|
Post by shred on Mar 16, 2013 9:31:07 GMT -5
This is the 'truth'er movement's biggest lie. These pictures say it all, about how wrong they are about steel in fire:
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 16, 2013 9:43:47 GMT -5
Yes the picture does say it all. It says it's NOT a high rise steel framed tower and it also says it didn't collapse in its entirety in its own footprint and turn to dust as it collapsed. What it doesn't say is what exactly that picture represents. So you proved nothing.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 16, 2013 13:45:55 GMT -5
1) Same material used in the structure so same principle and lots of steel buildings have collapsed due to fire. Including this warehouse: 2) No other high rise steel framed skyscrapers have been built to WTC7's design, other steel framed skyscrapers have suffered collapses during fire. TU Delft's architectural facility suffered a partial collapse due to fire in 2009 3) The Edifico Windsor Building often referenced by conspiracists suffered extensive slab collapse above the 17th floors, global collapse was averted due to its reinforced concrete core. www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/images_export/CaseStudy/HistoricFires/BuildingFires/buildingFire.gifwww.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/CaseStudy/HistoricFires/BuildingFires/default.htm4) Both WTC1 and WTC 2 collapsed due to the combined effect of massive structural damage & fire. No other tube in tube skyscrapers have endured such damage and survived. 5) No genuine scientific journal has ever been contacted by ae911'truth' or 9/11 scholars for 'truth' or any other nutty 9/11 conspiracy pushers. 6) No so called expert from ae911'truth' (or similar bunch of idiots) has ever been able to demonstrate a Thermite cutting of a vertical steel column. 7) Does this look like "dust" to you ?
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 16, 2013 14:24:09 GMT -5
"1) Same material used in the structure so same principle and lots of steel buildings have collapsed due to fire."
Same material as what? What material?
"2) No other high rise steel framed skyscrapers have been built to WTC7's design"
And even if that's true?
"3) The Edifico Windsor Building often referenced by conspiracists suffered extensive slab collapse above the 17th floors, global collapse was averted due to its reinforced concrete core."
Yep there was partial collapse.
"other steel framed skyscrapers have suffered collapses during fire."
Yes partial collapses, in severe fires that would be likely. The two examples you gave experienced partial collapses. And?
"4) Both WTC1 and WTC 2 collapsed due to the combined effect of massive structural damage & fire. No other tube in tube skyscrapers have endured such damage and survived."
In your opinion. Survived in what sense? Global collapse at near free fall speed that included concrete pulverization or another kind of collapse?
"5) No genuine scientific journal has ever been contacted by ae911'truth' or 9/11 scholars for 'truth'"
In your opinion.
"or any other nutty 9/11 conspiracy pushers."
Why do you feel the need for name calling? Do you fear that much that people question the official narrative that you have to post childish drivel and pretend that's part of an intelligent response? Or is it you feel you've been proven wrong so many times that perhaps this time you got it right?
"7) Does this look like "dust" to you ?"
Nope, the massive dust clouds following all 3 collapses aren't depicted in that photo. There are many videos and other photos that clearly show these, I'm sure you've seen them?
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 17, 2013 0:44:02 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 17, 2013 6:59:30 GMT -5
Considering how much drywall (aka Gypsum plasterboard) and glass there was in those building it's to be expected. Also in areas which weren't struck by the planes there was spray foam fireproofing on the steelwork.
Nothing to get worked up about. The steel wasn't turned to dust.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 17, 2013 7:23:32 GMT -5
"1) Same material used in the structure so same principle and lots of steel buildings have collapsed due to fire."STEEL "2) No other high rise steel framed skyscrapers have been built to WTC7's design"ALL STEEL BUILDINGS WEAKEN IN FIRE and it depends on the effect of temperature profile and load as to whether they survive it. "3) The Edifico Windsor Building often referenced by conspiracists suffered extensive slab collapse above the 17th floors, global collapse was averted due to its reinforced concrete core."Proving that steel in fire weakens and depending on effect of temperature profile and load can stop bearing load and give way. In the WTC's there was total collapse due to the effect of temperature profile and load and the dynamic load of the collapsing floors struck those below with enough force to cause their collapse. "other steel framed skyscrapers have suffered collapses during fire."AND because of the way the twin towers were constructed partial collapse lead to global collapse as the floors above the crash floors fell onto those below shearing the bolts that held everything together and progressively collapsing down. Debris from these collapses hit damaged and destroyed other WTC towers including WTC3 (conspiracists don't mention that one because they'd look even sillier than they do anyway) "4) Both WTC1 and WTC 2 collapsed due to the combined effect of massive structural damage & fire. No other tube in tube skyscrapers have endured such damage and survived."No. In FACT. And F.Y.I. the speeds were well below free fall, debris falling away fell much quicker than the progressive collapse (all youtube videos of those collapses show this). "5) No genuine scientific journal has ever been contacted by ae911'truth' or 9/11 scholars for 'truth'" No, in reality. No journal has ever been contacted with them for peer review as Jones knows, he was suspended from his job at BYU because he refused to submit his paper for peer review in line with BYU's policies, faced with the embarrassment of an enquiry he chose to retire. "or any other nutty 9/11 conspiracy pushers."Questioning is fine, coming to completely erroneous conclusions that have no relation to the facts is nutty. Steven Jones and Richard Gage are nutty. Facts are that jet airliners full of fuel crashed into the twin towers at high speeds doing massive mechanical damage and starting off extensive fires in the offices which burned with enough heat to weaken the steel and cause their collapse. When they collapsed heavy spandrels and burning debris fell away from those towers as they collapsed away from their own footprints and damaged other buildings WTC7 had severe damage to it's south side, the building was open to the air outside providing the fires inside with lots of oxygen to burn. Column 79 failed in the heat and global collapse of WTC7 resulted from that. The dust contained a lot of gypsum because interior walls were lightweight drywall aka gypsum plasterboard crushed in the progressive collapses. Why are you surprised about dust ?
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 17, 2013 9:32:26 GMT -5
All 3 towers were globally destroyed in about 12 seconds or less, which is near free fall, give or take. Anyone can look at the videos in real time and count off the time it took for each of the towers to collapse. There is software that can do it more precisely frame by frame.
In the case of WTC7, the entire tower came down in one piece in its footprint and at free fall for the first 2+ seconds (8 floors). This is acknowledged by NIST. Shyam Sunder said "free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it". So we know WTC7 was not made of air and contained massive structural components from roof to ground. That means that the ONLY way free fall could have occurred is if all the steel columns were taken out at the exact same time. The entire collapse took about 8 seconds, which is close to free fall in itself. Fire cannot take out all the columns at once.
In the case of the twin towers, the concrete was pulverized as each tower came down at near free fall speed as well. All the photographs and videos show this quite clearly. Massive steel beams weighing 50 to 70 tons were ejected horizontally at speeds estimated at 70+ MPH and and some of these embedded themselves into adjacent buildings. This also shows up on video and photos. In a gravitational collapse, things fall DOWN because gravity pulls objects toward the center of the mass (center of earth in this case), they are not ejected horizontally at high speed, especially not massive objects weighing 50 to 70 tons. The dust clouds were mostly made of pulverized concrete. Even one of the articles you cited in from your "debunking" site says "the damaged parts of the tower were bound to fall down, but it was not clear why the undamaged building should have offered little resistance to these falling parts.".
"the dynamic load of the collapsing floors struck those below with enough force to cause their collapse"
So you're trying to describe a "pancake collapse". FEMA originally claimed that this was a "pancake collapse" but NIST contradicted FEMA and said it wasn't a "pancake collapse" because the videos do not support a "pancake collapse". So they changed the terminology to a "gravitational collapse". The problem with that term is that says nothing other than that gravity was one of the forces contributing to the collapse. That would be true in any kind of collapse and does not describe the cause.
"coming to completely erroneous conclusions that have no relation to the facts is nutty."
So you consider yourself "nutty" then. You always seem to come to "completely erroneous conclusions that have no relation to the facts". More precisely, you lie and fabricate. I don't consider you "nutty", a pathological liar yes but not "nutty". I think you have some sort of problem or agenda. You never question one single thing about the official narrative and you seem to fear those who do because you resort to juvenile name calling and try to discredit thousands of experts whom you disagree with by making absurd claims that they are only "so called" experts when many of them are quite well known and respected in their fields.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 17, 2013 9:48:52 GMT -5
Why do you only mention 3 towers collapsing? WTC3 also collapsed. The Greek Orthodox Church of St Nicholas also collapsed. When WTC7 collapsed it damaged Fitterman Hall, why don't conspiracists mention that ? When WTC7's exterior fell, it's interior had already collapsed, because the east penthouse had crashed down through it taking out floors when the column which supported it had given way after being weakened by seven hours of fire. There was no structural integrity left in WTC7. No explosives were heard, and no method exists to deliver thermite/thermate in the manner postulated at by conspiracists. They themselves disproved the theory with the 'truthburn' project. NIST's answer that Column 47 buckled and gave way is the only credible explanation.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 17, 2013 10:32:27 GMT -5
"Why do you only mention 3 towers collapsing? WTC3 also collapsed. The Greek Orthodox Church of St Nicholas also collapsed."
Yes several structures partially collapsed on 9/11, only the 3 towers collapsed in their entirety. So now that I agree, what of it?
"When WTC7's exterior fell, it's interior had already collapsed, because the east penthouse had crashed down through it taking out floors when the column which supported it had given way after being weakened by seven hours of fire.
There was no structural integrity left in WTC7."
That's your opinion. NIST disagrees with you. Again, if you can show on what page(s) it says that in NIST's final report, then I will stand corrected that NIST disagrees with you. If you can't then you're making this up as usual.
"No explosives were heard"
There is a video that's over 2 hours long regarding explosions so once again, you're either lying or in deliberate denial.
"NIST's answer that Column 47 buckled and gave way is the only credible explanation."
I take it you mean their column 79 theory. If that's true, that's NOT what NIST said and what NIST did claim is based on proven FRAUD. But you can try to correct me if you can point to the page(s) in the NIST report where it says that. Otherwise, you're making things up as usual. Furthermore, you're also contradicting yourself with this. You make up one explanation that has no basis in fact, then contradict yourself with a different made up theory. Try to keep your fabrications straight if you can.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 17, 2013 11:33:34 GMT -5
"Why do you only mention 3 towers collapsing? WTC3 also collapsed. The Greek Orthodox Church of St Nicholas also collapsed."Yes several structures partially collapsed on 9/11, only the 3 towers collapsed in their entirety. So now that I agree, what of it? WTC3 fully collapsed. WTC2 cut it in half then WTC 1 took the rest of it out. The Greek Orthodox Church of St Nicholas was completely flattened. "When WTC7's exterior fell, it's interior had already collapsed, because the east penthouse had crashed down through it taking out floors when the column which supported it had given way after being weakened by seven hours of fire.
There was no structural integrity left in WTC7."No it's fact and NIST does agree with me despite your biased misinformed opinion. "No explosives were heard"Three points in reply to that: 1) Thermite being incendiary does not explode it burns very hot and very messy. 2) All explosives used in controlled demolitions are susceptible to fire and would be destroyed / detonated in fire. Plus were any high explosive to detonate, it would be audible. No explosives are audible on this genuine 9/11 footage (I know the niece of the cameraman, he was injured while filming this, his collarbone was broken) : Raw footage of WTC2 corner as collapse initiates shows bending moment & breaking moment as steel fails under load. 3) Controlled demolition's for comparison: Landmark Tower Fort Worth JL Hudson Department Store, Detroit Michigan: "NIST's answer that Column 47 buckled and gave way is the only credible explanation." In your biased misinformed opinion. From NIST: www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 17, 2013 12:13:08 GMT -5
"WTC3 fully collapsed. WTC2 cut it in half then WTC 1 took the rest of it out. The Greek Orthodox Church of St Nicholas was completely flattened."I understand that WTC3 was heavily damaged by the collapse of one tower then further damaged by the collapse of the other tower but it did not collapse in its entirety. In any case, the premise is that the 3 towers collapsed mostly due to fire. That has nothing to do with the fact that WTC3 collapsed because both towers took it out. In fact, there's not much evidence that there were any fires in WTC3. So there is no relationship. The same is true with the church. "No it's fact and NIST does agree with me despite your biased misinformed opinion."But you can't point to anywhere in NIST's report where it says that. Sure. "There is a video that's over 2 hours long regarding explosions so once again, you're either lying or in deliberate denial.
Three points in reply to that:"I'm sorry but there's nothing in your points that changes anything that's in the videos, just your typical evasion tactics. "From NIST: Quote: Column 79 then buckled and triggered an upward progression of floor system failures
www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm"The link leads to a page that contains nothing of the sort.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 17, 2013 12:34:26 GMT -5
You're the one being evasive.
I just clicked the link myself and got this:
Sorry but I can do nothing about the NIST site's server error but the quote is genuine. Check back when the site is fixed.
It's not my fault if you won't watch genuine footage of the collapses but the truth is there for you to see if you'd only take off your blinkers. The buildings were damaged by airliners, the buildings were on fire, the steel weakened and gave way.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 17, 2013 12:47:02 GMT -5
"the quote is genuine. Check back when the site is fixed."
If you say so. I will check back when and if it gets fixed. For now, you haven't pointed to any page(s) in the NIST report that supports any of your claims. The report is available and the link(s) to it work just fine.
"It's not my fault if you won't watch genuine footage of the collapses"
I posted videos and photos of the collapses, so why do you lie? Never mind, that's a rhetorical question, you have been proven time and again to be a pathological liar. You apparently just can't help yourself.
"the truth is there for you to see"
Yes it is but a pathological liar such as yourself has no truth. And at this point, even if you did, your credibility is virtually non-existent. The same is true for the official narrative that comes from government and supported by its puppet media.
"The buildings were damaged by airliners, the buildings were on fire, the steel weakened and gave way."
True but the question is what caused the steel to give away all at once in WTC7 (which of course was not hit by an airliner) and in perfect top down sequence for WTC1 and WTC2. Fires and even airplanes with fires just can't make something like that happen.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 17, 2013 18:45:40 GMT -5
Your vids aren't the raw footage of the collapses, they've been tampered with and edited to support a fallacy, your videos are the products of liars.
Time you stopped lying and woke up mate.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 17, 2013 19:46:51 GMT -5
"Your vids aren't the raw footage of the collapses, they've been tampered with and edited to support a fallacy, your videos are the products of liars."
They're not my vids, I didn't make them up. So anything you don't agree with comes from "so-called" experts and everything they do is fake. Gotcha.
"Time you stopped lying and woke up mate."
I haven't lied about anything and I'm wide awake, you're the one who lies all the time. Even the post I'm responding to is nothing but lies. Is this the best you can do? Did you run out of material?
You can't even back up your NIST claims by pointing to page(s) where you got your information. If it's real, that should be no problem for you. I gave you the link(s) to the final report and you even tried to correct me with your own link to the report. So what's the problem. When I went through the NIST report, I didn't see any such thing but maybe I missed it. So please educate me and provide page numbers. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 18, 2013 5:44:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 18, 2013 7:48:29 GMT -5
"They may not be your vids but the people who made them made them up."
So let me get this straight. In your opinion, the NIST computer simulations as programmed by NIST are exactly what happened to WTC7 but the videos used by those who question the official account are made up fakes. And all the 2,000+ people I gave you links to are also fakes. And you call me a "conspiracy theorist"?
"Your claims are untrue. Even though believe the liars who have misinformed you, you are passing on their lies.
Yes of course, I'm passing on the lies and the fake videos as explained in detail by a bunch of fakes that over 2,000 people support who are also fakes. Gotcha. Your brilliant conclusions are so impressive I'm almost convinced. Did one of your grade school mates tell you this?
"This pic says it all about how silly Richard Gage is:"
How so?
"Here's what really happened:
[photos]"
Yes I know, the tower collapsed. I saw those pictures before. And?
I notice you still didn't provide the PAGE NUMBER(S) from the NIST REPORT that supports your claim about what NIST described as to how WTC7 collapsed. Why is that? Could it be because it doesn't exist and you're just LYING as usual?
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 18, 2013 8:38:17 GMT -5
The Structural Fire Engineering community and NIST are correct when they say structural damage + weakening by fire exposed steel structures to stresses beyond which the designers had anticipated.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 18, 2013 9:18:21 GMT -5
The Structural Fire Engineering community and NIST are correct when they say structural damage + weakening by fire exposed steel structures to stresses beyond which the designers had anticipated. So that's your answer when I asked you several times for PAGE NUMBER(S) from the NIST REPORT? So what you're really saying is you can't provide any page numbers from the NIST report and that would confirm you're LYING (not that there ever was much doubt).
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 18, 2013 9:25:01 GMT -5
Are you saying that NIST haven't attributed the collapses to structural damage + weakening by fire or are you lying ?
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 18, 2013 9:54:31 GMT -5
Are you saying that NIST haven't attributed the collapses to structural damage + weakening by fire or are you lying ? Do you know how to read English or are you that illiterate? I said you haven't provided PAGE NUMBER(S) from NIST's final report to back up your claims as to what NIST claims. And you're still deliberately DUCKING.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 19, 2013 4:22:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 19, 2013 7:44:07 GMT -5
What you posted has nothing to do with WTC7 and you know very well I've asked you to supply the page numbers from the NIST report that backs up your claim about what NIST said that caused the collapse of WTC7. So it's just another one of your diversions.
"NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001"
NIST also said they didn't look for any evidence of explosives, explosions or controlled demolitions. You can't find something you never bothered to look for. Standard NFPA protocol calls for an investigation into the possibility of explosives, explosions and controlled demolitions, especially when it involves an act of terrorism. NIST did NOT follow standard NFPA protocol which they had a hand in creating.
"That summary is confirmed by time-lapse photos I posted above which clearly show that the collapse of WTC2 initiated in the impact floors."
The collapse of WTC1 did not initiate at the impact floors. Why did you not mention that?
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 19, 2013 10:36:07 GMT -5
This thread is about steel buildings in fire.
But seeing as you ask, there were no remnants of blasting caps or detcord or any other tell tale sign of a controlled demolition, the bang bang bang of plastic explosives wasn't heard at all prior to any collapse & such sounds cannot be masked.
Furthermore no delivery method to use Thermite to cut a vertical column exists despite conspiracists speculating about it and showing photos of neatly cut columns, I've found plenty of photographs of cutting torches being used to make such neat cuts during the clean up.
Many of the workers involved in the clean up had cleaned up after controlled demolitions and as I keep saying, they found NO EVIDENCE of controlled demolition, NIST found no evidence of controlled demolition or Thermite in their studies.
NIST's reports weren't carried out to investigate silly conspiracy theories, they were carried out to give recommendations to the structural fire engineering industry and construction industry to prevent such a disaster reoccurring in a structural damage and fire situation. Laypersons like Richard Gage, Steven E Jones, Doug Plumb, Kevin Ryan etc have no understanding of the topic at hand & these reports were not conducted for their benefit.
And the collapse of WTC 1 did initiate in the impact floors , it fell top down just like it's sister.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 20, 2013 17:34:52 GMT -5
"This thread is about steel buildings in fire."So WTC7 was a steel framed building that was on fire. "But seeing as you ask"I didn't ask. "there were no remnants of blasting caps or detcord or any other tell tale sign of a controlled demolition"In your opinion, however experts found evidence that contradicts you. In any case, are you trying to make an excuse for NIST's failure to investigate for explosions or explosive materials as required by standard NFPA protocol? "the bang bang bang of plastic explosives wasn't heard at all prior to any collapse & such sounds cannot be masked."Really, so what's this? A fake video? "Many of the workers involved in the clean up had cleaned up after controlled demolitions and as I keep saying, they found NO EVIDENCE of controlled demolition"I believe those workers were hired to do a clean up, not look for evidence of anything. And the fact is, they were really hired to get rid of evidence. In any case, they would never have found nano-thermite particles even if they did look for it. The experts that did discover nano-thermite particles used a sophisticated electron microscope. That's not something a cleanup crew generally has handy as part of their tool set. "NIST found no evidence of controlled demolition or Thermite in their studies."If you ever read for comprehension, if you know how, you would see in my prior post that that's because they admitted they never looked for any. In fact, there's a very interesting article about NIST and thermite, see below, it's called "The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermites": www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/Ryan_NIST_and_Nano-1.pdf"NIST's reports weren't carried out to investigate silly conspiracy theories"That's right, they were tasked with investigating what happened and why the 3 towers collapsed, not come out with some fantasy theory about column 79 that was not based on any evidence but based on lies and other fraud. "Laypersons like Richard Gage, Steven E Jones, Doug Plumb, Kevin Ryan etc have no understanding of the topic at hand & these reports were not conducted for their benefit."No one said NIST's alleged investigation was conducted for anyone's benefit but government. As to their collective understanding of the topic at hand, it's you who has no understanding. You can't make unsupported claims about many other people, some of whom are experts, when you yourself show that you know very little and lie and make up things to try to sound intelligent.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 20, 2013 17:52:59 GMT -5
In this documentary they try to cut a steel beam with thermite: and fail. As for your government, why would they take such a dangerous path as to FAKE a terrorist attack on their own people that would result in their executions if they were to get caught ? Those workers who were hired to clean up the site had experience of controlled demolitions and cleaning up from controlled demolitions. CDI inc for example. Brett Blanchard is featured in the above video, he explains why conventional controlled demolitions wouldn't have been possible in the twin towers. As for thermites, they're aluminium iron compounds which swap oxides between metals as they burn. VERY hard to ignite, but made of the same constituent parts that the buildings were made of. Fe3c & AL In fire steel will oxidise, the carbon component can be lost it can become FeO2 (rust) so natural Fe2O3+2Al (thermite) compounds could be found in a debris pile which had fires burning in it for months without any conspiracy couldn't they ? WTC steel corroded by fire:
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 20, 2013 20:16:33 GMT -5
"In this documentary they try to cut a steel beam with thermite"
What was found in the dust samples was nano-thermite, not conventional thermite. Apples and oranges.
"As for your government, why would they take such a dangerous path as to FAKE a terrorist attack on their own people that would result in their executions if they were to get caught ?"
I don't know that they faked a terrorist attack. That has never been established as fact, that's just speculation. All I know so far is that the official story is full of lies and there has never been a forensic criminal investigation into the events of 9/11 and that the towers did not collapse naturally from fires alone or from airplanes and fires. That's obvious just from the videos and even more obvious upon closer examination.
"Those workers who were hired to clean up the site had experience of controlled demolitions and cleaning up from controlled demolitions. CDI inc for example.
Brett Blanchard is featured in the above video, he explains why conventional controlled demolitions wouldn't have been possible in the twin towers."
CDI was hired by government. Anything they have to say they were paid to say. They were paid to get rid of the evidence, cleaning up is a nice way to try to cover up the criminal destruction of evidence.
"As for thermites ..."
Again what was discovered in the dust samples was nano-thermite and lots of it, both reacted and non-reacted, along with microscopic iron spheres.
"WTC steel corroded by fire:
[picture]"
Office fires or burning jet fuel does not attain temperatures high enough to melt steel, never mind corrode it. Even NIST said the fires were not hot enough to melt steel. So all you're doing is showing a picture of steel that was affected by an extremely high temperature. Nano-thermite would melt steel.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 21, 2013 5:58:18 GMT -5
"In this documentary they try to cut a steel beam with thermite"What was found in the dust samples was nano-thermite, not conventional thermite. Apples and oranges. Nano means small microscopic particles not different chemical make-up, so all the more likely any thermite particles there occured naturally due to oxidising corrosion by fire reacting with aluminium and steel in the debris over the course of months. But you want to believe they did and you're ignoring all the evidence that they didn't. A paranoid statement not backed up by facts, only by your desire to believe this was an inside job. No they were paid to clean up the site to make the place safe. Having a still burning pile of debris with gypsum dust concrete dust and smoke smouldering in the middle of a city is not good. Again, Nano means small microscopic particles. Nobody except you has mentioned molten steel. This is what happens to steel in fire: Steel will also rust unless protected, in fire it rusts more rapidly especially if water is being sprayed in it's vicinity.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 21, 2013 9:05:26 GMT -5
"Nano means small microscopic particles not different chemical make-up, so all the more likely any thermite particles there occured naturally due to oxidising corrosion by fire reacting with aluminium and steel in the debris over the course of months."
Thanks for your opinion Einstein but experts have experimented with and explained the significant difference between nano-thermite and conventional thermite. Logically if there was no difference, government would not be working with nano-thermite when conventional thermite would yield the same results. I posted the link to an article about NIST and nano-thermite. Did you bother reading it? My guess is no, you'd rather make up your own stories.
"But you want to believe they did [fake the terrorist attacks] and you're ignoring all the evidence that they didn't."
There is NO evidence that stands up that proves anything one way or another because there never was a real investigation. In fact, there is an enormous amount of evidence that the official story is a fraud because it's based on a mountain of deliberate fraud.
"A paranoid statement (CDI) not backed up by facts, only by your desire to believe this was an inside job."
The FEMA investigation was a fraud, the 9/11 Commission investigation was a fraud and the NIST investigation was a fraud. All these were hired by government. CDI was also hired by government to get rid of the evidence. In your world none of that means anything. In my world, it makes nearly everything government and its hires say about 9/11 lack any credibility whatsoever.
"Nobody except you has mentioned molten steel."
That just doesn't happen in office fires. The pools of molten steel burned for weeks. That was all over the news following 9/11. Maybe you missed it.
|
|