It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Study claims 'highly engineered explosive' found in WTC rubbl

page: 28
218
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
The explanation seems pretty unmysterious.


Yeah and it has even less going for it than all the theories that it was an intentionally placed incendiary. There were other compounds in the reaction besides sulfur, sulfur was just the one that brought the steel's melting temperature down low enough to melt it so easily. Still no explanation how the eutectic mixture itself got onto the steel, what ignited it, etc. You'll have to develop the acid rain theory a little more before it would answer any of those questions.

[edit on 28-4-2009 by bsbray11]




posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
Some further input from a scientist friend up on this stuff:

Paraphrasing:

One pound of thermite melts 1.8 pounds of steel to produce 2.8 pounds
of slag. WTC core beams were about 2,000 ponds per sq. ft.


And yet, you guys believe just fire did the exact same thing?


Massive chucks of slag were not found in the rubble (I know, Evil Empire ordered it picked)


Really? Care to explain the "massive chunks of slag" hanging off the infamous 45 degree angled cut column?


Thermite would have to melt through 5 inch thick columns weighing 2000 pounds per sq. ft. with millisecond accuracy necessary for a controlled demolition and without anyone seeing a spectacular white hot glare from all over the towers as the thermite burned.


The funny thing is: You believe regular fire achieved the exact same thing.

That's the hilarious thing.



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 11:18 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by mmiichael
The explanation seems pretty unmysterious.


Yeah and it has even less going for it than all the theories that it was an intentionally placed incendiary. There were other compounds in the reaction besides sulfur, sulfur was just the one that brought the steel's melting temperature down low enough to melt it so easily. Still no explanation how the eutectic mixture itself got onto the steel, what ignited it, etc. You'll have to develop the acid rain theory a little more before it would answer any of those questions.

[edit on 28-4-2009 by bsbray11]



The chemistry involved is beyond my scope. The sulfur coming form plastics and rubber cannot be readily dismissed. I can't comment on other chemicals involved, except that there were a variety and tons of sources such as fireproofing, drywall, insulation, carpeting, etc.

The planted incendiary as the next most viable explanation conflicts with so much else. The type of explosions, the precision of placement and ignition, etc.

And the inevitable rationale - with the costs, time factor, risks of discover and exposure, vast secretive manpower required - how much more would it accomplish completely destroying already destroyed buildings?

Some yet to be fully understood chemical reactions out of thousands that took place at extreme temperatures under highly unusual conditions.

But no satisfactory indications of the strategic planted incendiary charges or evidence of their placement that I or my associates are aware of.

No literal or figurative 'smoking gun.'


Mike



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
I can't comment on other chemicals involved, except that there were a variety and tons of sources such as fireproofing, drywall, insulation, carpeting, etc.


And they all came together at the right place and in the right ratios to form a eutectic that would eat through the steel? You were just talking about how much thermite would be needed, do you really think a far more efficient compound would just form naturally, no engineering required?


The planted incendiary as the next most viable explanation conflicts with so much else. The type of explosions, the precision of placement and ignition, etc.


What evidence conflicts with any of what you just referenced? You don't think an incendiary can be lit? Let me guess, it can't be lit without anyone seeing it.
Can you be more specific?


And the inevitable rationale - with the costs, time factor, risks of discover and exposure, vast secretive manpower required


All of which we can only guess, and you would no doubt opt for the most unrealistic scenarios just to push your case. You wouldn't happen to consider, for instance, that you think 0 explosives or incendiaries did it, yet you talk about how many thousands of pounds would be required to do the same thing? Theoretically if it could happen with none then it could happen even sooner with any amount greater than none. All of those "arguments" are fallacious and speculative anyway. The fact at the end of the day is that something still ate through the steel, some mysterious eutectic compound that hasn't been explained, for reasons that also haven't been explained.



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
The chemistry involved is beyond my scope.


Thanks for admitting as much.
I'll make sure to use this sentence every time you state anything regarding chemistry. As the "duhbunkers' do with everything else.


The sulfur coming form plastics and rubber cannot be readily dismissed. I can't comment on other chemicals involved, except that there were a variety and tons of sources such as fireproofing, drywall, insulation, carpeting, etc.


Funny how the only thing flammable you list is carpeting. There must have been tons of carpeting in the towers or 7 to bring them down eh?


Some yet to be fully understood chemical reactions out of thousands that took place at extreme temperatures under highly unusual conditions.


And yet, let's just ignore it.



But no satisfactory indications of the strategic planted incendiary charges or evidence of their placement that I or my associates are aware of.


Satifactory for whom....you?


No literal or figurative 'smoking gun.'


Again: By whom....you?



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 11:48 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 11:58 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 12:42 AM
link   
Shouldn't this thread be moved to the 9/11 forum?

It isn't breaking news anymore.

And I am curious why Griff posts are being removed, some have even been given stars, maybe because different mods are in this area?

Just an observation.



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 12:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

They all came together at the right place and in the right ratios to form a eutectic that would eat through the steel? You were just talking about how much thermite would be needed, do you really think a far more efficient compound would just form naturally, no engineering required?


You don't think an incendiary can be lit? Let me guess, it can't be lit without anyone seeing it.
Can you be more specific?


you would no doubt opt for the most unrealistic scenarios just to push your case. You wouldn't happen to consider, for instance, that you think 0 explosives or incendiaries did it, yet you talk about how many thousands of pounds would be required to do the same thing? Theoretically if it could happen with none then it could happen even sooner with any amount greater than none. All of those "arguments" are fallacious and speculative anyway. The fact at the end of the day is that something still ate through the steel, some mysterious eutectic compound that hasn't been explained, for reasons that also haven't been explained.




I extracted comments for convenience.

I do not have sufficient understanding of the eutectic reaction to offer a satisfactory explanation of when and how it happens. I do not know the full extent of steel corrosion implied by the examined sampling. I am presented with one of many chemical anomalies noted in the WTC pathology. Without the ability to judge properly, I defer to those with superior knowledge and experience in these areas. Just like I trust my doctor to interpret my blood test results. And I have a background in medical sciences.

You claim it is compelling evidence of incendiary devices placed. I assume that is a leap of faith on your part.

For me something unexplained does not necessarily imply suspiciously concealed information. Apparently it does for you.

We always have to deal with unanswered questions. When we deal with something of this magnitude and complexity there will be outstanding questions. Some technological, some logical.

When I repeatedly ask why would they plant incendiaries considering the problems and risks for a second level of destruction – I get no explanation. When I ask how was it done, by whom, where is the evidence beyond forensics - I get no explanation.

I neither gain nor lose if it is revealed the US government further destroyed those devastated building.

My ego and identity are not tied into any of this. I’m not even American.

I don’t mind banter of this sort, but I do not feel I have to defend my position of extreme skepticism on the controlled demolition theory.

If your eutectic reaction concern is justifiable, it still, for me, flies in the face of virtually everything else I have read and been told by those whose judgement I respect.

I readily accept that there is a not fully explained chemical reaction. I expect there are many others.

I do not accept that their lack of elucidation immediately implies subversive activity involving incendiaries by the US government of it’s agents.

For me personally, that would require substantiation beyond what the forensics of the WTC site might offer. The why and how questions I asked, for starters.

Scientific data can be distorted, used in improper contexts, and manipulated. I see it happening a lot, consciously and unconsciously.



Mike


[edit on 29-4-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 01:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
I defer to those with superior knowledge and experience in these areas.


None of those people have explained it, either. If you always defer everything to people who supposedly know better, without knowing any better yourself, what makes you trust all these peoples' judgment so much? Just because you don't have enough confidence in yourself to look at what they do? I hope you realize when you rely on authorities, you are placing a lot of faith in them. And historically speaking, "experts" have been horribly wrong time after time. The guy that first said the Earth revolved around the Sun in the West was thought of as a complete idiot by "experts" (and all the lemmings that blindly followed them) until after he had already been dead for some time.


You claim it is compelling evidence of incendiary device placed.


Did I really? You sure do put a lot of words in my mouth. Why can't you only read the things I post, and not the things you think or wish I did? We sure would avoid a lot of confusion that way.


When I repeatedly ask why would they do it considering the problems and risks for a second level of destruction – I get no explanation. When I ask how was it done, by whom, where is the evidence beyond forensics - I get no explanation.


What a shocker, right? If you're going to demand those answers from me, are you at least going to give me $100,000 and access to all the physical evidence and structural documents? And subpoena power? Or am I just supposed to use YouTube videos and Google a bunch of stuff and tell you everything that happened?


If your eutectic reaction concern is solid, it still, for me, flies in the face of virtually everything else I have read and been told by those whose judgement I respect.


If by "solid" you mean it did in fact take place, is on the samples, etc., then you don't have to guess, you only have to look at that link I posted.

Not just an unexplained chemical reaction, but one that ate through columns, no one knows how it got onto the columns in the first place, etc., etc. Of course people like you are going to try their damnedest to explain it with something common and simple, because that's what you would LIKE to believe. I don't have any explanation at all, and I don't particularly care for one, because as an "anomaly" it's obvious enough to me that something is "not right" about this happening in the first place. There are enough "context clues" to suggest this isn't something that naturally happens in buildings (don't you think it would be documented somewhere else by now?), that it wasn't just some happenstance mixture of environmental compounds, etc., but no one investigated it any further. I won't even speculate as to why.

[edit on 29-4-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 03:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

If you always defer everything to people who supposedly know better, without knowing any better yourself, what makes you trust all these peoples' judgment so much? Just because you don't have enough confidence in yourself to look at what they do? I hope you realize when you rely on authorities, you are placing a lot of faith in them. And historically speaking, "experts" have been horribly wrong time after time. The guy that first said the Earth revolved around the Sun in the West was thought of as a complete idiot by "experts" (and all the lemmings that blindly followed them) until after he had already been dead for some time.




OK, let's dispense with the schoolmaster lectures, immediately. I ask butchers what's a good cut of meat. I look at the Weather Channel to see if it's going to rain tomorrow. Around here that would be perceived as believing MSM.

Experts have been very right about many things, I'd say most. They used to say overcooking vegetables ruins them. They used to say alcohol is fun but has a downside. All still true.

I can give my own lemmings analogy. You would not like it.



If your eutectic reaction concern is solid, it still, for me, flies in the face of virtually everything else I have read and been told by those whose judgement I respect.





If by "solid" you mean it did in fact take place, is on the samples, etc., then you don't have to guess, you only have to look at that link I posted.

Not just an unexplained chemical reaction, but one that ate through columns, no one knows how it got onto the columns in the first place, etc.,

... I don't have any explanation at all, and I don't particularly care for one, because as an "anomaly" it's obvious enough to me that something is "not right" about this happening in the first place. There are enough "context clues" to suggest this isn't something that naturally happens in buildings (don't you think it would be documented somewhere else by now?), that it wasn't just some happenstance mixture of environmental compounds, etc., but no one investigated it any further. I won't even speculate as to why.




You are supplying an interpretation based your inability to find information on something. This doesn't automatically mean it's a never documented singular event. It might very well be written up in a professional journal somewhere, or is uncommon and no one was motivated to write it up.


My sense is that the chemical reactions you are concerned with appear baffling because they are unfamiliar and you don't understand them.

Your descriptions are thus far inadequate for me. You say "ate through the columns." I neither know how extensively or how representative this is of the thousands of columns. Neither do you.

Sound unusual but there were many unusual occurrences in the 9/11 forensics. There were special circumstances producing uncommmon or previously unreported phenomena.

There were extreme temperatures. A lot of steel was exposed to the elements, fire deterrents, melting objects and building materials.
We deduce thousands of different chemical reactions at various stages, complete or partial combustion, all boiling together.

I doubt there has ever been a comparable hellish frying pan with millions of tons of urban produced materials boiling in ignited airplane fuel and heating gas, ever.

So many precedents or adequate comparisons are understandably lacking.
Their lack does not necessarily imply a suspicious withholding or suppression of information.

Where we differ most is your extrapolations of the record's insufficiencies If the combustion pattern is not one you know with or expect, the answer supplied for that is the involvement of explosives.

Apart from the lack of supporting evidences, this also implies a massively complex treason sabotage scenario.

On a conspiracy site this might be a default response. In the outside world it demands an awful lot of independently verifiable and tangible evidence.


An aberrant forensic chemical reaction observed that and can find no explanation for is intriguing. But is only that right now.



Mike




[edit on 29-4-2009 by mmiichael]

[edit on 29-4-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


That column you speak of with the 45 angle cut? yeah that was doe during the clean up. In fact there are plenty of photos and videos of the workers cutting the columns on angles for removal. They were using torches to cut through. That was already debunked long ago.



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
OK, let's dispense with the schoolmaster lectures, immediately. I ask butchers what's a good cut of meat. I look at the Weather Channel to see if it's going to rain tomorrow.


And you trust your government to tell you whether or not they staged a psych op in their own country? Get real. Especially when they won't let anybody else see the most important evidence, and they ignore evidence that doesn't line up with the theory they had ready from the start? You just assume they would never do anything to fool you in the first place, but you have absolutely no reason to trust them besides that you want to.

The Germans trusted their government in the 1940's too, and do you think the German government told their people when they staged military invasions, or the Reichstag fire, or told them about all the propaganda they were feeding into their media or any of that? Of course not. And yet if you were in Germany during those years, using this same fallacious logic that you're using now, the Nazis would still be running rampant and you would neither know better nor apparently care.



Experts have been very right about many things, I'd say most.


Give me some examples of scientific theories that haven't been improved, modified, or corrected over time. I bet I could list tons more that have. Even the most obvious things, like how the Earth and Sun move around each other. It boggles the mind how stupid masses of people naturally tend to be, just because of social influence. "Everybody else does it...."


They used to say overcooking vegetables ruins them. They used to say alcohol is fun but has a downside. All still true.


Those aren't even scientific theories. "They say" if you play with yourself you'll grow hair on the palms of your hands too. Uh oh.


See what you can come up with using the same resources you've relied on so far. I mostly read and email people I know who have better in situ information. Have friends who have already done the legwork. Pick their brains. Time and cost effective.


I don't think you realize how important the structural documentation or physical evidence would be in assessing how those buildings came down. Have you ever had physics, had to work a free body diagram, any of that? Have any idea what kinds of analyses would have to be done? Or are you just relying solely upon simplistic statements and summaries made by other people (obviously, you admit to as much)? I don't think you realize how much information you DON'T have access to.


You are supplying an interpretation based your inability to find information on something. This doesn't automatically mean it's a singular event. Maybe it's written up in a professional journal somewhere, maybe not one was motivated to write it up.


YOU are basing this opinion on your inability to find an explanation. I KNOW eutectic reactions don't form on steel columns and eat through them on a regular basis. Why? Because engineering students have to learn about all KINDS of science totally irrelevant to their field of study, and if something like that were happening in buildings it would definitely have been a studied phenomenon by now. Much more trivial things are studied in excruciating detail, trust me. The WTC buildings were not unique in their construction materials or their exposure to the environment. Same for any other "common" explanation: someone would have realized it by now. That is common sense to me, along with the composition of the eutectic being very particular and a lot of other details that seem to slip your mind.


My sense is that the chemical reactions you are concerned with appear baffling because you don't understand them. Not because they are unprecedented.


You would assume that because you don't understand them. Now how do you really know? You don't have any kind of explanation, neither do the "experts," I know it's odd as hell and doesn't have an easy explanation. Any other examples of this phenomenon? I'll all ears. If you saw an elephant on top of the Empire State Building would you think it climbed up there by itself if no one could think of a more mundane reason to explain it being there?


Your descriptions are inadequate for me. You say "ate through the columns." I neither know how extensively or how representative this is of the thousands of columns. Neither do you.


So what? It still ate through columns, I'm not lying. Go look at the report and it even shows you pictures. The fact that we don't know how widespread it was only goes to further illustrate my point that information is being withheld from you, that investigations have not been thorough, and you don't have all the answers yet.



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

... you trust your government to tell you whether or not they staged a psych op in their own country? Get real. Especially when they won't let anybody else see the most important evidence, and they ignore evidence that doesn't line up with the theory they had ready from the start? You just assume they would never do anything to fool you in the first place, but you have absolutely no reason to trust them besides that you want to.



I’m not American and don’t accept anything from any government as an article of faith.
I do know that a US cover-up of self-sabotage would be one of the biggest stories of the century. I do know there are many unaffiliated independent writers and journalists who have the resources and access to critical information who have been tracking this. I have faith in the motivation of financial rewards that go to those who deliver headlines and top sellers.

From what I’ve seen so far, there are suggestive indicators, but nothing conclusive in 8+ years .





I don't think you realize how important the structural documentation or physical evidence would be in assessing how those buildings came down. Have you ever had physics, had to work a free body diagram, any of that? Have any idea what kinds of analyses would have to be done? Or are you just relying solely upon simplistic statements and summaries made by other people (obviously, you admit to as much)? I don't think you realize how much information you DON'T have access to.




You have told me YOU don’t have access to information you are seeking. You imply it is being withheld. I have been lead to believe that data in many forms, chemical analysis, photographs, material samples, etc have been made available.

You may not be happy about it, but the US government or any private business is not obligated to supply detailed information to any and all people requesting it. Not even because of secrecy but because it would be unrealistic to fulfill every request, just by cost considerations alone. That is why highly detailed documentation and summaries are provided.

If what was provided was insufficient for your purposes, that’s unfortunate. I expect there is a procedure for gaining access to further specific data, I’d guess limited to professionals. I don’t know if you’ve explored that avenue.





YOU are basing this opinion on your inability to find an explanation. I KNOW eutectic reactions don't form on steel columns and eat through them on a regular basis. Why? Because engineering students have to learn about all KINDS of science totally irrelevant to their field of study, and if something like that were happening in buildings it would definitely have been a studied phenomenon by now. Much more trivial things are studied in excruciating detail, trust me. The WTC buildings were not unique in their construction materials or their exposure to the environment. Same for any other "common" explanation: someone would have realized it by now. That is common sense to me, along with the composition of the eutectic being very particular and a lot of other details that seem to slip your mind.




Again, I cannot comment knowledgeably here. Your observation may be right on the money. I only know that no one else I’m aware of have raised the same issues. And I am under the impression virtually every aspect of the forensics have been examined by experts in the public and private sector.





You don't have any kind of explanation, neither do the "experts," I know it's odd as hell and doesn't have an easy explanation. Any other examples of this phenomenon? I'll all ears.

... It still ate through columns, I'm not lying. Go look at the report and it even shows you pictures. The fact that we don't know how widespread it was only goes to further illustrate my point that information is being withheld from you, that investigations have not been thorough, and you don't have all the answers yet.





No one says you’re lying. You say the investigations have not been thorough enough and that critical information is being willfully withheld.

You believe adequate attention has not been given to a particular chemical reaction. It’s possible you have uncovered something that many others have missed. It’s possible that you are overreacting to something you are unable to explain.

From what you have said you gravitate to the solution being part of an officially sanctioned demolition of the WTC buildings as opposed to there being an undetermined but prosaic phenomenon.

You impartiality and expectations colour your analysis.

I am not a spokesman for the US government. I can’t supply satisfactory answers for your questions.

I have argued endlessly that the co-ordination of planted explosives on a building complex in Manhattan hit by two airplanes and in flames defies viability, plausibility, and reasonable logic. There is no satisfactory substantiated evidence of this vast conspiracy, though many have looked for it.

Potential evidence to validate this outstanding claim remains in unanswered specifics of the pathology reports. That is your claim.

It conflicts with much that has been objectively determined. But you don’t accept that.

At this point there is little else I can say.


Mike


[edit on 29-4-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
From what I’ve seen so far, there are suggestive indicators, but nothing conclusive in 8+ years .


at suggestive indicators. That is one way to phrase the hundreds of anomalies.....



I have been lead to believe that data in many forms, chemical analysis, photographs, material samples, etc have been made available.

And I am under the impression virtually every aspect of the forensics have been examined by experts in the public and private sector.


Led to believe, under the impression, virtually every aspect.......

So why did they hurriedly cart off so much of the steel?
Why did NIST take soooooo long to release their 'thermal expansion' explanation?
Why did their top engineers stutter and stammer their way through the presentation like a kid pretending he knows the answers to the homework he didn't do?
Why did a high school physics teacher prove the 'experts' wrong regarding the speed with which WTC7 fell?



I have argued endlessly that the co-ordination of planted explosives on a building complex in Manhattan hit by two airplanes and in flames defies viability, plausibility, and reasonable logic. There is no satisfactory substantiated evidence of this vast conspiracy, though many have looked for it.


Defies viability? Defies logic?

Maybe for you but for me it seems completely logical for a megalomaniacal govt that obviously wants to 'expand the empire' to bring two iconic buildings to the ground in order to create consent needed for war.
If the buildings remained upright (like they should have were there no 'assistance') the effect would have been far less dramatic and an illegal invasion would have been much, much harder to sell.

Then there's the multiple reports of secondary explosions, molten metal in the basement and all the rest others on this thread have pointed out.

The 600% increase in PUT options that are still yet to be claimed for obvious reasons is reason enough to be very, very suspicious at the least.

Michael, you seem like a relatively switched on guy, apart from the fact you won't acknowledge the MONSTER of an elephant that is not going to be going away any time soon.

Come on amigo, what does your gut tell you? Have a good think about it...

It is hard to admit when you have been fooled. I bought the propaganda hook and line at the beginning. It is also kind of hard to imagine something this big being covered up, but when you think of the vast amount of resources and control the govt has and the super sketchy history of the 2 party crime family it becomes less of a stretch and more of a 99% probability.

I know it will be tough for you to switch sides now but you should bro!

Join the people and leave behind the Govt that has proven to be deceitful.

Peace




[edit on 29/4/09 by vehemes terra eternus]



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 01:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by vehemes terra eternus


for me it seems completely logical for a megalomaniacal govt that obviously wants to 'expand the empire' to bring two iconic buildings to the ground in order to create consent needed for war.

If the buildings remained upright (like they should have were there no 'assistance') the effect would have been far less dramatic and an illegal invasion would have been much, much harder to sell.

Then there's the multiple reports of secondary explosions, molten metal in the basement and all the rest others on this thread have pointed out.

The 600% increase in PUT options that are still yet to be claimed for obvious reasons is reason enough to be very, very suspicious at the least.



... It is hard to admit when you have been fooled.





Thanks for the thoughtful follow-up.

I'll come in 100% agreeing with your statement I've isolated

"It is hard to admit when you have been fooled."

Some people look so hard for deception they cannot recognize their own self-deception in the process.


On the US admin or intelligence deciding a collapsing WTC was a great climax for the movie ...

Well I dunno. If you want to get out of military duty you might go as far as shooting off a toe, but not your right arm. There were endless other dramatic destruction scenarios where 3000 people could be killed and buildings destroyed, but they chose the vital heart of American commerce. Billions in costs, commerce disruption, loss of revenues, credibility.


As I have noted, an court quality substantiation of recorded communications, witnesses, confessors, purchasing, installation, never materialize.

From what I have been told, there is neither the characteristics or behaviour of a demolition. It would have been physically impossible to plant effectively and surreptitiously demolish those buildings with explosives, particularly given the extremely hellish circumstances.

And lets not forget, the building had already been destroyed by 2 high speed fuel-laden planes acting like 100 ton bombs just to start the day off.

A friend is a well-known writer and I'm in contact with 3 of his colleagues. Cumulatively they have spent much time, considerable money, and effort on digging deep into 9/11. I'd get crucified if I reveal more. Let's just say a couple books, one commissioned, heavily detailing a government involved conspiracy have been abandoned in the last 5 years.

We all admit there is a mountain of evidence indicating 9/11 was a US contrived false flag.

But there is a mountain range as big as the Rockies showing Middle Eastern interests financed and meticulously executed the operation. There are things like bank transfers, letters, memos, confessions, witness accounts, video, etc. confirming the plan and it's evolution.

Perhaps less diligent formal documentation has been done on the specific causes of the collapses for the simple reason that there is no serious question, I'll repeat, no SERIOUS question, that the massive impacts, uncontrollable fires, crucial structural integrity loss, combined with factors such as complete electrical dysfunction, sprinkler system failure, burning heating fuel in the basement, and endless contributing elements made those building fall to the ground that day.


But a mountain is challenging. Some people with some scientific knowledge get satisfaction at picking away at details in the released information, videos, etc. finding inconsistencies and questionable data.

I won’t go into what I think drives them or what satisfaction they derive out of their scrupulous detective work. But a lot of misguided disinformation melding speculation with poor science has resulted.

A cliché and unfortunately first noted by the Great Satan himself, G.W. Bush, 9/11 can be likened to the Japanese bombing of the American fleet at Pearl Harbor in December 1941.

Big differences 60 years later. In those simpler days, few were so vociferously attempting to fix blame on the US govt at every opportunity. It was only later to become a national sport.

No one back then asked for reports on the corrosion of metal in the underwater battle ships, or questioned how fast the ships actually sunk.

It was a world changing event, witnessed and photographically recorded by too many to even raise questions.

And so were the attacks of the WTC and Pentagon in September 2001.

Simply but seamlessly planned and spectacularly executed.

In the wake, a sub-culture has developed. At least a million people are
searching for proof of a major US self-sabotage plot. They are inventive and persistent in zooming in on unclear recorded details that conceivably indicate mass deception by the govt and agencies.

But a whole world of concerned people, many professionals, also review these claims. They compare them with reliable and credible source material. They find them agenda driven and in the final analysis wanting.

I'm ready to believe anything on first hearing. When confronted with conflicting stories I accept the ones with the strongest evidence to back
them up. I do my best to leave out prejudice and malice.

What we know and should all agree on.

The US government is capable of willful wanton destruction, as their history has shown.

But we have to concede others are, as well.


Mike


[edit on 30-4-2009 by mmiichael]

[edit on 30-4-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 04:46 AM
link   
OK Mike so you ain't switching sides yet huh???? All good amigo.

What do you think about the Pentagon???

There is NO WAY a 747 made that hole and why would the FBI confiscate all of the video evidence?????

It is as inside as inside jobs get.

You did not address the PUT options either, your thoughts????

Peace



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 05:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by vehemes terra eternus


What do you think about the Pentagon???

There is NO WAY a 747 made that hole and why would the FBI confiscate all of the video evidence?????


Let me answer this one...

Perhaps a Global Hawk drone painted to resemble a commercial airliner was what impacted the Pentagon. The small engines found at the site further substantiates this hypothesis, as those engines came from a much smaller plane than the one that allegedly struck the pentagon.

Here is an example of what could be done to disguise a drone aircraft to appear as an American Airlines commercial airliner:






*Nevertheless, this sort of thing is 'through the looking glass' and nothing is what is seems. The global hawk engines could have even been planted there as a form of pre-emptive disinfo.

Of course, I wouldn't even be speculating about this if the government would release the tapes from the multitude of cameras that recorded the event and the approach of the plane.


[edit on 30-4-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 06:59 AM
link   
Heads up,tonight on C2C AM Linda Moulton Howe will be discussing this very thing,the ORIGIONAL topic,alleged nano particle thermate dust.

What I know from recent reading on the finest abrasives(for precious stone polishing on a 'lap')the milling and sifting to obtain uniform micro particles is a very exacting process.Further,particles this size have strange properties,almost quantum effects.Add to that,static electric effects,unwanted contamination from the air,clean room issues,to the trade.And that is not the combining of the ingredients,just the production of the elements.There is no way that happened in a fire with gypsum drywall mixing with (what is the latest?)flourescent bulbs,is it?In a fire?Faster than it takes to describe?No way.The actual manufacture of this probably is done under a shielding gas such as nitrogen,but that process would be a trade/military secret.



new topics

top topics



 
218
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join