World Trade Center Dust Contains Evidence of Explosives

RDM said:
Because when the plane hit it didn't stay intact, it, and the contents of it, literally flew all over the place. Did you not see the huge amount of debris when the plan hit? While the majority of it will have been the building quite a lot of it would also have been plane and contents of plane.
Click to expand...

Why bother?

You cannot hope to fight stupidity and win.
 
likwid said:
The problem is the validity of the evidence presented by the conspiracy theorists never holds up to scrutiny.
Click to expand...

Firstly, this isn't being presented by conspiracy theorists (as far as we know). Secondly, what if they did present evidence that held up to scrutiny?

likwid said:
Do you feel this new evidence has been investigated thoroughly enough for you to accept it as true?
Click to expand...

At first glance it raises questions and seems at least more credible than the usual rubbish that's thrown around, but no, I don't, because I don't know enough about it.

RDM said:
I would disagree, you consider the evidence on its merits, not consider all evidene equally. In this case there is very little merit to the evidence.
Click to expand...

By equally I mean without bias. Most people in this thread are far from unbiased.
 
Mulder said:
You've got to ask the question why they wouldn't too. They could settle years of debate by releasing a few seconds of clear footage, but they won't (or can't).
Click to expand...

Why would the government care enough to do that? It's not causing them any problems. Besides, it wouldn't settle any debate at all; it'd immediately be denounced as doctored or inconclusive by those who don't like it's implications.
 
Inquisitor said:
Firstly, this isn't being presented by conspiracy theorists (as far as we know).
Click to expand...
Ok. They are presenting evidence which supports conspiracy theorists.

Inquisitor said:
Secondly, what if they did present evidence that held up to scrutiny?
Click to expand...
Then the world as we know it would end.

Inquisitor said:
At first glance it raises questions and seems at least more credible than the usual rubbish that's thrown around, but no, I don't, because I don't know enough about it.
Click to expand...
It really hasn't been investigated sufficiently to raise any questions.
 
dmpoole said:
Thought some might find this interesting -

A group of scientists have published their results into a peer reviewed journal, Open Chemical Physics Journal, stating that within the debris of the WTC, they have found evidence of a "highly engineered explosive".

The papers abstract read, “We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center.”

Their analysis claims to show "active thermitic material" known as "nanostructured super-thermite." Thermite is used in demolition, hand grenades, welding and fireworks. It known for creating a chemical reaction that creates very high temperatures.

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Scientists_find_active_superthermite_in_WTC_0404.html
Click to expand...


Aluminum & iron oxide(rust) is all that thermite is. Iron oxide = big steel framed building. Aluminum = airplane + office fittings.
 
"Their analysis claims to show "active thermitic material" known as "nanostructured super-thermite." Thermite is used in demolition, hand grenades, welding"

:rolleyes:
 
likwid said:
Then the world as we know it would end.
Click to expand...

Well there you go. Your argument was that no evidence presented has previously held up to scrutiny, therefore no such evidence that might potentially be presented will hold up to scrutiny, which is fallacy.

likwid said:
It really hasn't been investigated sufficiently to raise any questions.
Click to expand...

The conclusion presented at least warrants further examination so that it can be debunked or affirmed. I haven't read the paper (and wouldn't understand much of it anyway), so I can't do this myself.
 
Last edited:
Inquisitor said:
Well there you go. Your argument was that no evidence presented has previously held up to scrutiny, therefore no such evidence that might potentially be presented will hold up to scrutiny, which is fallacy.
Click to expand...
No, I merely stated the potential impact of such evidence ever coming to light.

Inquisitor said:
The conclusion presented at least warrants further investigation.
Click to expand...
Of course.
 
Inquisitor said:
By equally I mean without bias. Most people in this thread are far from unbiased.
Click to expand...

The only bias I have is the massive amounts of evidence against the conspiracy theories so far. How exactly do you wire 3 entire buildings for controlled demolition while they are still in use with no one noticing? How exactly do you use thermite in demolition work and if it is so effective, how come none of the commercial firms use it in preference to the more expensive explosives? How can different parts of a building fall at "freefall" speeds yet fall at different speeds? Why fire a missile into the pentagon when you have a perfectly good airplane to use? How did said missile manage to scatter aircraft parts about and knock down lamposts?

It is all absolute ********.
 
nikebee said:
Mulder where did you hear this passport malarky? I'd quite like to read that.

I've read all the intense fire stuff myself before, the whole "It burned too hot to be jet fuel fire" etc... and that's generally where people start talking about Thermite in the past.

I've never heard this passport business though; got any links?
Click to expand...

It's the official line AFAIK.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/mar/19/september11.iraq
http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/disinfo/deceptions/abc_hunt.html (An ABC article that since has been taken down)
 
RDM said:
The only bias I have is the massive amounts of evidence against the conspiracy theories so far. How exactly do you wire 3 entire buildings for controlled demolition while they are still in use with no one noticing? How exactly do you use thermite in demolition work and if it is so effective, how come none of the commercial firms use it in preference to the more expensive explosives? How can different parts of a building fall at "freefall" speeds yet fall at different speeds? Why fire a missile into the pentagon when you have a perfectly good airplane to use? How did said missile manage to scatter aircraft parts about and knock down lamposts?

It is all absolute ********.
Click to expand...

All perfectly valid criticisms of 9/11 conspiracy theories that I wouldn't hesitate to use myself. However, none of them justify the out of hand dismissal any new contradictory evidence.
 
likwid said:
If I say I never eat chips does that imply I never will?
Click to expand...

Well if you simply meant it never has in the past, then what was your point? The validity of past claims has no impact on the validity of future claims. The best you can do is draw an inductive conclusion, which isn't that useful.
 
Last edited:
leaskovski said:
I bet if you 'analised' the twenty ton of dust that is sitting in ever fricking part of my house at the moment you would find a siemen sample from Gordon Ramsey.
Click to expand...

we don't wish to hear about your sexual endeavours with gordon ramsey mate, keep it to yourself :)
 
Inquisitor said:
Well if you simply meant it never has in the past, then what was your point? The validity of past claims has no impact on the validity of future claims. The best you can do is draw an inductive conclusion, which isn't that useful.
Click to expand...
Wait, what?

I haven't alluded to the possibility that no evidence will ever come to light. I've argued that any evidence needs to be investigated before it is deemed credible. Thus far evidence supporting conspiracy theorists has not been found credible when subjected to scrutiny.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom