|
Post by shred on Apr 12, 2013 14:30:58 GMT -5
No I caught you lying and fabricating, your thermite lie for example. Where's the evidence of thermite ? Where's the barium nitrate component ? Where's the magnesium oxide residues?
The BBC followed a reuters news report that WTC7 was going to collapse, firefighters had already reported that it would collapse, the BBC got mixed up and chinese whispers got the better of them.
You have yet to provide a link that verifies your thermite theory or your no plane pentagon theory, nor have you explained why you posted a photo of the Pentagon courtyard hole claiming it was the entry hole.
Please, show me you have an ounce of intelligence, stop attacking me for speaking and think about what I'm saying properly. I'm not defending your former government, I'm debating with you and telling you the facts.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Apr 12, 2013 22:51:05 GMT -5
"I caught you lying and fabricating, your thermite lie for example."
Sorry but I knew nothing about thermite or nano-thermite before I learned of it from experts. You're barking up the wrong tree. I have no expertise on the subject, try the experts I provided links to their papers.
"Where's the evidence of thermite ? Where's the barium nitrate component ? Where's the magnesium oxide residues?"
I don't know, did you check your pockets? Read the links you automatically dismiss if you want that information.
"The BBC followed a reuters news report that WTC7 was going to collapse, firefighters had already reported that it would collapse, the BBC got mixed up"
Jeeez what a mistake! And I suppose that's what you were told by the BBC? Everyone speaks to you and they all spill their guts to you because you've been declared a "winner" so you must be really important.
"You have yet to provide a link that verifies your thermite theory or your no plane pentagon theory, nor have you explained why you posted a photo of the Pentagon courtyard hole claiming it was the entry hole."
I posted many links about many things. You already admitted you don't bother with any of them because they don't support your mindset. But I didn't post those links for your benefit, like I said, it's not my job. I can take a horse to the water but I can't make him drink it.
"Please, show me you have an ounce of intelligence, stop attacking me for speaking and think about what I'm saying properly."
I'm sorry you're taking it the wrong way. I don't attack you for speaking, I will call you out when you say foolish and childish things though, things that make no sense. I will defend your unalienable right to say anything you want though, regardless of what it is.
"I'm not defending your former government, I'm debating with you and telling you the facts."
I'm not sure what you're trying to do. You're certainly not telling me facts about 9/11, they're mainly what you've been fed and your theories and opinions, along with a bunch of lies, fabrications, etc.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Apr 13, 2013 6:36:53 GMT -5
Sorry but I knew nothing about thermite or nano-thermite before I learned of it from experts. You're barking up the wrong tree. I have no expertise on the subject, try the experts I provided links to their papers. Sorry, their lie your parroting of it. Barium nitrate is a vital component of manufactured thermites, magnesium is used to ignite thermites due to the extremely high temperature at which it burns, as it burns it oxidises, so where are the magnesium oxide residues ? Jones has never provided evidence of either to support his shaky theory. [/quote] The BBC weren't the only ones to get that news: The BBC reporter obviously didn't know the buildings in the city. MSNBC's Ashley Banfield reported that WTC7 was going to collapse next as there was no way to fight the fires and stabilise it. Firefighter Miller predicts WTC7's natural collapse. Indeed you have, but not ones that verify your claims unfortunately. I've read most of their claims before, I see nothing new in their conspiracy propaganda. The underlying key issues are the hijackers, the planes, the structural damage and the fire. I don't post purely for your benefit, but we are having a debate. I post for the benefit of anyone interested in the truth. Nah it's alright, Kit Kat time eh ? Let's have a break and talk about Rock Music for a moment ? Ditto. I'm having a debate and discussing the facts. If you have a closed mind you will never know the facts about 9/11. I've not been "fed", I'm a solo glider pilot (it's only £6.30 a winch launch at my local club : ) with a BTEC in civil engineering. Bending moments and metallurgy were part of the BTEC syllabus, tension forces, torsion forces, compressive forces, & shear forces were all covered in my studies. Along with design work there was a fair bit of metal work, and I got to play with an Oxy Acetylene cutting torch that turns steel into liquid in a second, that was great fun, and when I saw photos of the debris with steel columns neatly cut, I recognised the signature of a cutting torch straight away. I wasn't surprised to see this: Or this: Pic on the right shows more cutting: These torches are very powerful: So, see these columns which have been cut: I've just proven that: A) Cutting torches are capable of making those cuts. B) Cutting torches and Thermal Lances were used to cut WTC columns during the clean up of the debris. Video of Iron workers on site cutting the steel with Torches if you're still not convinced. Your opinion. You aren't going to learn much with a closed mind Bob.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Apr 13, 2013 9:38:58 GMT -5
The foreknowledge of the collapse is well documented. It only adds to the likelihood that WTC7 was control demolished and that several people knew about it. Without a REAL INVESTIGATION we'll never really know the truth, will we?
"I don't post purely for your benefit, but we are having a debate. I post for the benefit of anyone interested in the truth."
I appreciate that however you may believe we're having a debate, I don't quite see it that way.
"If you have a closed mind you will never know the facts about 9/11."
Agreed. When one assumes the official conspiracy theory story is 100% accurate and dismisses anything or anyone that contradicts or even questions it as liars, fabricators, frauds, etc., that is extremely narrow minded.
"I've not been "fed""
You constantly and rabidly regurgitate the official account that you've been fed as "truth" and dismiss anyone or anything that might contradict it, often with lies and fabrications. That is the mind of a sponge. The difference is that I have often pointed to the need for all to listen to both sides, including yours. Closed mindedness is the epitome of your character.
"Video of Iron workers on site cutting the steel with Torches if you're still not convinced."
See what I mean? Your show that your basic agenda is to try to convince me of something you can't convince me of. On the other hand, I don't have any need to try to convince you of anything.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Apr 14, 2013 8:36:14 GMT -5
How do you rig a building for controlled demolition when it's fully involved in fire and so structurally damaged already that firefighters don't dare go in ?
At approximately 2:00 pm, firefighters noticed a bulge in the southwest corner of 7 World Trade Center between the 10th and 13th floors, a sign that the building was unstable and might collapse. During the afternoon, firefighters also heard creaking sounds coming from the building. Around 3:30 pm FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro decided to halt rescue operations, surface removal, and searches along the surface of the debris near 7 World Trade Center and evacuate the area due to concerns for the safety of personnel. At 5:20:33 pm EDT the building started to collapse, with the crumble of the east mechanical penthouse, and at 5:21:10 pm EDT it collapsed completely.
There was no need to demolish WTC7.
But if you want to discuss theories, what would your theories be if none of the WTC's had collapsed that day?
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Apr 14, 2013 8:51:02 GMT -5
"How do you rig a building for controlled demolition when it's fully involved in fire and so structurally damaged already that firefighters don't dare go in ?"
I don't think anyone believes any building was rigged THAT DAY. That's the whole point that you deliberately want to distort. Rigging any building for controlled demolition takes many weeks of careful planning, especially something like the WTC towers and especially if one were to do something that's never been done before. "Hijackers" would NOT have had the qualifications or the kind of access required to rig those 3 buildings.
"There was no need to demolish WTC7."
If that were true, it wouldn't have been demolished. It was so there was a need, that's plain logic.
"But if you want to discuss theories, what would your theories be if none of the WTC's had collapsed that day?"
That's a silly question, 3 buildings did collapse that day so your question is irrelevant. No other similar type building has ever collapsed before or after from fires, airplanes or both. There are many examples of similar buildings engulfed in flames (much more so than the towers) for much longer periods of time that did not collapse in like manner or at all.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Apr 14, 2013 10:47:49 GMT -5
The point is they weren't rigged.
These were fully operational working office buildings in which thousands of people worked. There was no way to start stripping away walls, fireproofing, pre-cutting columns, rigging demolitions charges and so forth.
Furthermore controlled demolitions are noisy. WTC7 collapsed quietly whilst Ashley Banfield was interviewing witnesses.
Compare to this demolition:
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Apr 15, 2013 0:35:32 GMT -5
"The point is they weren't rigged."
That's your opinion and belief.
"These were fully operational working office buildings in which thousands of people worked. There was no way to start stripping away walls, fireproofing, pre-cutting columns, rigging demolitions charges and so forth."
I don't know how it was done and neither do you. To say there was no way is extremely narrow minded opinion, it isn't fact.
"WTC7 collapsed quietly whilst Ashley Banfield was interviewing witnesses."
Nonsense, a 47 story building does not collapse quietly, no matter how it collapses. And even if that's true, what does that mean?
"Compare to this demolition:"
I've already compare the WTC7 demolition to known controlled demolitions, it looks virtually the same. So did this demolition expert who wasn't told was he was looking at before he was shown a video of the WTC7 collapse which he knew nothing about:
Here's the collapse of WTC7 with TIMED EXPLOSIONS:
|
|
|
Post by shred on Apr 15, 2013 2:50:42 GMT -5
"The point is they weren't rigged."That's your opinion and belief. "These were fully operational working office buildings in which thousands of people worked. There was no way to start stripping away walls, fireproofing, pre-cutting columns, rigging demolitions charges and so forth."I don't know how it was done and neither do you. To say there was no way is extremely narrow minded opinion, it isn't fact. Debris from WTC 2 & WTC 1 hit WTC7 damaged it and it caught fire. Once on fire it's steel structure weakened. It lost structural integrity at column 47 and the inside fell down. It couldn't stand without support from the inside, so the outside fell down. As it fell it hit and damaged Fitterman Hall, so the collapse was not controlled, it did not fall neatly into it's own footprint because it damaged another building. I have already explained how the airliners hit and damaged WTC's 1 & 2 causing the weakening of structure around the impact zones and the structural failure of load bearing columns in those damaged regions that lead to progressive collapse. No other tube in a tube buildings of that design have been subjected to that type of damage, so any comparison with skyscrapers who survived fire damage is bogus, those buildings had intact fireproofing systems, the twin towers did not.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Apr 15, 2013 6:38:30 GMT -5
Not interested in your opinion that matches the official account almost word for word. Repeating it incessantly does nothing more for me than it did the first time you posted it.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Apr 15, 2013 11:41:41 GMT -5
Are you interested in the truth or are you just pretending to be ?
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Apr 15, 2013 12:40:08 GMT -5
Are you interested in the truth or are you just pretending to be ? I'm not interested in what you believe is truth, you have no credibility with me. When and if you have something that I feel is interesting to discuss, I will certainly discuss it with you, otherwise it's all the same repetitious nonsense that you trot out as "truth". On a related side note, I've provided many links to many sites, articles, etc. and so have you. Like I've been saying throughout these conversations/posts, it is up to the reader to do the research and to determine what is true, what may be true and what is false. This is NOT something you or I can determine for the reader. You have your opinion as to what you believe is true or not and I have mine. When you ask me the above that I quoted, you are asking a ridiculous and irrelevant question because all you're really doing is asking me to accept your truth as truth and reject what I believe is truth if it contradicts your truth.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Apr 16, 2013 3:46:06 GMT -5
The truth is that if the joint effects of temperature profile and load are too great any steel structure will collapse in fire.
Examples at the start of this thread prove this.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Apr 16, 2013 6:43:48 GMT -5
The truth is that if the joint effects of temperature profile and load are too great any steel structure will collapse in fire. Examples at the start of this thread prove this. The above is a perfect example of why you have no credibility. No steel frame high rise has ever collapsed due to fire before or after 9/11 and you write "any steel structure will collapse in fire" and that it's truth. You didn't say one or some, you said ANY and you didn't say it's just your opinion, you said it's "proven" truth. There are NUMEROUS video and photographic examples that PROVE that you are 100% WRONG. I posted just one example about the middle of page 4 in this thread, a recent high rise fire in Chechnya where the building did NOT collapse. Furthermore, if what you say is "truth" then no one would ever be safe from collapse if a fire ever broke out in a steel frame high rise.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Apr 16, 2013 10:49:03 GMT -5
Apples and oranges. What makes 9/11 unique was the combined effect of STRUCTURAL DAMAGE AND FIRE together.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Apr 16, 2013 11:21:08 GMT -5
Apples and oranges. What makes 9/11 unique was the combined effect of STRUCTURAL DAMAGE AND FIRE together. Sure, you make statements that you claim is "truth" that "proves" your belief, then when you're easily taken to the cleaners, it's "apples and oranges". Your own irrelevant example that started this thread was a fire that did not include structural damage.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Apr 16, 2013 11:25:54 GMT -5
I started this thread with an example of a fire in which temperature profile and the effect of load were sufficient to bring down a steel building.
The point being temperature profile and load. Sometimes structures can survive the effect of temperature profile and load, sometimes structures cannot.
Steel can fail in fire if the above factors are strong enough. In the twin towers, there is no question that the above factors were strong enough to bring down the buildings.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Apr 16, 2013 13:26:46 GMT -5
"Sometimes structures can survive the effect of temperature profile and load, sometimes structures cannot."
Oh so what happened to "any steel structure will collapse in fire"? Your "truth" seems to change as the wind blows.
"In the twin towers, there is no question that the above factors were strong enough to bring down the buildings."
The only thing there's no question about is that you make things up and hold them out as "truth".
|
|
|
Post by shred on Apr 16, 2013 19:28:02 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Apr 16, 2013 21:02:46 GMT -5
Oh so the wind blew the other way today.
"Any steel structure can collapse in fire but this is dependent on two factors, 1) The effect of temperature profile and 2) The effect of load."
So all high rise steel structures are always in danger of collapsing from fire in a manner similar to a controlled demolition. If you live in one and it catches fire, you will likely die from its collapse before you die from the fire. It happens all the time but it never happened before or after 9/11.
So then there should never be a need for the controlled demolition of a high rise steel structure, just set it on fire, wait an hour or less and watch it collapse or crumble at near free fall speed in its own footprint. Planning a controlled demolition is a waste of time and money and could be dangerous as one would have to work with explosives. All those steel framed high rise towers that never collapsed from fire before or since 9/11 were just really stubborn, they should have.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Apr 17, 2013 3:28:52 GMT -5
All steel structures that contain combustibles require fireproofing high rise or not.
Brian Clark (WTC2 survivor) described how drywall fireproofing had been damaged around the core stairwells. Drywall and spray foam weren't good enough. Concrete would have been better. Had concrete been used the towers would probably have survived, it is after all more resistant to mechanical damage than drywall or spray foam. Concrete Composite Slimdek floor panels (developed later) would have offered better fire resistance than the truss system of Robertson's design. Concrete around the core stairwells would also have given people above the impact zones more chance to escape.
You again ignore the mechanical damage caused by the aeroplane which changed the load distribution around the impact floors. You again ignore the combination of factors that other high rise buildings of the design have not been exposed to.
Apples and Oranges boy, remember saying that?
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Apr 17, 2013 7:46:59 GMT -5
"Brian Clark (WTC2 survivor) described how drywall fireproofing had been damaged around the core stairwells. Drywall and spray foam weren't good enough."At the time of the 9/11 attacks, the WTC towers were undergoing a fireproofing upgrade to better ensure the buildings’ fire resistance. In an incredible coincidence, the floors where the full fireproofing upgrades had been completed were the same floors that were struck by the aircraft on 9/11.[5]
The true condition of the fireproofing in the WTC towers at the time of impact has been misrepresented by supporters of the official account. These official account supporters produce old photos of the fireproofing condition prior to the upgrades. What they don’t tell you is that the upgraded fireproofing, for example on the impact floors of the north tower, was measured before the attacks and found to be 3.25 inches thick. This was twice what was required by the NYC code. What’s more, inspectors found that the adhesion, or bond strength, of the newly installed fireproofing was twice as high as what was required.[6]
How did this newly installed, superior fireproofing in the towers get “widely dislodged” as proposed by NIST?
We don’t know because NIST produced a startling lack of scientific evidence for its central claim that the fireproofing was widely dislodged. In fact, the only evidence NIST presented for this was a test in which 15 rounds from a shotgun were aimed at various non-representative samples. A shotgun may have been needed due to the fact that other tests NIST had performed showed the bond strength of the WTC fireproofing to be “considerably greater” than what was expected.[7]911blogger.com/news/2012-09-07/are-tall-buildings-safer-result-nist-wtc-reportsFurthermore WTC7 fireproofing was not damaged or dislodged. Furthermore, the fireproofing was not damaged or dislodged for more than 90% of both towers. "You again ignore the mechanical damage caused by the aeroplane"
WTC7 was not hit by a plane. The damage caused by the planes to the twin towers was restricted to very few floors. The vast majority of both towers were intact and not on fire. "You again ignore the combination of factors that other high rise buildings of the design have not been exposed to."Nonsense, WTC7 was not hit by a plane. The vast majority of the twin towers were not damaged and the construction was such that the lower floors were built progressively sturdier than the higher floors yet they crumbled at the same rate as the rest of the building. "Apples and Oranges boy, remember saying that?"I'm not your "boy" and yes you're big on that, most of your posts contradict each other, are irrelevant with regard to what actually happened (i.e. a lot of theory complete with cartoons), make little sense and/or are just verbatim regurgitation of the official fairy tale, including all the lies. What you trot out as "investigations" are in reality studies designed to try to support the official theory (i.e. "it could have happened because of the following if we tweak everything to try to make it happen"). This is the same approach NIST took in its fake "investigation", which also included a cartoon.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Apr 17, 2013 19:33:46 GMT -5
Structural fire engineering explained. I'm going to explain mathematically but as simply as possible how some steel structures can fail in fire whilst others can survive it. It's down to this: Bending moments. The effect of load causing an elastic substance to bend and fail. Case 1: Steel structure designed to support 200 tonnes. Eight steel columns each capable of supporting 25 tonnes. (8x25=200) 200 Tonnes supported quite nicely. Unfortunately fire breaks out & reduces load bearing capacity after it gets above 300 degrees C. Now structure cannot fully support 200 tonnes but is still under the load of 200 tonnes. Bending moment ensues. Columns that are meant to be like this: | bend and go like this: ) columns are now divided in two, on concave sides they're in compression, on convex sides they're in tension and start to split, convex sides tear open & structure collapses. Case 2: Safety factor of two considered to prevent case 1 scenario from happening. Sixteen steel columns are used each capable of supporting 25 tonnes, (16*25=400) 400 tonnes load bearing capacity. Fire breaks out, effect of temperature profile halves load bearing capacity, structure can now only support 200 tonnes. Structure survives. Case 3: Safety factor of two considered to prevent case 1 scenario from happening. Sixteen steel columns are used each capable of supporting 25 tonnes, (16*25=400) 400 tonnes load bearing capacity. Fire breaks out, effect of temperature profile halves remaining load bearing capacity from 400 tonnes to 200 tonnes, load of 200 tonnes stays put. Structure survives. Case 4: Safety factor of two considered again. Sixteen steel columns are used each capable of supporting 25 tonnes, (16*25=400) 400 tonnes load bearing capacity. Plane crash, 4 columns taken out. 4 x 25 =100 so 100 less tonnes of load bearing capacity. Fire breaks out, effect of temperature profile halves remaining load bearing capacity from 300 tonnes to 150 tonnes, load of 200 tonnes crashes down. The twin towers collapsed because of a combination of the damage done by the impact of the planes severing vital columns and redistributing the load across the remainder of the structure around the impact zones, AND the subsequent heating of the material by fire, thus damaging the martensite crystals in the steel that kept the steel rigid. Elasticity went up, load bearing capability went down. Simple.WTC 7 as I keep telling you my dear boy, was hit by WTC 2 and WTC 1 debris. It suffered extreme mechanical damage, burned for seven hours, then finally and crucially column 47 suffered a bending moment. The east penthouse which column 47 had supported collapsed into the building destroying the interior. Then without an interior to support the exterior, the exterior fell. Simple.The reasons the floors under the progressive collapse in the twin towers collapsed is this: The upper block became a dynamic load. Force = Mass x Acceleration. This increases the stress on load bearing structure, and in the progressive collapse scenario overstressed structure causing failure. Bolts were stripped & sheared. There was nothing to withstand the hammer blow from above. The thousands of cubic feet of air below was compressed pushed down and displaced. It broke some of windows in the floors below. Stairway B survivors from the North Tower described a strong wind blowing against them. It came from a pneumatic plunger effect as the floors fell down and pushed the air down with them.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Apr 17, 2013 20:49:30 GMT -5
"I'm going to explain mathematically but as simply as possible how some steel structures can fail in fire whilst others can survive it."
Why? I only ask because I'm assuming you're addressing me by your childish name calling. If that's so then you're being irrelevant as usual. I'm not interested in your theories or the official conspiracy theory (which are allegedly 100% twins except for a few contradictions), I'm just interested in what really happened on 9/11.
"The twin towers collapsed because ... yada, yada
Simple.
WTC 7 as I keep telling you ... yada, yada
Simple."
That's about the only thing that's 100% true, your simple mindedness. The rest is the same tired parroting crap or bird s**t if you will. Why do you bother repeating yourself? Do you think I'll accept your theories as truth if you just keep repeating them like a broken record?
|
|
|
Post by shred on Apr 18, 2013 2:46:38 GMT -5
I'm providing an educational explanation because you obviously don't understand enough about physics and you call physics crap ? Stop being silly mate and listen. You've been spoon fed BS by so called 'experts' whose 'truth' movement is nothing of the sort. You're so brainwashed by these loons it's hard to have a sensible discussion with you, especially when you make stupid comments like yada yada instead of considering the mechanical damage done to the south face of WTC7 and the fire inside it. I've addressed every question you've asked so far. Please start being reasonable instead of childish. WTC2 survivors Brian Clark and Stanley Praimnath's testimonies describe how the force of impact of the plane actually caused the building to sway from side to side and how fireproofing WAS dislodged in the impact zones. Why have fire proofing if 'no steel high rise building has ever collapsed due to fire' eh? It was discovered in the Charles Clifton study fire-research.group.shef.ac.uk/steelinfire/downloads/CC_wtc.pdf that the impact of the planes transmitted 1/3 of the absolute maximum force the building could take without falling and as it did so it damaged the fireproofing. Add the fuel fires setting fire to the contents like carpets, desks, chairs, papers & computers, a picture builds of the serious fire raging inside that weakened the structure.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Apr 18, 2013 8:24:31 GMT -5
"I'm providing an educational explanation because you obviously don't understand enough about physics and you call physics crap ?"
You're not in the least and I didn't call physics "crap", I called what you believe you're providing crap.
"It was discovered in the Charles Clifton study ..." yada, yada
You're only managing to prove with the above paper that what you believe you're providing is crap. The 3rd line of the paper says: "17th September 2001 and revised 19th September". That means fake one that the paper was written 6 days after 9/11 and revised 2 days later. I think you actually believe you're intelligent (maybe I'm wrong) but if you can't figure out that the paper you provided a link to could not possibly begin to explain what happened on 9/11 6 days after it happened, you're far from intelligent. That at best it's a knee jerk THEORY.
As to your juvenile comments about experts who have spent several years studying 9/11 using EVIDENCE and a huge compendium of information that has been collected over all those years, it just emphasizes that what you believe you're trying to do is crap. Personally, in my opinion what you're doing is pursuing some sort of agenda that escapes me as to what it really is or you generally have one too many warm beers before you post here. I don't believe for 1 second that you actually believe what you're doing is "providing an educational explanation", I wasn't born yesterday.
"it's hard to have a sensible discussion with you"
That quite understandable since in many cases I'm not really having a discussion with you regardless that you believe you're having one with me. I already posted what my purpose is and it has nothing to do with you other than using you as a shill to help provide information about 9/11. For those who actually accept what you contribute as factual and beneficial, it's certainly up to them how they want to digest your crap. For some, you're a real winner and I agree with that assessment, you certainly take the cake.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Apr 18, 2013 16:14:32 GMT -5
What evidence Bob? Your pretend experts can't even produce factual evidence about thermite. Just a few microscopic particles of rust from steel, no Barium Nitrate no Magnesium oxide, no delivery method, no way of getting tonnes of the stuff into the building with nobody noticing.
Frankly they're hilarious.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Apr 18, 2013 16:41:55 GMT -5
What evidence Bob? Your pretend experts can't even produce factual evidence about thermite. Just a few microscopic particles of rust from steel, no Barium Nitrate no Magnesium oxide, no delivery method, no way of getting tonnes of the stuff into the building with nobody noticing. Frankly they're hilarious. Actually if anyone is "hilarious" you are. You ask "what evidence" when I gave the link to exactly what they found and their complete analysis of what they found. But it's irrelevant what your beliefs and opinions are, they have nothing to do with 9/11.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Apr 18, 2013 17:50:27 GMT -5
Their analysis is laughable, they found iron spherules (RUST) and claimed it was nano thermite. LOL
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Apr 18, 2013 19:38:35 GMT -5
Their analysis is laughable, they found iron spherules (RUST) and claimed it was nano thermite. LOL I'm sure you're really not that ignorant and that you're only trying to confuse the issue, that's not true at all. All it takes is a reading of their paper to know and understand that you're making this up. You know very well (and I posted it more than once) that they found reacted and unreacted nano-thermite along with microscopic iron spheres in all 4 independent samples of WTC dust. Quite a bit of it might I add. Do you really expect others to believe they wrote a paper claiming that iron spheres are nano-thermite and that during the peer review process, not one expert bothered to notice? Once again you're caught in an obvious lie. Why do you do feel the need to do that? I'm still wondering what your real agenda is. Not that I really care, I'm just curious. If you really wanted to educate people about 9/11, just stick to what you believe is true. Your obvious lies only serve to expose you as a complete fraud with some kind of agenda.
|
|