World Trade Center Dust Contains Evidence of Explosives

Did my post help DMpoole?

Its just to show the Ingrediance arnt all that uncommon and can be found pretty easilly.

Fair enough if it was something rare to make it but it doesnt seem to be the case
 
Well the one thing that has me concerned is why are the US Govt still lieing over small details if they have nothing to hide?

One conspiritor (And WTC Employee) said that numerious floors (Every 10-12 floors if i remember) were evacuated months previous and signed as off-limits due to engineering work.
And having been on a tour about 5 weeks before this disaster i can confirm that there -were- floors off-limits due to engineering work (Guides words, not mine).
So why to my knowledge does the US Govt and who-ever else still deny it? :O

Not saying that the government put explosives or whatever in these floors, but this Terrorist plot was so finely planned out, whos to say that they couldnt of infiltrated the engineering company?

Its probably just my mind thinking a load of crap, but its just a thought ive had for a while now.
 
dowie said:
Do you actually want people who have a mediocre of common sense...
Click to expand...

It's nothing to do with the thread really and could perhaps be explained by a simple typo (and autocorrect) so you may already be well aware but just in case I think the word you are looking for is "modicum" since mediocre is nowhere close to the intended meaning. I normally wouldn't pick up on typos unless it was indicated by the poster they were unsure but since that one rather changes the meaning of your sentence I thought I might as well.
 
If the building was full of explosives, wouldn't they have gone off when the planes hit? The kinetic energy caused by the collision must have been huge.

The only solution to that argument is the 'no plane theory' which is so ridiculous as to be farcical.

QED the planes caused the buildings to collapse and nothing else.
 
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...

This is a open Journal, basically you pay to get your paper published and it it not peer reviewed at all. It is published without any scientific backing and left to the community to decide if it is bull excrement.

These journals are a joke and a scam. They scam money off young scientists, they are the joke of the scientific world.
 
Found this articel froma US Local Newspaper online. Not saying I concur with this guys theory but he does put forward a rational argument rather than the usual 'lets wear foil hats to avoid brainscans by the FBI' conspiracy theorists

Why the towers fell: Two theories
By William Rice
Posted March 1, 2007

Having worked on structural steel buildings as a civil engineer in the era when the Twin Towers were designed and constructed, I found some disturbing discrepancies and omissions concerning their collapse on 9/11.
I was particularly interested in the two PBS documentaries that explained the prevailing theories as determined by two government agencies, FEMA and NIST (National Institute of Science and Technology). The first (2002) PBS documentary, Why the Towers Fell, discussed how the floor truss connectors failed and caused a “progressive pancake collapse.”
The subsequent 2006 repackaged documentary Building on Ground Zero explained that the connectors held, but that the columns failed, which is also unlikely. Without mentioning the word “concrete,” the latter documentary compared the three-second collapse of the concrete Oklahoma City Murrah Federal Building with that of the Twin Towers that were of structural steel. The collapse of a concrete-framed building cannot be compared with that of a structural steel-framed building.
Since neither documentary addressed many of the pertinent facts, I took the time to review available material, combine it with scientific and historic facts, and submit the following two theories for consideration.

The prevailing theory
The prevailing theory for the collapse of the 110-story, award-winning Twin Towers is that when jetliners flew into the 95th and 80th floors of the North and South Towers respectively, they severed several of each building’s columns and weakened other columns with the burning of jet fuel/kerosene (and office combustibles).
However, unlike concrete buildings, structural steel buildings redistribute the stress when several columns are removed and the undamaged structural framework acts as a truss network to bridge over the missing columns.
After the 1993 car bomb explosion destroyed columns in the North Tower, John Skilling, the head structural engineer for the Twin Towers, was asked about an airplane strike. He explained that the Twin Towers were originally designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 (similar in size to the Boeing 767). He went on to say that there would be a horrendous fire from the jet fuel, but “the building structure would still be there.”
The 10,000 gallons of jet fuel (half capacity) in each jetliner did cause horrendous fires over several floors, but it would not cause the steel members to melt or even lose sufficient strength to cause a collapse. This is because the short-duration jet fuel fires and office combustible fires cannot create (or transmit to the steel) temperatures hot enough. If a structural steel building could collapse because of fire, it would do so slowly as the various steel members gradually relinquished their structural strength. However, in the 100-year history of structural-steel framed buildings, there is no evidence of any structural steel framed building having collapsed because of fire.
Let’s assume the unlikelihood that these fires could weaken all of the columns to the same degree of heat intensity and thus remove their structural strength equally over the entire floor, or floors, in order to cause the top 30-floor building segment (South Tower WTC #2) to drop vertically and evenly onto the supporting 79th floor. The 30 floors from above would then combine with the 79th floor and fall onto the next level down (78th floor) crushing its columns evenly and so on down into the seven levels below the street level.
The interesting fact is that each of these 110-story Twin Towers fell upon itself in about ten seconds at nearly free-fall speed. This violates Newton’s Law of Conservation of Momentum that would require that as the stationary inertia of each floor is overcome by being hit, the mass (weight) increases and the free-fall speed decreases.
Even if Newton’s Law is ignored, the prevailing theory would have us believe that each of the Twin Towers inexplicably collapsed upon itself crushing all 287 massive columns on each floor while maintaining a free-fall speed as if the 100,000, or more, tons of supporting structural-steel framework underneath didn’t exist.

The politically unthinkable theory
Controlled demolition is so politically unthinkable that the media not only demeans the messenger but also ridicules and “debunks” the message rather than provide investigative reporting. Curiously, it took 441 days for the president’s 9/11 Commission to start an “investigation” into a tragedy where more than 2,500 WTC lives were taken. The Commission’s investigation also didn’t include the possibility of controlled-demolition, nor did it include an investigation into the “unusual and unprecedented” manner in which WTC Building #7 collapsed.
The media has basically kept the collapse of WTC Building #7 hidden from public view. However, instead of the Twin Towers, let’s consider this building now. Building #7 was a 47-story structural steel World Trade Center Building that also collapsed onto itself at free-fall speed on 9/11. This structural steel building was not hit by a jetliner, and collapsed seven hours after the Twin Towers collapsed and five hours after the firemen had been ordered to vacate the building and a collapse safety zone had been cordoned off. Both of the landmark buildings on either side received relatively little structural damage and both continue in use today.
Contrary to the sudden collapse of the Twin Towers and Building #7, the four other smaller World Trade Center buildings #3, #4, #5, and #6, which were severely damaged and engulfed in flames on 9/11, still remained standing. There were no reports of multiple explosions. The buildings had no pools of molten metal (a byproduct of explosives) at the base of their elevator shafts. They created no huge caustic concrete/cement and asbestos dust clouds (only explosives will pulverize concrete into a fine dust cloud), and they propelled no heavy steel beams horizontally for three hundred feet or more.
The collapse of WTC building #7, which housed the offices of the CIA, the Secret Service, and the Department of Defense, among others, was omitted from the government’s 9/11 Commission Report, and its collapse has yet to be investigated.
Perhaps it is time for these and other unanswered questions surrounding 9/11 to be thoroughly investigated. Let’s start by contacting our congressional delegation.


William Rice, P.E., is a registered professional civil engineer who worked on structural steel (and concrete) buildings in Boston, New York, and Philadelphia. He was also a professor at Vermont Technical College where he taught engineering materials, structures lab, and other building related courses.
Click to expand...

Some of these guys observations do make a bit of sense
 
AcidHell2 said:
what I don't get is the report. it goes ohh man made nano thermite, then in the conclusion. It says these are widely found in the environment and can be caused by welding and other such activities. which one is it. Lab made nano particles or normal particles you would find anywhere. It really does sound like a stupid report.
Click to expand...

You mean the paper? If so then it seems a reasonable scientific paper laid out in the standard way. You describe why you are doing it, explain what you have and what you did with it, show the quantative results and then analyse them in relation to previous studies coming up with a few theories, then suggest the more prominent theory(ies) according to the evidence (if the evidence is strong enough). This is exactly what the paper did. Very few papers come up with hard FACTS, and if they do they are either very basic, pointless or "recipie" books explaining how to make something.

Just because it isn't in a well respected journal doesn't mean it should be rubbished (just the same as papers in well respected journals should be taken as fact). Well respected journals 1, don't like to stick their necks out on papers out there claims just incase they are wrong and 2, can be just as bias and one sided as lesser journals (and no i'm not talking about trying to cover stuff up). Like anyone the editors may be slightly bias to their own ideas and theories (especially if they have been published).

With regards to the 4 samples, if I went onto a beach and took a sample from the cliff bordering it, then went to some beaches nearby with cliffs of different material and picked up 3 pebbles from the beaches. If after analysis they were the same composition as the sample from the first cliff it would be reasonable to assume they were from that source (in fact this is what a huge part of geological analysis is based on). I can't see much difference in that to the dust samples analysed. The only questions would be was the sample collected from "ground zero" 100% definately collected from there and that there were only 4 samples, not a huge sample size (but still reasonably ok if they were all identical, it's not like only 3 out of 4 were the same).

WIth regard to the idea of getting tons of thermite into the building I don't see that being a problem. 1. I doubt tons would have been needed, a few carefully placed shaped charges would probably have been enough. 2. These charges could have been concealed in a number of ways (probably only needing a couple of people working for an hour or two over a week or so). Maybe inside briefcases, boxes and even electrical items placed against the wall in those carefully chosen places. All you would need is someone walking up and leaving their case in the right place, no one would take any notice. It's not like people would be stupid enough to go up in military dress with large boxes stating "explosives" and drilling and bashing them in place! Having said that there are massive holes in that idea and it's more a devils advocate idea (I don't particularly believe it, in fact the only bits I would be shady on are the idea the government knew about the possibilty and let it happen and that that random plane was shot down by jets and not "heroicly" taken down by the passengers).

EDIT: and I can't be bothered to correct the spelling and grammar mistakes, it's a forum post not a paper...
 
Last edited:
Amp34 said:
snip
Click to expand...

A)
D.P. said:
This is a open Journal, basically you pay to get your paper published and it it not peer reviewed at all. It is published without any scientific backing and left to the community to decide if it is bull excrement.

These journals are a joke and a scam. They scam money off young scientists, they are the joke of the scientific world.
Click to expand...

B)
The sample size is rubbish and you think you would only need a few critically placed thermite. Complete rubbish. Either you accept he building will naturally collapse into roughly it's own foot print. Or you will need hundreds of columns slicing to make it fall like that. On top of that are these samples verified? and no it does not sound normal. the report says man made nano particles, then goes on to say these are found nearly every where and can be found from welding etc. It is a complete contradiction.
 
meh if its all a conspiracy why go to such lengths? you could collapse a stand at the superbowl, or an incendiary device in somewhere like grand central at rush hour..all would have yielded massive casualties, all would have been equally offensive to the american public as they were at famous places/events..and all could be done with simple explosives..and it would all be a lot easier to plan and execute and cover up

why leave it to chance with the hijacking of planes..what would have happened if all 3 flights had passengers on that fought back? we wouldnt even be talking about it now!
 
This is from another forum but just about sums up my feelings -

"Just to finish off, the US government couldn't keep the fact that Bill Clinton banged his secretary a secret, let alone this sort of rubbish. How many people would needed to have been involved? A lot. We live in a media age, an age where the internet will spread real evidence in a matter of hours to 100,000's of users. But there is no real evidence, just planks like Michael Moore with their tinfoil hat on".
 
dmpoole said:
This is from another forum but just about sums up my feelings -

"Just to finish off, the US government couldn't keep the fact that Bill Clinton banged his secretary a secret, let alone this sort of rubbish. How many people would needed to have been involved? A lot. We live in a media age, an age where the internet will spread real evidence in a matter of hours to 100,000's of users. But there is no real evidence, just planks like Michael Moore with their tinfoil hat on".
Click to expand...

I wouldn't count on the secret aspect to back up or deny anything... theres been things the US gov have managed to keep secret for 10s of years and other things that have leaked out almost immediatly. I imagine theres many things that have been kept secret that will never become public.
 
FTM said:
meh if its all a conspiracy why go to such lengths? you could collapse a stand at the superbowl, or an incendiary device in somewhere like grand central at rush hour..all would have yielded massive casualties, all would have been equally offensive to the american public as they were at famous places/events..and all could be done with simple explosives..and it would all be a lot easier to plan and execute and cover up

why leave it to chance with the hijacking of planes..what would have happened if all 3 flights had passengers on that fought back? we wouldnt even be talking about it now!
Click to expand...

Assuming they even had passengers on the planes and they weren't just empty planes... avionic systems are sophisticated enough these days to fly a plane remotely (even automatically) within a couple of feet or so accuracy, and if the cockpit door is sealed it would take a lot of time and determination to break it down without the proper tools.
 
Rroff said:
Assuming they even had passengers on the planes and they weren't just empty planes...
Click to expand...

No need to make that assumption. People got on those planes and did not get off. Black boxes recorded the events in the cockpit. People made phone calls to their loved ones during the flights. We have ample evidence that those planes had passengers.

They were not empty planes.
 
Evangelion said:
No need to make that assumption. People got on those planes and did not get off. Black boxes recorded the events in the cockpit. People made phone calls to their loved ones during the flights. We have ample evidence that those planes had passengers.

They were not empty planes.
Click to expand...

You're defiantly right about their theories getting exponentially more complicated.
 
Evangelion said:
No need to make that assumption. People got on those planes and did not get off. Black boxes recorded the events in the cockpit. People made phone calls to their loved ones during the flights. We have ample evidence that those planes had passengers.

They were not empty planes.
Click to expand...

Nothing that couldn't have been faked up, if your really going to go to the lengths of a full blown, sophisticated conspiracy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom