World Trade Center Dust Contains Evidence of Explosives

[Glaucus]

It wasnt just 4 samples though, it was 4 samples with hundreds of chips inside.
.

3 of those samples are pretty much useless. The other one, I can't see any evidence of when, where or whom collected that sample.

 

[Glaucus]

3 buildings fell on 9/11, only 2 were hit by planes.

They never mentioned WTC7 in the official report though, it was such a minor thing I guess not worthy of investigating how a skycraper (like 2 others on the day) could fall perfectly vertically and at freefall speed due to a few office fires.

Well at least the rest of the world can build skyscrapers that can burn on all floors for days without imploding on themselves.

it is in the reports, it is well known how and why the structures fell like they did and yes other metal structures have fallen due to fire. The best example because of it's structure similarity. Is the top of a hotel witch pancaked. The rest of the hotel stood as it was concrete, the top floors were metal and similar to WTC these pancaked in the same way.

 

[Ma'am]

Probably not thermite

Well....could the thermite (whatever that is) have been hidden in all the loaves of Hovis? At least 2 loaves in every office! Could that account for its presence?
There, that's my conspiracy theory

 

[SexyGreyFox]

. Like the fact that the place must be one of the most closely monitored buildings in the US yet there is only 1 CCTV video

I thought that CCTV camera was monitoring the car park.

 

[Mulder]

Like the fact that the place must be one of the most closely monitored buildings in the US yet there is only 1 CCTV video (which has a different date on the film) and even that didnt even show a plane hitting the building just an explosion. Apparently a near by petrol station had some of its CCTV cameras covering parts of the Pentagon and they were also seized by FBI but weren't released.

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).

 

[FTM]

I still love to know how thermite could bring a building down and how you would get the tons of termite in place, in stragic places without anyone noticing.

It is such a retarded theory it's unbalivable.

because it was put in place at the time it was built just in case the government (even though it changes every 4 years in the states and the building was a privately built and funded project) wanted to blow it up to start an international war..you never know when you want to kill a few thousand of your own citizens to make a point


its all so obvious!!

 

[Sankari]

Oh FFS, wouldn't the hijackers of the planes have had explosives with them?

No. For a start, they'd never get them through airport security. Secondly, explosives were not needed.

 

[deuse]

Q: Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down
by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues?

The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate)
"slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."

A: NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel

makes you think...

And that is from the USA govs site...

 

[Ma'am]

No. For a start, they'd never get them through airport security. Secondly, explosives were not needed.

Sorry, I thought airport security was only tightened up AFTER the attacks in question...

 

[Sankari]

Sorry, I thought airport security was only tightened up AFTER the attacks in question...

It was, but even before the attacks it was still sufficient to keep out explosives. That's why the hijackers were only armed with boxcutters; they didn't even try to bring any guns on board.

A commercial aircraft already contains so much potential destructive power that explosives would be entirely redundant. Why bother with explosives when you already have a flying bomb?

 

[SoapSurgeon]

I have a question...

The theory goes that the government planted some sort of explosive and blew the towers up at the same time the planes flew into them? My question is... why bother flying the planes at all? Just blow up the towers and say terrorists did it! Much simpler...

 

[Sankari]

I'm afraid that's too logical for some of these people.

 

[Mat]

Maybe its from all the tin foil hats ???

 

[Mulder]

I have a question...

The theory goes that the government planted some sort of explosive and blew the towers up at the same time the planes flew into them? My question is... why bother flying the planes at all? Just blow up the towers and say terrorists did it! Much simpler...

Then it wouldn't be a major terrorist event that can catalyse change around the world, just another bombing.

 

[leaskovski]

Anyone else think the mods should do a flat right ban on 9/11 threads?

 

[nikebee]

It's scary how closed minded some people are on here.

This more than likely will turn out to be hogwash, but for you may as well entertain the fact it could be true as quite simply we don't know the answer.

The fact that the article has many notable scientific bodies that have put forward their thoughts, ideas and given input into that article.

I fear too many people see 9/11 or WTC these days and instantly thing the story will be baloney or think "OMG CONSPIRACY!... Yeah right! ".

 

[Lysander]

Anyone else think the mods should do a flat right ban on 9/11 threads?

No, this seems quite valid to me. I'm normally against conspiracy threads but I think dmpoole has posted a useful link. To me it's not unthinkable that 9/11 was a conspiracy. There are way too many people in this thread ready to debunk and idea on the grounds that it is 'ridiculous'. I have never seen it as being ridiculous, most people are just scared of even entertaining another perspective.

 

[Mulder]

Anyone else think the mods should do a flat right ban on 9/11 threads?

Heck, while we're at it why don't we just censor all conspiracy threads. It's easier that way, we wouldn't need to think about anything, just swallow verbatim the carp the mainstream media reports.

 

[Lysander]

It's scary how closed minded some people are on here.

This more than likely will turn out to be hogwash, but for you may as well entertain the fact it could be true as quite simply we don't know the answer.

The fact that the article has many notable scientific bodies that have put forward their thoughts, ideas and given input into that article.

I fear too many people see 9/11 or WTC these days and instantly thing the story will be baloney or think "OMG CONSPIRACY!... Yeah right! ".

I think most of the sheepish agreements on OcUK happen because, let's face it, a lot of people on here are probably more reclusive than some of the saddos who moan about having no life on anonymous websites - the only reason they don't do that here is because you have to have a registered username. If that weren't the case, I'm sure we'd be seeing far more users' true colours.

The thing is, a lot of people here feel they have to agree with the majority regardless. If you don't fit in here, where can you?

 

[aardvark]

It's scary how closed minded some people are on here.

This more than likely will turn out to be hogwash, but for you may as well entertain the fact it could be true as quite simply we don't know the answer.

The fact that the article has many notable scientific bodies that have put forward their thoughts, ideas and given input into that article.

I fear too many people see 9/11 or WTC these days and instantly thing the story will be baloney or think "OMG CONSPIRACY!... Yeah right! ".

seems like you are the closed-minded one here - where they are from is irrelevant, the paper should be judged on the evidence alone, which is very weak.