World Trade Center Dust Contains Evidence of Explosives

AcidHell2 said:
What a load of trollop. No evidence for heat damage. have you seen all the photos of the wavy floors, or the NIST tests on models. It's not just teh structual integrity, it's the expansion of the metal.

yet again, all theory where the evidence does not support the claims.

No explanation of the squibs (puff of smokes). umm what are they on about. the NIST report covers these.. Really where do you find these sites.

and in the case of wtc7 the modelled explosive pattern needed to bring the building down, does not match any of the videos.
Click to expand...

Hello that was the THE USA GoV Nist Vs themselves. And they lost.

So it happend the way you said and no other way..hmmmm ok
 
Werewolf said:
Passports are relatively light, high surface area objects, they can/do get thrown/blown clear during the initial impact.
It's not uncommon for them to survive major impacts, and the subsequent fires because of that, same with various other papers/books etc.
Click to expand...

In 1979 I was on a campsite in the South Of France and around 30 tents got destroyed by fire.
When we checked through the remains virtually everybody found their passports & money intact.
 
deuse said:
Hello that was the THE USA GoV Nist Vs themselves. And they lost.

So it happend the way you said and no other way..hmmmm ok
Click to expand...

How is it nist vs nist. Those assumptions and lies are not written by nist or the government. Your argument does not make any sense.

There are assumptions made on that website that just aren't true. there reports do contain such info. If you are saying there initial reports don't compare to there final report. What's wrong with that. There conclusion are allowed to changed between the two. Otherwise what's the point in investigating further and having a final report.
 
AcidHell2 said:
A)


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.
Click to expand...

And what does that quote have to do with my post? Nothing. I was just commenting on your seeming lack of understanding on how scientific papers work, not the content of the papers.

Yes the sample size is rubbish, but there is a point where due to a lack of any other samples you really have to go by what you have. The paper didn't say the WTC was taken down by thermite, just that there may have been thermatic material in the dust.

You do know that to take down a building that size in a controlled way would probably only need a couple of hundred kg of material. Now consider the fact you have a huge amount of energy within the plane a few (say 10-20) suitcases/boxes of shaped charges could easily cut one or two floors supports apart the logistics of placing charges is quite achievable.

However I think it is all rubbish, as I said in my previous post (that you didn't seem to have read properly).
 
mmj_uk said:
Whilst we're on the subject of common sense can anyone explain how jet fuel can melt the steel, collapse the building, melt all the terrorists onboard beyond recognition and yet somehow one of their passports survives all this and is found in the local vicinity following the collapses?

Does that not strike anyone as a bit of a setup? ie. planting of evidence.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

my.php
 
I know this has nothing to do with the OP about explosives....but whilst were on the subject of falling buildings.....I have not followed all details of 9/11 or history after the event...but what was the reason for the BBC stating wt7 had fell 23 minutes before it actually had...And I personally find this suspect its not like a mistake you could make and then for the very building to collapse. I dunno food for thought. And this is not a theory it is fact.
 
*Moangroan* said:
I know this has nothing to do with the OP about explosives....but whilst were on the subject of falling buildings.....I have not followed all details of 9/11 or history after the event...but what was the reason for the BBC stating wt7 had fell 23 minutes before it actually had...And I personally find this suspect its not like a mistake you could make and then for the very building to collapse. I dunno food for thought. And this is not a theory it is fact.
Click to expand...


What is even stranger, is that the women reporter is telling the world
hat the building had collapsed when you can see it in the background over her left shoulder.

Then at 5:15pm EST, just five minutes before the building did actually collapse, her live connection from New York to London mysteriously fails.

So the question is, on 9/11 how did the BBC learn that WTC7 collapsed 23 minutes before it actually did.


all taken from here http://digg.com/d163zv and they have vids to go with it.
But remember that the BBC came back with answer about it.


 
Its not uncommon for the backgrounds to be time delayed and in some cases just loops of earlier footage...

However can't change the fact they report its collapse before it actually did timeline wise.

I also don't buy into any conspiracy theory over why it came down, why they've decided to pretend it came down by accident I dunno.
 
Last edited:
deuse, from memory it was explained that she was receiving conflicting reports at the time, and misinterpreted them.

IIRC the fire services pulled out of the building at around the time she reported it as having collapsed, and the reason they pulled out was because they could see it was probably unsafe.

Given the general confusion it's not overly surprising that a reporter might get confused (it happens enough under normal circumstances, let alone a major breaking event), between "WT7 has fallen" and "They've pulled out of WTC7 because it could fall", after also having heard the news that "WTC 1 has fallen", then "WTC2 has fallen".
Remember the London bombings, and the initial reports of a train crash, electrical fire etc?

It's one of the problems that any reporter/news service faces in a major event where they are trying to constantly update, without necessarily having the time to do the normal double checks they would usually do before reporting something on air.
 
I think the biggest fools have to be the ones who believe a word this man says:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-h4...AD0ECB51&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=23

So utterly stupid he admit's when he saw the first plane hit.

They lie, and lie, and lie, and yet ordinary everyday people feel the need to make excuses for them and justify the things they do/say. Why? :confused:

Don't know if this is true, not done the maths, but what happened 911 days (or 912 days [leaving 911 days between both dates]) after 9-11? If someone can work out the date it falls on I would be interested to know...
 
Werewolf said:
Given the general confusion it's not overly surprising that a reporter might get confused (it happens enough under normal circumstances, let alone a major breaking event), between "WT7 has fallen" and "They've pulled out of WTC7 because it could fall", after also having heard the news that "WTC 1 has fallen", then "WTC2 has fallen".
Click to expand...



Not to mention the fact that she probably had no idea what "WT7" was or looked like, so even if she'd turned around and looked she would have been none the wiser.


M
 
e36Adz said:
Don't know if this is true, not done the maths, but what happened 911 days (or 912 days [leaving 911 days between both dates]) after 9-11? If someone can work out the date it falls on I would be interested to know...
Click to expand...

10th March 2004, the day before the Madrid Bomb attacks. Several explanations that don't include "The Government did it!!"

1. Coincidence? But no, everything MUST happen for a reason.

2. The Islamists may also be able to do maths and chose the date for symbolism.
 
Rroff said:
Its not uncommon for the backgrounds to be time delayed and in some cases just loops of earlier footage...

However can't change the fact they report its collapse before it actually did timeline wise.
Click to expand...

Several broadcasters did this; not just the BBC. It was a simple case of confused messages from the site, and reporters not taking the time to check their facts (both very common in emergency situations).

As has been pointed out, she probably had no idea what WTC7 was, and wouldn't have known it if she'd seen it. I'd never even heard of it myself before 911.
 
*Moangroan* said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yllh...orum/thread461794/pg1&feature=player_embedded

Anyone watched this vid. I am only putting it here to show the infra red pics not endorsing what is said or not aginst it.
Click to expand...

Load of rubbish, it's outside temp only.
The people have been explained. The holes are used by the fire to draw in fresh cool air.
The wtc7 wasn't mentioned as it had a separate full report done on it.
Steel buildings have collapse before and didn't have any structural damage.

In other words more crap based on lies.
 
Still cant believe that people look elsewhere to see why the buildings collapsed.

2 rather large objects, travelling at around 600mph and carrying a shed load of highly volatile fuel crash into 2 tall structures.

These structures burn solidly for around an hour and then collapse under the stress. How the hell that is shocking to anyone is beyond me.

Meh to anyone that keeps this bloody crap alive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom