing trusses or shortfalls in steel tonnage reported, and there is no way in the real world to have targeted trusses specifically. How do you make that much steel disappear in the 17 and 22 seconds that the tower collapses took? The floor trusses in the towers were extremely light, having no angles in their chords larger than 3" X 3" X 1/4", and 1.09" rod diagonally, and they were crushed between the floors by ~4500 tons/floor above them, and also fell a great distance.

Re: Ventura’s ‘Conspiracy Theory’ show probes 9/11

Albury Smith — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 12:03:24 -0000

One lying crackpot is the same as another, IMO. Steven Jones has shown photos of torch-cut columns at GZ and of rescue workers looking into a hole lit up by a halogen lamp and claimed that the first was a nanothermite cut and the second was evidence of molten steel from nanothermite. Can't get much more dishonest than that.

Re: Ventura’s ‘Conspiracy Theory’ show probes 9/11

Albury Smith — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 12:14:39 -0000

Don't you think SOMEONE would have reported all of this "missing" steel at GZ, like the owner of it, instead of just truther nuts? And how tf do you target just the trusses, and make them disappear? To answer your incredibly stupid question, the structural angles back-to-back on the top chords of the tower trusses were 3" X 3". They had a flange thickness of 1/4". Their lightness is relevant because they were crushed between floors by a weight of ~4500 tons/floor. Am I talking to a child here? You sure as hell don't know the first thing about building construction.

Re: Ventura’s ‘Conspiracy Theory’ show probes 9/11

Albury Smith — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 12:49:03 -0000

Gee, why am I not surprised that you don't have the link to NCSTAR 1 or FEMA's Building Performance Study, Chapter 2? The top chords were 3" X 3" angles and the bottom chords were 2.5" X 2.5" angles. Both had 1/4" flanges.

Re: Ventura’s ‘Conspiracy Theory’ show probes 9/11

Albury Smith — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 15:52:30 -0000

You read too much from truther nut web sites. Read what Silverstein really said, instead of the lies about it, and then please feel free to explain why his eleven insurers all paid him a total of nearly $5 billion if he admitted to blowing up WTC 7, which collapsed after 7 hours from multi-story fires. I'd suggest you also read NCSTAR 1 and 1A, FEMA's WTC Building Performance Study, and the 9/11 Commission Report, but the words might be too big for you.

Re: Ventura’s ‘Conspiracy Theory’ show probes 9/11

Albury Smith — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 16:15:52 -0000

I've read reams of truther crap, and seen it regurgitated on here by lemmings of the "truth movement." There were TWO plane attacks, and LS won in court on this issue as much as he lost, but you still haven't told me why his insurers paid him at all if the BS from your "movement" is true. You also don't realize how much he borrowed to get the lease, and it was his creditors who forced him to buy more insurance. What he carried was more than twice what he wanted, and it went to repay them and rebuild. You're also ignoring the fact that he's lost more than 8 years of cash flow from the WTC, and most likely will never get many of those tenants back.
If you think "nanothermite," explosives, or whatever can keep metal molten for months in debris piles, you're too stupid for this conversation, and you've clearly never heard demolition charges if you think they'd only have been noticed by people nearby. The "explosions" were partial collapses, shorted transformers, etc, and they weren't heard immediately prior to or during any collapse. The stuff coming from ONE PLACE IN ONE TOWER was right where the aluminum fuselage of UA 175 wound up, at the NE corner of Tower 2. It was almost definitely contaminated aluminum from the plane, or lead from a UPS up there, and most definitely NOT steel from the building.
Btw, the maximum temp recorded by the USGS surveys 5 and 12 days later was ~1300 F. It doesn't come close to melting steel, not that it matters. Your secret planted shit would have cooled down by nightfall on 9/11.

Re: Ventura’s ‘Conspiracy Theory’ show probes 9/11

Albury Smith — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 16:30:39 -0000

Look at Fig 6-41 in NCSTAR 1. The height of a lower chord is the same as the size of the flanges on the angles making it up, i.e. 2-1/2". [Duh!] Do you even know what a bar joist is?
Find your own photos of them; claiming that they're missing is too stupid to respond to.

Re: Ventura’s ‘Conspiracy Theory’ show probes 9/11

Albury Smith — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 17:12:52 -0000

You're like arguing with a "no-plane" nut. There is no way on earth to make the floor trusses disappear, and the steel was weighed when it was scrapped. Total tonnage just isn't that big a mystery.They would not heve been ejected away from the 208' square area of the building, as many of the perimeter column trees were, and most were crushed in thousands of tons of falling debris. I'm not going to go through all of the GZ photos to find something that most likely doesn't even look like a truss, which these certainly wouldn't have after those collapses. Do you REALLY think all of those people at the scene for 8 months, including numerous structural engineers and construction personnel, wouldn't have noticed that the trusses were missing?
What in the real world could POSSIBLY have done that, and WHY?

Re: Ventura’s ‘Conspiracy Theory’ show probes 9/11

Albury Smith — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 17:28:09 -0000

Floor framing outside of the cores was the same throughout, with <4" of concrete over corrugated decking on lightweight bar joists, but the 4500 tons/floor is an average, since all of the columns became progressively lighter going up. Not sure about the floor framing in the cores, but it wasn't joists. Just checked NCSTAR 1 and didn't see much on it, but maybe there's something in the FEMA papers.
The "23,000 missing trusses" guy is a candidate for a Darwin Award, wouldn't you agree. :-))

Re: Ventura’s ‘Conspiracy Theory’ show probes 9/11

Albury Smith — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 21:01:31 -0000

Unknown to everyone there, no doubt, and in both towers. The problems with your "theory" are numerous: Incendiary melting of columns would have been obvious in the debris, incendiaries don't burn sideways, incendiaries are hard to time precisely, especially their effect on the steel, the collapses started in the perimeter columns, all 236 of which were in plain view, 40 or more stories of the core framing stood for at least 10 seconds after the collapses were over, and only ~20% of the 47 core columns could possibly have been reached from an elevator shaft. You also haven't explained how you'd get inside of the columns without setting off smoke alarms, and that's after you chopped out all of the gypsum fireproofing.
Harrit and Jones say it was painted on. Why don't you ask them to provide a demonstration of that, using an upright steel column or two? Makes as much sense as your "theory."

Re: Ventura’s ‘Conspiracy Theory’ show probes 9/11

Albury Smith — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 18:46:20 -0000

Some of the insurance companies were foreign, including Swiss Re, based in Zurich. Are you saying they were worried about accusing the Swiss government of treason, or the US government, simply by refusing to pay on a claim because LS allegedly admitted to insurance fraud (which he didn't do in the first place)? He collected $861 million for WTC 7, had $700 million in rebuilding costs, owed ~$500 million to lenders, which he paid off, and he still pays a mortgage to the PA while not collecting any rent for more than 8 years. I hope you don't decide to go into real estate investing if you think that's a good deal.
It also makes no difference whether Daniel Nigro or someone else from the FDNY called him; it was still their decision not to fight the fires in WTC 7, not Silverstein's, since he didn't even have that authority, and he also said "THEY made the decision..."
If you had a burning building rigged for no apparent reason with these amazing fireproof explosives, would you be on the phone deciding whether to blow it up, so that renovation contractors could find them if you decided not to? Why would they even be discussing it at that point, and how does "we have had such a terrible loss of life..." matter in the decision to blow it up, instead of in the decision to pull firefighters away from it to prevent more possible deaths? They weren't inside at the time of the call, but "pull," which is not a C/D term for demolishing a building anyway, referred to quitting any attempt to fight the fires.

Re: Ventura’s ‘Conspiracy Theory’ show probes 9/11

Albury Smith — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 20:07:12 -0000

Look at the floor plan in FEMA's Building Performance Study, Chapter 2 and count the number of core columns near elevator shafts-there are 9 or 10 tops. Then look at any collape video to see that the perimeter columns began crumbling right at collapse initiation, without any help from explosives. You obviously don't know what hat trusses do if you think the antenna shouldn't have dropped, and it's simply untrue that any evidence of a C/D was found on any of the steel at GZ. Incendiaries can be shaped any way you want; they still only burn straight down, unless a fire-resistant contraption is rigged around them to hold them while they burn. As for pocket cutting the columns with a torch, good luck doing that w/o setting off smoke alarms, which aren't turned off for elevator repairs, especially in fully-occupied buildings.
Your C/D theory doesn't add up.

Re: Ventura’s ‘Conspiracy Theory’ show probes 9/11

Albury Smith — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 21:31:01 -0000

albury wrote, in response to SCANDALOUS FAIL (unregistered):
[Wouldn't post where it belongs, after SF's comment]

It also makes no difference whether Daniel Nigro or someone else from the FDNY called him; it was still their decision not to fight the fires in WTC 7, not Silverstein's, since he didn't even have that authority, and he also said "THEY made the decision..."

If you had a burning building rigged for no apparent reason with these amazing fireproof explosives, would you be on the phone deciding whether to blow it up, so that renovation contractors could find them if you decided not to? Why would they even be discussing it at that point, and how does "we have had such a terrible loss of life..." matter in the decision to blow it up, instead of in the decision to pull firefighters away from it to prevent more possible deaths? They weren't inside at the time of the call, but "pull," which is not a C/D term for demolishing a building anyway, referred to quitting any attempt to fight the fires.